[merged] Obama's Memorial Day Gaffes

[Brainster]

In talking about the military service of his family (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/05/26/politics/fromtheroad/entry4127479.shtml):

Obama also spoke about his uncle, who was part of the American brigade that helped to liberate Auschwitz. He said the family legend is that, upon returning from war, his uncle spent six months in an attic.

Of course, no American brigade helped to liberate Auschwitz; in fact the Americans never got as far as Auschwitz, which is in Poland. The 322nd Rifle Division of the Red Army liberated Auschwitz on January 27, 1945.

And Obama got the meaning of Memorial Day wrong (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/05/020607.php):

On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.

I hope he didn't see any of our fallen heroes in the crowd. Of course Memorial Day is when we remember deceased veterans.

Of the two gaffes, I actually consider the first one more serious, because Obama used it (as politicians use many anecdotes) to justify his support for a particular position (mental health sceening for veterans when they are discharged).

Will the mainstream media (which reported Obama's Auschwitz remark uncritically) dig into the "uncle in the attic"? I'm not holding my breath.

[Pookster]

In talking about the military service of his family (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/05/26/politics/fromtheroad/entry4127479.shtml):

Of course, no American brigade helped to liberate Auschwitz; in fact the Americans never got as far as Auschwitz, which is in Poland. The 322nd Rifle Division of the Red Army liberated Auschwitz on January 27, 1945.


Is there a quote somewhere where Obama actually says Auschwitz? Looking at the linked article, I can't tell. This could be an error on the part of the journalist.

[BPSCG]

Here's what I did:

I went to Arlington National Cemetery, a bit of a trial, because of the Rolling Thunder event, which closed off a lot of roads near the cemetery and made for pretty heavy traffic. I went to the Columbariums and visited my dad, put a rose from our garden at his marker, and spoke with a few other people who were there to visit their veterans. Someone - probably one of my sister's kids, who all go to college here in the DC area - had placed a stone on top of his marker, a Jewish tradition (see the last scene in Schindler's List), and I noticed that there was a stone on top of the marker of the uncle of a lady I was speaking with. His marker had a cross on it. "Your uncle wasn't Jewish, was he?" "No, but we thought it was a lovely tradition, so we've been doing it, too." She came from a family with a lot more vets in it than I did, and she was going to have a busy day ahead of her. We talked briefly, and thanked each other for the service and sacrifices our vets had made.

Here's what Barack Obama did (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/05/26/politics/fromtheroad/entry4127479.shtml): LAS CRUCES, N.M. -- Despite not having served in the military himself, Barack Obama used his Memorial Day remarks to speak about his family’s service. “My grandfather marched in Patton’s army, but I cannot know what it is to walk into battle like so many of you,” he told a small group of veterans here. “My grandmother worked on a bomber assembly line, but I cannot know what it is for a family to sacrifice like so many of yours have.”

(...snip...)

Obama also spoke about his uncle, who was part of the American brigade that helped to liberate Auschwitz...Obama's uncle helped liberate Auschwitz? I got ten thousand bucks that say he didn't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz#Evacuation_and_liberation).

[chipmunk stew]

Obama never mentioned Auschwitz.

The reporter frakked up:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGB74D

[Upchurch]

Obama never mentioned Auschwitz.

The reporter frakked up:
I was going to say. I listened to it twice and couldn't figure out what she was talking about:

WR8YaR3JEkE

[chipmunk stew]

Obama never mentioned Auschwitz.

The reporter made the gaffe:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGB74D
WR8YaR3JEkE

[Brainster]

Is there a quote somewhere where Obama actually says Auschwitz? Looking at the linked article, I can't tell. This could be an error on the part of the journalist.

The Auschwitz mention is not in his prepared remarks (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/obamas_memorial_day_remarks.html). However, Obama has talked about Auschwitz (http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php) before, although the details were different:

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.

Treblinka doesn't help Obama's case any; it was also in Poland and had been plowed under and turned into a farm (http://www.holocaustresearchproject.net/ar/treblinka.html) before the end of the war.

[varwoche]

Obama never mentioned Auschwitz.

The reporter frakked up:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGB74D And yet it's being echoed all over the internets. And sure enough, there's never a shortage of non critical thinkers who will propagate such lies without bothering to check the facts.

Here's my 'favorite' nutjob Michelle Malkin (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=75854) hyping the same lie (http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/27/the-obama-gaffe-machine-rolls-on/).

[chipmunk stew]

The Auschwitz mention is not in his prepared remarks (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/obamas_memorial_day_remarks.html). However, Obama has talked about Auschwitz (http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php) before, although the details were different:

It's not in the video of the speech either.


Treblinka doesn't help Obama's case any; it was also in Poland and had been plowed under and turned into a farm (http://www.holocaustresearchproject.net/ar/treblinka.html) before the end of the war.
This was in 2002. There's no mention of an uncle. His grandfather "heard stories" from fellow soldiers. How does this relate to "Obama's Memorial Day Gaffes" again?

[Upchurch]

And Obama got the meaning of Memorial Day wrong (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/05/020607.php):
I'm sorry, but what did he get wrong about the meaning of Memorial Day? Memorial Day is in honor of our fallen heroes.


Will the mainstream media (which reported Obama's Auschwitz remark uncritically) dig into the "uncle in the attic"? I'm not holding my breath.
Nor should you because Obama never made the remark. It's like asking if the mainstream media will dig into Bush's claim that "pigs fly over the White House all the time."

There's no reason to because Bush never said anything of the sort.

[Undesired Walrus]

This was the original 'prepared' comments:

On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes, our sense of patriotism is particularly strong

He clearly added in the 'I see many of them in the audience today' as a quick improv to mean the heroes he sees at the time of the speech as opposed to the time of its writing.
Who knows, perhaps he was trying to up his religous credentials and imply he saw the dead in the eyes of the crowd. Very unlikely, but in the probable case he fluffed up a momentary improvisation that was intended to recognise those in the audience, is this the best you can really do?

Obama voters could go on about McCain failing to recognise his own words about the conflict in Somalia, but I don't think they are as desperate as the other side.

[chipmunk stew]

The real question is: will this reporter and CBS issue a retraction?

[Billdave2]

Obama never mentioned Auschwitz.

The reporter frakked up:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGB74D

I would say the fact that two different reporters( CbS and Washinton Post) mentioned the same thing that it would be most coincidental if it was a mistake.

[BPSCG]

Something is not jibing here.

The speech on his website is "as prepared." It looks like it's roughly 1300 words. If he spoke at about 100 words per minute, it should have taken him less than a quarter-hour to deliver, yet the Washington Post says he spoke "for most of an hour (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/26/obama_speaks_with_deep_humilit.html)." And the prepared speech does not include the line about seeing deceased vets in the audience, so it's clear he ad-libbed from the prepared text. WaPo says he ...edged into his critique of military and veterans affairs under the Bush administration. Along the way, he endorsed legislation that he said would give veterans the same benefits his grandfather's generation enjoyed under the GI Bill. I don't see anything like that in the prepared text.

I can't get youtube at work; is there any mention of an uncle in the speech? Or did both CBS News and the Washington Post have the same hallucination?

Very odd.

[chipmunk stew]

And yet it's being echoed all over the internets. And sure enough, there's never a shortage of non critical thinkers who will propagate such lies without bothering to check the facts.

Here's my 'favorite' nutjob Michelle Malkin (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=75854) hyping the same lie (http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/27/the-obama-gaffe-machine-rolls-on/).
What's disturbing is that it was echoed here at the same time it was splashing around the 'net, by two people who should know better.

[Cleon]

The real question is: will this reporter and CBS issue a retraction?

Brainster apparently won't.

[Undesired Walrus]

Treblinka doesn't help Obama's case any; it was also in Poland and had been plowed under and turned into a farm (http://www.holocaustresearchproject.net/ar/treblinka.html) before the end of the war.

Right, so instead of admitting your mistake, you will plow through a speech made in 2002 that is in an utterly different context to your original 'Gotcha' claim.

[Upchurch]

I can't get youtube at work; is there any mention of an uncle in the speech?
No.

Or did both CBS News and the Washington Post have the same hallucination?
Could he have given two different speeches that day?

[Stankeye]

I think they should go with the angle that maybe his Uncle was Commie and therefore did help liberate Auschwitz.

That has so much more fun attached to it then his actual error...if it turns out he said it. :D

[varwoche]

I would say the fact that two different reporters( CbS and Washinton Post) mentioned the same thing that it would be most coincidental if it was a mistake.If you read carefully you will see that neither source reported this. What they did do is sloppily conflate prior statements that Obama made.

[Pookster]

The Auschwitz mention is not in his prepared remarks (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/obamas_memorial_day_remarks.html). However, Obama has talked about Auschwitz (http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php) before, although the details were different:



Treblinka doesn't help Obama's case any; it was also in Poland and had been plowed under and turned into a farm (http://www.holocaustresearchproject.net/ar/treblinka.html) before the end of the war.

So, that wasn't a gaffe yesterday. Thanks.

As for the earlier references made by Obama, he states "... he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka ...". Did any of his fellow troops ever enter Auschwitz and Treblinka? He doesn't seem to be making the case they liberated either camp. If some of his fellow troops ever did enter either/both camps before the war ended, this could easily be read to mean the first of his fellow troops to enter Auschwitz and Treblinka at any time. I'll admit that I can't say that they did or didn't enter the camps. Did any American troops enter them before the end of the war?

[chipmunk stew]

Something is not jibing here.

The speech on his website is "as prepared." It looks like it's roughly 1300 words. If he spoke at about 100 words per minute, it should have taken him less than a quarter-hour to deliver, yet the Washington Post says he spoke "for most of an hour (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/26/obama_speaks_with_deep_humilit.html)." And the prepared speech does not include the line about seeing deceased vets in the audience, so it's clear he ad-libbed from the prepared text. WaPo says he I don't see anything like that in the prepared text.

I can't get youtube at work; is there any mention of an uncle in the speech? Or did both CBS News and the Washington Post have the same hallucination?

Very odd.
It is very odd. It's very odd that neither reporter quoted Obama on it. Perhaps he dropped a name, one reporter turned to the other and said "who's that?" and the other said "oh, that's his uncle, one of the first US troops to enter Auschwitz..." :con2:

Makes no sense.

[Brainster]

The real question is: will this reporter and CBS issue a retraction?

It's not in the prepared remarks, but this article notes that he went on to have a townhall-style meeting with questions from the audience. Either he said it there, or the CBS reporter made it up from whole cloth. Which do you think is more likely?

Brainster apparently won't.

I wasn't there. I am going from a news account. If a video of the entire event surfaces and there is no such discussion, I will of course issue a retraction. If a video of the entire event surfaces and it says what the CBS reporter claims, I will not hold my breath waiting for Cleon and Chipmunk Stew to say, "Gee, Brainster was right!"

[BPSCG]

If you read carefully you will see that neither source reported this. What they did do is sloppily conflate prior statements that Obama made.If he didn't say it, this isn't sloppily conflating; it's making it up out of whole cloth.

I honestly don't know which is more unbelievable at this point - that Obama made up the whole thing about his uncle, or that two reporters independently made up the whole thing about what he said.

[Upchurch]

It's not in the prepared remarks, but this article notes that he went on to have a townhall-style meeting with questions from the audience. Either he said it there, or the CBS reporter made it up from whole cloth. Which do you think is more likely?
There is still the issue of your other claim that Obama got the meaning of Memorial Day wrong. As I don't see anything in support of that claim, I do have to question your credibility on this subject.


I wasn't there. I am going from a news account. If a video of the entire event surfaces and there is no such discussion, I will of course issue a retraction. If a video of the entire event surfaces and it says what the CBS reporter claims, I will not hold my breath waiting for Cleon and Chipmunk Stew to say, "Gee, Brainster was right!"
It's easier than that, you just have to find something that supports your claim(s). It's much easier to show that something happened than to prove that it is to show that something didn't happen. Proving a negative and all that.

[Cleon]

I wasn't there. I am going from a news account. If a video of the entire event surfaces and there is no such discussion, I will of course issue a retraction. If a video of the entire event surfaces and it says what the CBS reporter claims, I will not hold my breath waiting for Cleon and Chipmunk Stew to say, "Gee, Brainster was right!"

You mean, like the video posted earlier in this thread? :rolleyes:

[Pookster]

It's not in the prepared remarks, but this article notes that he went on to have a townhall-style meeting with questions from the audience. Either he said it there, or the CBS reporter made it up from whole cloth. Which do you think is more likely?


Given that it's not quoted words of Obama, I tend to believe the reporter just made a mistake. Easy thing to do. Remember how the BBC reported that WTC 7 collapsed before it collapsed?

[Dr Adequate]

I think he probably did say something like that in the Q&A afterwards, which is more likely than reporters making stuff up out of the whole cloth: it will be interesting to see what he actually said. As I understand it, he was retailing a family legend, so he may have got the legend wrong, or it might have been wrong to start with.

[chipmunk stew]

You mean, like the video posted earlier in this thread? :rolleyes:
Well, the video doesn't have the town hall Q&A portion. I'm very curious to see such a thing if it exists.

[Brainster]

Right, so instead of admitting your mistake, you will plow through a speech made in 2002 that is in an utterly different context to your original 'Gotcha' claim.

My mistake? Let me point out here, that I got the information from a CBS news report. So either CBS got it completely wrong, or Obama got it completely wrong. Now, before you go hopping to the conclusion that CBS got it completely wrong, remember this passage from the original article:

“Now obviously, something had really affected him deeply, but at that time there just weren’t the kinds of facilities to help somebody work through that kind of pain,” Obama said. “That’s why this idea of making sure that every single veteran, when they are discharged, are screened for post-traumatic stress disorder and given the mental health services that they need – that’s why it’s so important.”

So either the CBS news reporter apparently made up a very memorable anecdote, or, you know, maybe we haven't seen the video of the entire event? I'm going to go with the latter possibility for now.

And yeah, the other quote is in a completely different context. Gee, his grandfather remembers hearing from other soldiers about the horrors of Auschwitz and Treblinka? How come his grandfather didn't remember hearing about that from his own son?

And to answer Pookster, no, American soldiers did not go into Poland during the war. Some US officials may have been taken to Auschwitz after the war before the Nuremburg trials, but I doubt very much any ordinary soldiers went. Remember, the Soviets controlled that territory and were not about to give it back.

[Undesired Walrus]

Besides, what Uncle?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madelyn_and_Stanley_Dunham

Presumably he didn't (If he said this) mean a Kenyan Uncle. I suppose he could have meant a metaphorical uncle, regarding the entire red army as Uncles, but it is somewhat unlikely.

[joobz]

Check this link. It has the video of the Q&A.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/27/obama-my-grandfather-liberated-auschwitz/


I posted the link becuase it seems the person maintaining it has been keeping updates with facts.

It is hard to tell because of wind noise, but it seems that he did say Auschwitz.


Also, these threads should be combined.

[David Wong]

The level of desperation on the Republican side is starting to get embarrassing.

Come on, guys.

[Undesired Walrus]

So either the CBS news reporter apparently made up a very memorable anecdote, or, you know, maybe we haven't seen the video of the entire event? I'm going to go with the latter possibility for now.


Did Obama make up an uncle? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madelyn_and_Stanley_Dunham

[joobz]

If he didn't say it, this isn't sloppily conflating; it's making it up out of whole cloth.

I honestly don't know which is more unbelievable at this point - that Obama made up the whole thing about his uncle, or that two reporters independently made up the whole thing about what he said.
Check out here. They have a video to the Q&A which has Obama giving the reported upon response. It's hard to hear but it sounds like he said Auschwitz and the rest of the statement is in line with the reporters' account.

It's funny you say "whole cloth" though. That seems to be a new political buzz word as this site goes on to say that it is unlike Obama to have fabricated this out of whole cloth....:D

[Pookster]

So either the CBS news reporter apparently made up a very memorable anecdote, or, you know, maybe we haven't seen the video of the entire event? I'm going to go with the latter possibility for now.

Or they just got it wrong. But maybe a video will surface to clear it up. Remember, the reporter didn't actually quote Obama.


And to answer Pookster, no, American soldiers did not go into Poland during the war. Some US officials may have been taken to Auschwitz after the war before the Nuremburg trials, but I doubt very much any ordinary soldiers went. Remember, the Soviets controlled that territory and were not about to give it back.

Thanks for the info.

Looking at the quote from his website again, he doesn't say he heard the stories "from" his fellow soldiers, but "of" which could mean any allied soldiers.

[BPSCG]

Also, these threads should be combined.Yes. Mods? Please put it under Brainster's title, since the bastage beat me to it by a couple of minutes.

[Pardalis]

Let me guess, another thread attempting to smear Obama that got pwned?

I tell you, you're never going to find anything against this man.

[Brainster]

Did Obama make up an uncle? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madelyn_and_Stanley_Dunham

Hot Air says (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/27/obama-my-grandfather-liberated-auschwitz/) that there is indication that Obama meant his great-uncle Ralph.

Unfortunately the wind noise in the video makes it impossible to hear the part about what his uncle did, but you can hear the part about him staying in the attic for months, so at least that part of the story is confirmed.

And yes, Obama's gaffe on Memorial Day was in saying that some of the folks honored were in the crowd, and not in the actual meaning of Memorial Day. That is a valid correction and I acknowledge it.

[varwoche]

If he didn't say it, this isn't sloppily conflating; it's making it up out of whole cloth.

I honestly don't know which is more unbelievable at this point - that Obama made up the whole thing about his uncle, or that two reporters independently made up the whole thing about what he said. Here's what the CBS journalist wrote: Obama also spoke about his uncle, who was part of the American brigade that helped to liberate Auschwitz. And here's what the journalist didn't write: Obama also spoke about his uncle, who Obama said was part of the American brigade that helped to liberate Auschwitz. Poorly worded; easy to misinterpret.

[BPSCG]

It's funny you say "whole cloth" though. That seems to be a new political buzz word as this site goes on to say that it is unlike Obama to have fabricated this out of whole cloth....:DIt's not a new expression - I know I was familiar with it in high school at least 40 years ago. Funny that Brainster also uses it here. Great minds, etc... :rolleyes:

[Upchurch]

They have a video to the Q&A which has Obama giving the reported upon response. It's hard to hear but it sounds like he said Auschwitz and the rest of the statement is in line with the reporters' account.
My take on it through the wind noise is that he was saying that his uncle "was one of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and (other?) Nazi concentration camps", presumably after it was liberated. But it is greatly garbled. I can't tell if I missed a few words in there or if he was repeating a word like he sometimes does when he's putting together what he's going to say.

[Dr Adequate]

And yes, Obama's gaffe on Memorial Day was in saying that some of the folks honored were in the crowd ... It was clumsily worded, but you should be able to parse it. Obviously he did not mean that some of his audience were zombies. Rather, "I see many of them in the audience here today" qualifies "heroes" but not "fallen heroes".

Didn't you vote for Bush? Well shut up then.

[Brainster]

Check out here. They have a video to the Q&A which has Obama giving the reported upon response. It's hard to hear but it sounds like he said Auschwitz and the rest of the statement is in line with the reporters' account.

It's funny you say "whole cloth" though. That seems to be a new political buzz word as this site goes on to say that it is unlike Obama to have fabricated this out of whole cloth....:D

It's an old expression. The discussion here seems to cover the derivation (http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/28/messages/753.html):

In early use, the phrase retained much of the literal meaning, a thing was fabricated out of the full amount or extent of that which composed it.But by the nineteenth century it would appear that tailors or others who made garments were pulling the wool over the eyes of their customers, for, especially in the United States, the expression came to have just the OPPOSITE meaning. Instead of using whole material, as they advertised, they were really using patched or pieced goods, or, it might be, cloth which had been falsely stretched to appear to be of full width.

[Dr Adequate]

Instead of using whole material, as they advertised, they were really using patched or pieced goods ... That makes sense, actually. The standard technique of misrepresentation is to stitch together fact, innuendo, distortion, and fiction so cunningly that no-one can see the seams. To "make something up out of the whole cloth" would therefore be to produce one seamless and unbroken lie.

[Darth Rotor]

Didn't you vote for Bush? Well shut up then.
Dumbest thing posted in this thread yet. Don't fret, Dr A, someone will trump you soon enough.

As to Obama, he will never win a Pith Award. One of the problems of being a decent speaker is that one can fall in love with the sound of one's own voice, and lose focus on what one is saying.

He appears to have that shortcoming, though given what is available on this gaffe (horrors, it's curtains for the free world, a politician spewed forth something that wasn't air tight when exposed to microscopic scrutiny :p ) the reporters also may have gaffed in their fishing expidition.

DR

[Dr Adequate]

Dumbest thing posted in this thread yet. Merely a word of friendly advice to those who dwell in vitreous habitations.

[Darth Rotor]

Merely a word of friendly advice to those who dwell in vitreous habitations.
As predicted. Damnit, should have applied for the million bucks. :boggled:

[BPSCG]

He appears to have that shortcoming, though given what is available on this gaffe (horrors, it's curtains for the free world, a politician spewed forth something that wasn't air tight when exposed to microscopic scrutiny :p ) the reporters also may have gaffed in their fishing expidition. You mean the reporters snagged him with hooks and dragged him aboad their fishing boat? :rolleyes:

So it seems the reporting may have been accurate after all. In which case, this isn't a "gaffe" on Obama's part. A gaffe is a socially awkward blunder.

Making up a story about an uncle who may not even have existed having gone into a concentration camp that never had U.S. troops in it is not a gaffe. This is more akin to Clinton's claim to have been under fire in Bosnia, and probably designed to curry favor with the Jewish voters. It's what is commonly known as a lie.

[Brainster]

Better audio here; it's quite plain that he does say his uncle was one of the first troops to "go into Auschwitz".

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SV1sxq8mqvA&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SV1sxq8mqvA&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Let the chorus of "Brainster was right" begin!

[Uzzy]

I am continually amazed at the level of political discourse. Not just in America, but on this forum.

Your economy is in the toilet and heading for recession. You're involved in two wars that show no sign of ending. 47 Million American's have no health insurance, and America's international image is at the lowest it's ever been.

Yet, on this forum, which claims to be a place to discuss critical thinking, there is a continual discussion over utterly irrelevant issues. Not even a mention of what Obama was proposing, mental health checks for returning Vets. I suppose the treatment of Veterans isn't something worth discussing, hmm? Or any of the other critical issues facing American in 2008?

[Cleon]

Better audio here; it's quite plain that he does say his uncle was one of the first troops to "go into Auschwitz".

His exact quote: "I have an uncle who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz."

Which is entirely reasonable, and not at all unlikely. As I recall, Allied troops toured all the death camps. They certainly would have in preparation for the Nuremberg trials.

He did not claim that his uncle was part of the liberation force, merely one of the first American troops to be in Auschwitz.

CBS misrepresented what he said, and you jumped at the opportunity for yet another cheap jab at Obama.


Let the chorus of "Brainster was right" begin!Well, it turns out you weren't.

Sorry.

[Pookster]

Better audio here; it's quite plain that he does say his uncle was one of the first troops to "go into Auschwitz".

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SV1sxq8mqvA&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SV1sxq8mqvA&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Let the chorus of "Brainster was right" begin!

After Cleon's post, I believe you're going to be singing solo.

[Upchurch]

Just a reminder:
Of course, no American brigade helped to liberate Auschwitz; in fact the Americans never got as far as Auschwitz, which is in Poland. The 322nd Rifle Division of the Red Army liberated Auschwitz on January 27, 1945.
Let Brainster's chorus of "I was wrong" begin!


And, of course, there is still this:
And Obama got the meaning of Memorial Day wrong (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/05/020607.php):

[BPSCG]

His exact quote: "I have an uncle who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz."

Which is entirely reasonable, and not at all unlikely. As I recall, Allied troops toured all the death camps. They certainly would have in preparation for the Nuremberg trials.Ooh, nicely spun!

I can't google any reference to American troops being at Auschwitz. I found a reference to Eisenhower having been there, and his having ordered U.S. troops to see Buchenwald.

[joobz]

His exact quote: "I have an uncle who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz."

Which is entirely reasonable, and not at all unlikely. As I recall, Allied troops toured all the death camps. They certainly would have in preparation for the Nuremberg trials.

He did not claim that his uncle was part of the liberation force, merely one of the first American troops to be in Auschwitz.

CBS misrepresented what he said, and you jumped at the opportunity for yet another cheap jab at Obama.

Well, it turns out you weren't.

Sorry.

Actually from the video, the full quote is
I have an uncle who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps.

[Nogbad]

I am continually amazed at the level of political discourse. Not just in America, but on this forum.

Your economy is in the toilet and heading for recession. You're involved in two wars that show no sign of ending. 47 Million American's have no health insurance, and America's international image is at the lowest it's ever been.

Yet, on this forum, which claims to be a place to discuss critical thinking, there is a continual discussion over utterly irrelevant issues. Not even a mention of what Obama was proposing, mental health checks for returning Vets. I suppose the treatment of Veterans isn't something worth discussing, hmm? Or any of the other critical issues facing American in 2008?

I have to say I am a bit bemused by the sifting of every comma of every candidate. The upshot of pushing everything through such a pressure cooker is that each candidate will eventually spew out the same tasteless but safe soup. However, it is their election.

I think best file this one under partisan game play rather than critical discourse.

[DavidJames]

I am continually amazed at the level of political discourse. Not just in America, but on this forum.

Your economy is in the toilet and heading for recession. You're involved in two wars that show no sign of ending. 47 Million American's have no health insurance, and America's international image is at the lowest it's ever been.

Yet, on this forum, which claims to be a place to discuss critical thinking, there is a continual discussion over utterly irrelevant issues. Not even a mention of what Obama was proposing, mental health checks for returning Vets. I suppose the treatment of Veterans isn't something worth discussing, hmm? Or any of the other critical issues facing American in 2008?All to true. But considering what little substance Brainster and BPSCG (and the Repubs in general) have to work with, you'll understand why they post what they do.

[BPSCG]

Your economy is in the toilet and heading for recession. To paraphrase Herbert Hoover, "recession is just around the corner." We keep hearing that, we've even been hearing that we're already in a recession. And yet (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080514/bs_nm/greenspan_us_dc)...


U.S. economic data suggests the world's biggest economy could face a mild recession, former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan was quoted as telling Asian investors on Wednesday.

"He said that the data coming out of the U.S. so far suggests a mild recession. The risk is really on the housing side," a participant quoted Greenspan as telling a closed-door Deutsche Bank investor meeting in Singapore via videolink from Washington.

Greenspan, who was quoted as saying earlier this month that the U.S. has
fallen into an "awfully pale recession," also told the investor meeting that the credit crisis would end when home prices in the United States begin to stabilize.

(...snip...)

The U.S economy is reeling from a housing-led slowdown, with some analysts convinced it is already in a recession despite a 0.6 percent growth rate in the first quarter of 2008.
I predict that the MSM will stop worrying about an impending recession the moment Barack Obama gets elected.

[WildCat]

His exact quote: "I have an uncle who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz."

Which is entirely reasonable, and not at all unlikely. As I recall, Allied troops toured all the death camps. They certainly would have in preparation for the Nuremberg trials.

He did not claim that his uncle was part of the liberation force, merely one of the first American troops to be in Auschwitz.
One of the most desperate attempts at saving face I have ever seen on this forum.

Some people would rather dive naked into a pit of rattlesnakes than admit they were wrong, or even say "I'm sorry" after falsely accusing someone of lying.

[Just thinking]

His exact quote: "I have an uncle who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz, and liberate the concentration camps."

It seems your you-tube clip came up short and choppy. I'm sure it's not your computer as it did the same for me. Anyway, the above is the more complete sentence.

[BPSCG]

All to true. But considering what little substance Brainster and BPSCG (and the Repubs in general) have to work with, you'll understand why they post what they do.Wait, Obama gets caught in a flat-out lie, and that's an issue of "little substance" to you?

Just curious: How big does a lie have to be before you consider it to be of major substance?

[Cleon]

Ooh, nicely spun!

Spun? No spin.

The claim in the OP, that Obama said his uncle was part of the American troops to liberate Auschwitz, was flat-out wrong.

There is no getting around that.


I can't google any reference to American troops being at Auschwitz. I found a reference to Eisenhower having been there, and his having ordered U.S. troops to see Buchenwald.

...And you think the US army would send its highest-ranking military officer to a death camp without any other soldiers coming with him, or going in before him.

That's a fascinating thought, it really is.

[Just thinking]

Just curious: How big does a lie have to be beforeyou consider it to be of major substance?

As big as what they feel should be the highest tax bracket. ;)

[NoZed Avenger]

All to true. But considering what little substance Brainster and BPSCG (and the Repubs in general) have to work with, you'll understand why they post what they do.


Yep. Their arguments are so weak that they probably have nothing but insult and ad homs left to . . . .


Oh.

[Cleon]

Wait, Obama gets caught in a flat-out lie,

This is, in itself, a lie.

But thanks for playing.

[Pookster]

It seems your you-tube clip came up short and choppy. I'm sure it's not your computer as it did the same for me. Anyway, the above is the more complete sentence.

Looking at the text with the added words ... "I have an uncle who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz, and liberate the concentration camps."

Auschwitz was only one of a number of concentration camps. If I'm not mistaken, American troops did liberate some camps. So, Obama still isn't specifically saying his uncle was part of American troops that liberated Auschwitz. Now was Obama's uncle part of those American troops that did liberate some of the concentration camps?

[Tricky]

What's the big deal? Maybe Obama did have an uncle who told him that. (Based on the example my father set, WWII veterans were prone to telling bald-faced lies about what they did in the war.) Maybe Obama misremembered what his uncle said. Maybe he even lied. (If you want to elect a politician who doesn't lie, then you're going to have to elect a dead one.) This whole pedantic "Gotcha" type of attack on Obama and his wife is unquestionably one of the lamest political strategies I've ever seen. If the GOP can't do better than that, then they are in deep doo-doo come November.

Just curious: How big does a lie have to be before you consider it to be of major substance?
Big enough to have at least a perceptible effect on the US. Something like, "We are invading Iraq because they have WMDs".

[Cleon]

Looking at the text with the added words ... "I have an uncle who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz, and liberate the concentration camps."

Auschwitz was only one of a number of concentration camps. If I'm not mistaken, American troops did liberate some camps.

Yep. Buchenwald and Dachau come to mind.

Correction appreciated, but doesn't really change things.

Obama did not claim that his uncle liberated Auschwitz.

[joobz]

It's not a new expression - I know I was familiar with it in high school at least 40 years ago. Funny that Brainster also uses it here. Great minds, etc... :rolleyes:
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that the expression itself was new, only that it has been bandied across the internet on forums and political blogs.

There are multiple figures of speech to be used.

Figures of speech for lying(completely or otherwise):
Pull it out of thin air
Pull it out of his/her/your butt
B-Sing
stretching the truth
pants are really really on fire

making something up wholly new:
from scratch
starting from a blank canvas
Brand New
Original

I just find it funny to see that phrase used three times by three seperate sources with regards to the exact same event. It's almost as if "from whole cloth" is its own talking point.

[WildCat]

What's the big deal? Maybe Obama did have an uncle who told him that. (Based on the example my father set, WWII veterans were prone to telling bald-faced lies about what they did in the war.) Maybe Obama misremembered what his uncle said. Maybe he even lied. (If you want to elect a politician who doesn't lie, then you're going to have to elect a dead one.) This whole pedantic "Gotcha" type of attack on Obama and his wife is unquestionably one of the lamest political strategies I've ever seen. If the GOP can't do better than that, then they are in deep doo-doo come November.
So you don't want to follow Cleon down the road of claiming Obama's uncle actually did visit Auschwitz? Good to see.

[Nogbad]

Looking at the text with the added words ... "I have an uncle who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz, and liberate the concentration camps."

Auschwitz was only one of a number of concentration camps. If I'm not mistaken, American troops did liberate some camps. So, Obama still isn't specifically saying his uncle was part of American troops that liberated Auschwitz. Now was Obama's uncle part of those American troops that did liberate some of the concentration camps?

That is a fair question and far more relevant than all the semantics. I am 6 years older than Obama and my Dad was in the RAF in the 50s and his brother (my uncle obviously) was in the Army and he was sent to Egypt for Suez in the mid 50s. I guess if Obama's parents had a much older sibling then he could have had an uncle who was there in 1945. However a quick squint at his family tree suggests that it was his maternal grandfather that was in WW2.

His mum was an only child as far as I can see and his dad was Kenyan and if he had a brother in the army it would have been as a British Commonwealth soldier. If any of that is any help like?

[Cleon]

So you don't want to follow Cleon down the road of claiming Obama's uncle actually did visit Auschwitz?

I didn't claim that. I said it was perfectly reasonable, and not at all unlikely.

If this is such an obvious case of Obama lying, why do you need to be so dishonest about not only what he said, but about what I said, too?

[Pookster]

Yep. Buchenwald and Dachau come to mind.

Correction appreciated, but doesn't really change things.

Obama did not claim that his uncle liberated Auschwitz.

Agreed. It takes a putting words in his mouth the make it appear as such.

[Pookster]

That is a fair question and far more relevant than all the semantics. I am 6 years older than Obama and my Dad was in the RAF in the 50s and his brother (my uncle obviously) was in the Army and he was sent to Egypt for Suez in the mid 50s. I guess if Obama's parents had a much older sibling then he could have had an uncle who was there in 1945. However a quick squint at his family tree suggests that it was his maternal grandfather that was in WW2.

His mum was an only child as far as I can see and his dad was Kenyan and if he had a brother in the army it would have been as a British commonwealth soldier. If any of that is any help like?

I believe someone mentioned it was likely a great-uncle though.

[Upchurch]

Wait, Obama gets caught in a flat-out lie, and that's an issue of "little substance" to you?

Just curious: How big does a lie have to be before you consider it to be of major substance?
Your right, BP. It is very substanative when a candidate does not accurately portray a 60+ year old event that happened to someone else before that candidate was even born.

Why, his lie completely invalidates the point he was making about the family of a veterant having to take care of the vet with little to no help from the government! That part must not be true either!

[/sarcasm]


But to seriously answer your question: The "lie" must be big enough to actually be pertinent to argument being made to be of major substance. For example (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html), "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons" is a lie of major substance. What, exactly, tramatized Obama's (great?) uncle is not pertinent to his having been tramatized in the line of service and the family having to take care of him.

Now, if no "tramatized uncle" (or whatever his relationship was) ever existed, then you've got a lie of substance on your hands.

[corplinx]

Gaffes. Big whoop.
Gaffes don't impress me. I understand the criticism that if McCain had made the "fallen heroes" remark he would get flamed as being senile. However, I don't work for the GOP and I don't care about doing tit-for-tat for them.

The uncle thing can be read:
My uncle was one of the first american troops to go into Auschwitz
My uncle helped liberate concentration camps

It doesnt necessarily say his uncle liberated Auschwitz.

Of course, some news agencies are saying his mother had no brothers. I'm sure the Obama camp will clear this up. I doubt that Obama standing practically at the finish line of the DNC race would just make up an easily debunkable lie on the spot.

Who here thinks he's that dumb? Show of hands.

[Brainster]

His exact quote: "I have an uncle who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz."

Which is entirely reasonable, and not at all unlikely. As I recall, Allied troops toured all the death camps. They certainly would have in preparation for the Nuremberg trials.

He did not claim that his uncle was part of the liberation force, merely one of the first American troops to be in Auschwitz.

CBS misrepresented what he said, and you jumped at the opportunity for yet another cheap jab at Obama.

CBS does appear to have misrepresented his statement, so yes, I am guilty of thinking that CBS had it right. But it is not a cheap jab; if he had indeed said that his (grand) uncle was part of the group that liberated Auschwitz it would have been a plain fabrication, barring his granduncle being revealed as a part of the Red Army (not at all impossible, but unlikely). Now all we have to do is wait to find out exactly how Obama's grand uncle toured Auschwitz. Then we'll know that it was a rather more complicated fabrication.

And, of course, there is still this:

Try to pay attention.

[Cleon]

Gaffes. Big whoop.
Gaffes don't impress me. I understand the criticism that if McCain had made the "fallen heroes" remark he would get flamed as being senile.

Quite possibly, and that would be just as pathetic as everyone crowing about Obama's supposed "lie."

Unfortunately, as long as people insist on "Gotchas" as a substitute for serious political criticism, we're going to be dealing with this crap.

[Cleon]

CBS does appear to have misrepresented his statement, so yes, I am guilty of thinking that CBS had it right. But it is not a cheap jab; if he had indeed said that his (grand) uncle was part of the group that liberated Auschwitz it would have been a plain fabrication, barring his granduncle being revealed as a part of the Red Army (not at all impossible, but unlikely).

No. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

Obama's next sentence begins with "the story in our family goes..." (bit about the attic.) Clearly, he's relaying something he's been told by family members.

So it's not "if he claimed it, it's a fabrication." There are numerous other possibilities:

- The family story is wrong.
- The family story, as relayed to him, is wrong.
- He misremembered.
- He misspoke.

Even if everything Obama says about his uncle is 100% false, that doesn't mean that he fabricated the story. Stories change when they go from person to person to person.

It becomes a fabrication if what he said was knowingly false, and so far there is zero evidence of this. (There isn't even any evidence that what he said was false.)

That's the distinction between Obama relaying a family story about his uncle, and Clinton yammering about ducking sniper fire. Clinton was talking about her personal experience - there is no way she would have not known that her story was false.

Is it possible it was a fabricated story? Sure. Politicians do not have a reputation for being particularly honest folk, and I've seen very little to convince me that Obama is cut from a cloth different than any other Democratic politican.

But I tend to agree with corplinx (and that's not something you hear me say every day):


I doubt that Obama standing practically at the finish line of the DNC race would just make up an easily debunkable lie on the spot.

Who here thinks he's that dumb? Show of hands.

[Upchurch]

Try to pay attention.
I was the one that pointed out that Obama said his uncle was the first to "go into Auschwitz". It would be hard for me to pay much more attention than that.

CBS does appear to have misrepresented his statement, so yes, I am guilty of thinking that CBS had it right.
See? That wasn't so hard.


Now all we have to do is wait to find out exactly how Obama's grand uncle toured Auschwitz.
This is a new claim that is different from your original. It may very well be untrue, but it was not your orignal claim.

There is also still your claim about Obama getting the meaning of Memorial Day wrong....

[WildCat]

I didn't claim that. I said it was perfectly reasonable, and not at all unlikely.

If this is such an obvious case of Obama lying, why do you need to be so dishonest about not only what he said, but about what I said, too?
It's actually even more ridiculous if your pathetic spin on it is true.

How many people do you know of who spent 6 months in an attic after visiting Auschwitz? What percentage of, say, this company's (http://www.auschwitz-tours.com/) customers spend 6 months in an attic afterwards?

[Cleon]

It's actually even more ridiculous if your pathetic spin on it is true.

:rolleyes:


How many people do you know of who spent 6 months in an attic after visiting Auschwitz? What percentage of, say, this company's (http://www.auschwitz-tours.com/) customers spend 6 months in an attic afterwards?

Oh, I think that part of the story is complete BS, whether or not he had an uncle who saw Auschwitz.

But that's not the part you had a problem with.

Quick! Move those goalposts again, WildCat!

[WildCat]

There is also still your claim about Obama getting the meaning of Memorial Day wrong....
Seems to me Obama was confusing Memorial Day with Veterans Day.

[varwoche]

It's actually even more ridiculous if your pathetic spin on it is true.

How many people do you know of who spent 6 months in an attic after visiting Auschwitz? What percentage of, say, this company's (http://www.auschwitz-tours.com/) customers spend 6 months in an attic afterwards? How you are able to combine these two paragraphs in one post is phenomenal.

Regardless if the Obama ancestor even exists mind you, to equate...

(1) fighting in WWII and seeing a concentration camp with
(2) visiting a concentration camp as a tourist

... is spin of a high order.

[Tricky]

So you don't want to follow Cleon down the road of claiming Obama's uncle actually did visit Auschwitz? Good to see.
I don't have a horse in that race.

I'm not "claiming" anything. I'm not going to bother looking things up because the only question I want answered is, "Why does this matter?" Is it really that important to catch Obama in a minor misstatement? This is an awfully little teapot for such a noisy tempest.

[Brainster]

I was the one that pointed out that Obama said his uncle was the first to "go into Auschwitz". It would be hard for me to pay much more attention than that.


See? That wasn't so hard.



This is a new claim that is different from your original. It may very well be untrue, but it was not your orignal claim.

There is also still your claim about Obama getting the meaning of Memorial Day wrong....

Which is what I was referring to when I said try to pay attention (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3737616&postcount=39).

And yes, Obama's gaffe on Memorial Day was in saying that some of the folks honored were in the crowd, and not in the actual meaning of Memorial Day. That is a valid correction and I acknowledge it.

Unless of course you want to continue to berate me over a point I have acknowledged erring on?

On the liberation of Auschwitz issue, I see that Cleon did a little bit of snippage of the actual quote. Far from being misled by CBS, it appears that I was misled by Cleon.

[WildCat]

:rolleyes:



Oh, I think that part of the story is complete BS, whether or not he had an uncle who saw Auschwitz.

But that's not the part you had a problem with.

Quick! Move those goalposts again, WildCat!
Moving the goalposts? That's the whole point of his story - that mental health care was needed for returning troops. One would think the most eloquent speaker in the entire world could make the case for that without making up some BS story.

[Upchurch]

Seems to me Obama was confusing Memorial Day with Veterans Day.


How so?
On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.
(my emphasis)

As someone else has already pointed out, Obama was not addressing zombie soldiers so, given the context, his ad-lib meant that he saw many heroes in the audience.

[WildCat]

How you are able to combine these two paragraphs in one post is phenomenal.

Regardless if the Obama ancestor even exists mind you, to equate...

(1) fighting in WWII and seeing a concentration camp with
(2) visiting a concentration camp as a tourist

... is spin of a high order.
There's no evidence that Obama's uncle ever liberated a concentration camp.

[Upchurch]

Which is what I was referring to when I said try to pay attention (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3737616&postcount=39). {snip}
My apologies. Your wording was confusing.

Apparently, WildCat is still confused.

[Cleon]

Movin the goalposts?

That's what you're doing, yes.

You jumped the gun with the whole "Obama said the Americans liberated Auschwitz" bit. Now you're looking for something else to jump on.

How about finding fault with his policy or his politics?

Naaah. That might actually require critical thinking n' stuff. :rolleyes:

One would think the most eloquent speaker in the entire world could make the case for that without making up some BS story.There is as yet no evidence that he made up the story.

(There's also no evidence that he's "the most eloquent speaker in the entire world," but that's a matter for a different thread.)

[Upchurch]

There's no evidence that Obama's uncle ever liberated a concentration camp.
Is there reason to think Obama is lying about that or do you simply distrust anything Obama says? Perhaps it wasn't Memorial Day? Perhaps he wasn't in New Mexico?

[WildCat]

How so?

(my emphasis)

As someone else has already pointed out, Obama was not addressing zombie soldiers so, given the context, his ad-lib meant that he saw many heroes in the audience.
OK, he didn't confuse it with Veterans Day but it's still Quayle-like. ;)

[Upchurch]

OK, he didn't confuse it with Veterans Day but it's still Quayle-like. ;)
Perhaps, but still nowhere near Bush-like.

[corplinx]

Obama's grand-uncle spent 6 months in the attic because he was also the first US soldier to find Anne Frank's diary.

[Nogbad]

Actually, looking in from the outside, Clinton, Obama and McCain all look a bit dodgy. Is Mr Nader standing? He is relatively consistent in his message is he not?

[varwoche]

There's no evidence that Obama's uncle ever liberated a concentration camp. If we find out tomorrow that Obama's uncle doesn't exist it won't change the fact that your post -- the one where you get on a high horse about spin -- would put a whirling dervish to shame.

Or do you really believe that visiting a concentration camp as a tourist would have the same impact as fighting in WWII?

[Cleon]

OK, he didn't confuse it with Veterans Day but it's still Quayle-like. ;)

Now that I'll agree with.

[Nogbad]

Obama's grand-uncle spent 6 months in the attic because he was also the first US soldier to find Anne Frank's diary.

For reasons of neatness was it a Dutch attic he spent 6 months in?

[Upchurch]

For what it's worth (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Obamas_World_War_II_history.html)

"Senator Obama’s family is proud of the service of his grandfather and uncles in World War II – especially the fact that his great uncle was a part of liberating one of the concentration camps at Buchenwald. Yesterday he mistakenly referred to Auschwitz instead of Buchenwald in telling of his personal experience of a soldier in his family who served heroically," Burton says.

[corplinx]

So was he reading off a teleprompter or what? How does Buchenwald become Auschwitz?

[Pookster]

For what it's worth (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Obamas_World_War_II_history.html)

Okay, so it was a gaffe after all.

To Branster's vindication effort - Mission accomplished! :duck: :D

[Pookster]

So was he reading off a teleprompter or what? How does Buchenwald become Auschwitz?

I dunno. I suspect his being only human has something to do with it though.

[David Wong]

30 threads on the front page of this section. I count five that are discussing actual policy proposals. Three about Iran, one about McCain's health care plan, and one linking to an article about liberalism in general.

There's a few more dedicated to general horse race issues (delegate counts, etc) and the rest are dedicated to pure, partisan, childish garbage. Jumping on gaffes and silly rumors and other things that should be far beneath a forum about critical thinkers.

Why does politics lower the collective IQ of any group like this?

[BPSCG]

Deleted. Dead horse.

[mortimer]

I knew that Obama was a Muslim, but I had no idea he had Commie in his blood too!

Just what this country needs... an Elitist Commie Terrorist Negro! I bet he kicks puppies, too.

[chipmunk stew]

I wager that when the real story comes out, Obama's grand-uncle will be found to have been among the American troops who liberated some other camp. As the years went by, the family story had him liberating Auschwitz.

Brainster, BPSCG, you were right, he did say it.

You still jumped the gun, though, presenting a weakly-supported story as fact.

[chipmunk stew]

For what it's worth (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Obamas_World_War_II_history.html)
Oh.

See?

[chipmunk stew]

So was he reading off a teleprompter or what? How does Buchenwald become Auschwitz?
If he was reading off a teleprompter, Buchenwald wouldn't have become Auschwitz, would it?

It was a gaffe, pure and simple.

[Nogbad]

I knew that Obama was a Muslim, but I had no idea he had Commie in his blood too!

Just what this country needs... an Elitist Commie Terrorist Negro! I bet he kicks puppies, too.

I think he eats them - he is probably North Korean too like.

[corplinx]

If he was reading off a teleprompter, Buchenwald wouldn't have become Auschwitz, would it?

It was a gaffe, pure and simple.

I dunno. I doubt Obama can name all the nazi war camps off the top of his head. The main reason people mention Auschwitz is when they are trying to pander to the jewish vote.

If my great uncle was at Normandy and it seared into my memory because he hid in the attic for a year, I doubt I would make the mistake of calling it Midway.

I think calling Buchenwald something like Bulgaria is a more honest mistake. There is something unsettling about calling it a name so different but very politically convenient.

[chipmunk stew]

I dunno. I doubt Obama can name all the nazi war camps off the top of his head. The main reason people mention Auschwitz is when they are trying to pander to the jewish vote.
??? Mentioning Buchenwald wouldn't do the trick?

If my great uncle was at Normandy and it seared into my memory because he hid in the attic for a year, I doubt I would make the mistake of calling it Midway.
Normandy and Midway were different theaters. I, too, doubt you would make that mistake.

I think calling Buchenwald something like Bulgaria is a more honest mistake. There is something unsettling about calling it a name so different but very politically convenient.
Auschwitz is the most infamous camp because of all the pictures and stories and whatnot. The name Auschwitz is seared into many people's minds, almost as a synonym for the Holocaust. It's not much of a stretch to imagine the family legend morphing from the lesser-known Buchenwald to the widely-known Auschwitz.

[WildCat]

If we find out tomorrow that Obama's uncle doesn't exist it won't change the fact that your post -- the one where you get on a high horse about spin -- would put a whirling dervish to shame.
You write that as if I was defending a made-up story about Obama's uncle (whoever he is) liberating a concentration camp.

Or do you really believe that visiting a concentration camp as a tourist would have the same impact as fighting in WWII?
When did Obama claim that he spent 6 months in the attic just from fighting in WWII?

It was Cleon, btw, who suggested maybe Obama's uncle visited there as part of Eisenhower's staff preparing for war crime trials. Such a visit is indeed comparable to visiting Aushwitz today.

[Undesired Walrus]

I thought Obama's '57 states' was a bigger gaffe.

That said, I appear to have jumped on Brainstar a bit too harshly and unfairly, so I apologise Brainstar.

[corplinx]

Now, I started off in this thread defending Obama. Then I joked about the attic thing glibly. Then I got grumpy and mentioned the politicial convenience of the Auschwitz substitution.

So, I went to the wikipedia page and read up on Buchenwald.

Although Buchenwald technically was not an extermination camp, it was a site of an extraordinary number of deaths.

Well, its a good thing he mentioned Auschwitz then so the jews would know he was against extermination camps. Still though, his great uncle liberated Buchenwald.

The camp was partially evacuated by the Nazis on 8 April 1945. In the days before the arrival of the American army, thousands of the prisoners were forced to join the evacuation marches.

Oops. Well, maybe he liberated those who were left from the remaining nazis.

After that, Communist inmates stormed the watchtowers, killed the remaining guards, and took contro

Well, uhhhh.... hrm. So what did the first US troops in Buchenwald do?

A detachment of troops belonging to the US 9th Armored Infantry Battalion, US 6th Armored Division, US Third Army arrived at Buchenwald on 13 April 1945 under the leadership of Captain Frederic Keffer. The squad entered the outer perimeter of the camp and reported its location to its higher ups, but did not investigate in great detail, moving on to complete other missions.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchenwald_concentration_camp

Maybe this wasn't a good personal story for Obama to use.........

[Nogbad]

You write that as if I was defending a made-up story about Obama's uncle (whoever he is) liberating a concentration camp.


When did Obama claim that he spent 6 months in the attic just from fighting in WWII?

It was Cleon, btw, who suggested maybe Obama's uncle visited there as part of Eisenhower's staff preparing for war crime trials. Such a visit is indeed comparable to visiting Aushwitz today.

I don't know - Eisenhower saw camps like Buchenwald first hand after they were liberated in April 45 and even by November 45, when the trials began, I think these places would have had a stench of death that would be hard to capture in a visit today.

[WildCat]

For what it's worth (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Obamas_World_War_II_history.html)
So the Obama campaign disagrees with those here who claimed Obama never said his uncle liberated Auschwitz?

Fascinating.

I'll admit his uncle was likely among those liberating Buchenwald, but you'd think Obama would have got this right if he was actually genuinely interested in such things rather than only being interested in it once he's giving a speech in front of veterans.

[daredelvis]

Deleted. Dead horse.


This mud has turned into mostly water. Why don't you go back and try to back up your* claims about Obama and Ayers in this thread?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3709357#post3709357


*Assuming they are your claims, and not just Malkin bot postings to the JREF.

Daredelvis

[gnome]

So the Obama campaign disagrees with those here who claimed Obama never said his uncle liberated Auschwitz?

Fascinating.

Kind of hard to agree at this point since someone posted the video.

[Upchurch]

So the Obama campaign disagrees with those here who claimed Obama never said his uncle liberated Auschwitz?
It did? Where?

[The Painter]

Obama is calling everyone he offended to apologize.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v148/Lexapro/callat3.jpg


Hey, that's not going to work!!!

[Brainster]

Thanks, Pookster, and Undesired Walrus. I'm just surprised people were hopping all over me for going with something posted on the CBS News website. Granted, they have been wrong in the past, or at the very least, fake but accurate.

[daredelvis]

Making up a story about an uncle who may not even have existed having gone into a concentration camp that never had U.S. troops in it is not a gaffe. This is more akin to Clinton's claim to have been under fire in Bosnia, and probably designed to curry favor with the Jewish voters. It's what is commonly known as a lie.

Your professed outrage strikes me as a little disingenuous. What do you think of a man who would say something like this in references of the Nazi atrocities? "I know all the bad things that happened in that war. I was in uniform four years myself." Keep in mind that this person never left U.S. soil during the entire war.

Also of the Nazi guards at Bitburg, "I think that there's nothing wrong with visiting that cemetery where those young men are victims of Nazism also, even though they were fighting in the German uniform, drafted into service to carry out the hateful wishes of the Nazis. They were victims, just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps." ????

Obama’s misstatements pale by comparison in both magnitude, and degree of self delusion.

Daredelvis

[quixotecoyote]

True, but why bring up Regan and Buchanan? They aren't in this race.

[Upchurch]

I'm just surprised people were hopping all over me for going with something posted on the CBS News website. Granted, they have been wrong in the past, or at the very least, fake but accurate.
Didn't you just answer your own question?

No source is above question, especially when it doesn't jibe with other available facts like the transcript of speech.

[joobz]

Obama's grand-uncle spent 6 months in the attic because he was also the first US soldier to find Anne Frank's diary.
No. He spent 6 months in the attic, because the closet was already occupied by R Kelly's grand-uncle.

[corplinx]

Thanks, Pookster, and Undesired Walrus. I'm just surprised people were hopping all over me for going with something posted on the CBS News website. Granted, they have been wrong in the past, or at the very least, fake but accurate.

Well, its still an untrue statement even if you fix the concentration camp name. The first soldiers to arrive at Buchenwald did not liberate it as I referenced earlier in wikipedia. However, we don't know what his grand uncle ever told him of it. His uncle might have told that he killed Hitler and had him believing it.

Given how meticulous Obama's people are I'm surprised they let this happen.

[novice skeptic]

His exact quote: "I have an uncle who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz."

Which is entirely reasonable, and not at all unlikely..

Just wondering, but why did you decide to not include the words "and liberate"? It certainly would add to the "exactness" of the quote. If we truly want to discuss whether or not this was a gaffe, a lie, or a right wing spin job one would think that including all of the words would be the best choice. However, you chose not to include some rather important words. Why?

[Pookster]

Well, its still an untrue statement even if you fix the concentration camp name. The first soldiers to arrive at Buchenwald did not liberate it as I referenced earlier in wikipedia. However, we don't know what his grand uncle ever told him of it. His uncle might have told that he killed Hitler and had him believing it.

Given how meticulous Obama's people are I'm surprised they let this happen.

A quote also in Wikipedia ...

"On the same day, elements of the US 83rd Infantry Division overran Langenstein, one of a number of smaller camps comprising the Buchenwald complex. There the division liberated over 1,000 prisoners, compelled the mayor of Langenstein to send food and water to the camp, and sped medical supplies forward from the 20th Field Hospital"

[Pookster]

A quote also in Wikipedia ...

"On the same day, elements of the US 83rd Infantry Division overran Langenstein, one of a number of smaller camps comprising the Buchenwald complex. There the division liberated over 1,000 prisoners, compelled the mayor of Langenstein to send food and water to the camp, and sped medical supplies forward from the 20th Field Hospital"

Let's look again at what Obama said in the video, and then the full wiki quote on the liberation of Buchenwald ...

"I have an uncle who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz, and liberate the concentration camps."

Substitute Auschwitz with Buchenwald, of course.

From Wiki ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchenwald_concentration_camp

The camp was partially evacuated by the Nazis on 8 April 1945. In the days before the arrival of the American army, thousands of the prisoners were forced to join the evacuation marches. After that, Communist inmates stormed the watchtowers, killed the remaining guards, and took control using arms they had collected since 1942 (one machine gun and 91 rifles).

A detachment of troops belonging to the US 9th Armored Infantry Battalion, US 6th Armored Division, US Third Army arrived at Buchenwald on 13 April 1945 under the leadership of Captain Frederic Keffer. The squad entered the outer perimeter of the camp and reported its location to its higher ups, but did not investigate in great detail, moving on to complete other missions. On the same day, elements of the US 83rd Infantry Division overran Langenstein, one of a number of smaller camps comprising the Buchenwald complex. There the division liberated over 1,000 prisoners, compelled the mayor of Langenstein to send food and water to the camp, and sped medical supplies forward from the 20th Field Hospital.

The first troops that did arrive only entered the outer perimeter and reported its location. It would seem the US 83rd Infantry Division was the first to actually enter the camp itself.

[Pookster]

Well, its still an untrue statement even if you fix the concentration camp name. The first soldiers to arrive at Buchenwald did not liberate it as I referenced earlier in wikipedia. However, we don't know what his grand uncle ever told him of it. His uncle might have told that he killed Hitler and had him believing it.

Given how meticulous Obama's people are I'm surprised they let this happen.

Again, Obama's statement ...

"I have an uncle who was part of the first American troops to go into [Buchenwald], and liberate the concentration camps."

You seem to have made your own strawman with this.

[Dr Adequate]

Obama is calling everyone he offended to apologize.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v148/Lexapro/callat3.jpg


Hey, that's not going to work!!! Isn't Photoshop wonderful?

Is that the best you can do?

[Tricky]

Isn't Photoshop wonderful?

Is that the best you can do?
He didn't even do that. I saw it months ago. This is why I never advance cut-and-paste jobs to The Language Awards finals. Occasionally, I miss some plagiary, so I hope that people will point it out to me when they recognize it.

[Dr Adequate]

He didn't even do that. I know he didn't manufacture it. I'm not even sure he knows that it's a fake, common sense not being The Painter's strong point.

[daredelvis]

True, but why bring up Regan and Buchanan? They aren't in this race.

Because the poster who is first to jump on any Obama rumor, also has some pretty revisionist / rose colored glasses about that former president. Buchanan may have authored the line about, but Reagan chose to speak it.

Daredelvis

[corplinx]

Again, Obama's statement ...

"I have an uncle who was part of the first American troops to go into [Buchenwald], and liberate the concentration camps."

You seem to have made your own strawman with this.

Not at all. In any case, I'm sure they will dig up what regiment he was in and clarify this soonish. Even if it turns out to be 100 percent untrue, you don't factcheck your uncle as you grow up.

[Texas]

I am curious if Hillary's sniper comments got this level of defense here?

[daredelvis]

I am curious if Hillary's sniper comments got this level of defense here?

Family lore vs. first hand account.... I doubt they did. Go figure. As one poster here wisely stated, "You don't factcheck your uncle".








OK, it was Corplinx.

Daredelvis

[Texas]

Family lore vs. first hand account.... I doubt they did. Go figure. As one poster here wisely stated, "You don't factcheck your uncle".








OK, it was Corplinx.

Daredelvis

Well Obama seems to be setting a pattern on that front. First was "Crazy Uncle" Wright and now this new one. I find it incredible that a man sat in his attic for 6 months and suffered life long trauma from entering a concentration camp that according to the Wiki article appears to have been mostly evacuated when he got there. Did he not see combat prior to this experience. WW2 was an extremely bloody style of warfare and he had to have seen at the very least carnage as grisly and horrific as he could have witnessed at this camp. Given his audience and given that he is just a politician I believe he just threw this out as a way of establishing his family's military "cred" while at the same time accusing McCain of ignoring heroic vets like his uncle.

[Brainster]

Didn't you just answer your own question?

No source is above question, especially when it doesn't jibe with other available facts like the transcript of speech.

Crap, I can't ignore a moderator. Okay, but no more responses from me, Upchurch.

[Dr Adequate]

Well Obama seems to be setting a pattern on that front. First was "Crazy Uncle" Wright and now this new one. I find it incredible that a man sat in his attic for 6 months and suffered life long trauma from entering a concentration camp that according to the Wiki article appears to have been mostly evacuated when he got there. You find it inconceivable that someone could find a concentration camp depressing?

Well, I guess some of us are just big sissy-boys in that respect.

Did he not see combat prior to this experience. WW2 was an extremely bloody style of warfare and he had to have seen at the very least carnage as grisly and horrific as he could have witnessed at this camp. And might not the effect have been cumulative?

Given his audience and given that he is just a politician I believe he just threw this out as a way of establishing his family's military "cred" while at the same time accusing McCain of ignoring heroic vets like his uncle. He may have been using it to make a point; which of course has nothing to do with whether it's true, nor whether the point is a good one.

---

C'mon, this one's dead. Try something else.

[Brainster]

More details on the great uncle here (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/27/recollection-of-obama-familys-service-missing-key-details/).

The campaign said his great uncle, Charlie Payne, served in the 89th Infantry Division, and that the unit was among those to liberate Ohrdruf on April 4, 1945.

According to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum Web site, Ohrdruf was the first Nazi concentration camp liberated by U.S. troops in Germany. The site said the 89th Infantry Division was later recognized as a “liberating unit” by the museum and the Army’s Center of Military History.

Michael Dobbs of the Washington Post has the Fact Checker blog (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/where_in_the_world_is_auschwit.html); he gives Obama three Pinocchios for the story. I think that's a little harsh provided there is some evidence that Payne actually served in that unit. Remember, one of the reasons I pointed out that the story bothered me was that he used it to justify a policy position. If he really had a great-uncle who was in the 89th infantry and who liberated one of the concentration camps, then it's a good enough anecdote for political purposes, maybe one Pinocchio for not knowing the story of Auschwitz enough to realize that's not the camp he meant.

Obama could claim that it was his great-uncle that he was referring to and once again he blew the detail of the camp.

ETA: That last bit should have been snipped. I was musing about the time in 2002 that Obama talked about how his grandfather had known soldiers who liberated Auschwitz and Treblinka, which is unlikely, as we've discussed here at length, but I decided it was a meaningless diversion from the main point and cut the rest of that discussion.

[Dr Adequate]

Obama could claim that it was his great-uncle that he was referring to and once again he blew the detail of the camp. He does claim that it was his great-uncle, as your quote shows, and Ohrdruf forced labor camp was a subcamp of the Buchenwald complex, so that would be correct.

Note: there are pictures in the wiki link that will make you want to spend six months in your attic.

[Texas]

You find it inconceivable that someone could find a concentration camp depressing?


.

To the point of hiding in the attic for 6 months? Could be but if he did it wasn't the camp that did it he had major problems already. Obama was using that cynically and you know it.
This is the pattern with Obama, he calls his white grandmother a racist because she was afraid of an aggressive black panhandler, which perfectly fits his defense of Wright and now his elderly great uncle who is a victim of PTSD which perfectly fits Obama's talking point of the day against McCain. Both are kept out of sight and out of reach.

[Brainster]

He does claim that it was his great-uncle, as your quote shows, and Ohrdruf forced labor camp was a subcamp of the Buchenwald complex, so that would be correct.

Note: there are pictures in the wiki link that will make you want to spend six months in your attic.

Yeah, I left that paragraph in there by accident; I was referring to the earlier time that Obama talked about Auschwitz and Treblinka.

Assuming Great Uncle Charley was really in the 89th, I don't think anybody around here will bother to check his mental health history. As I pointed out, with the clarification that it's Buchenwald, the story's good enough for anecdotal purposes.

[Dr Adequate]

To the point of hiding in the attic for 6 months? Could be but if he did it wasn't the camp that did it he had major problems already. Obama was using that cynically and you know it. Your fantasies about me are even less likely to convince me than your fantasies about Obama.

This is the pattern with Obama, he calls his white grandmother a racist ... Someone has been telling you silly lies. He called her no such thing.

... because she was afraid of an aggressive black panhandler, which perfectly fits his defense of Wright and now his elderly great uncle who is a victim of PTSD which perfectly fits Obama's talking point of the day against McCain. Both are kept out of sight and out of reach. Huh? Reverend Wright was kept out of sight and out of reach? Rather than prancing about in public causing Obama more embarrassment?

What color is the sky on your planet?

And where, pray, are the Obama gang hiding his Uncle Charlie?

And WTF are you taling about generally?

[UnrepentantSinner]

No. He spent 6 months in the attic, because the closet was already occupied by R Kelly's grand-uncle.

Crap! Oh well, I think my version is funny enough to share: My great-uncle helped liberate Paris and when he came back 20 years in the closet.

[Puppycow]

Says here (http://thepage.time.com/2008/05/27/obama-camp-concedes-error-on-auschwitz-comment/) he made a mistake. He got Aushwitz and Buchenwald mixed up. No big deal.

[Undesired Walrus]

she was afraid of an aggressive black panhandler

Are you so jealous of Obama's gaffe that you feel the need to make a complete and utter fabrication yourself?

[chipmunk stew]

Are you so jealous of Obama's gaffe that you feel the need to make a complete and utter fabrication yourself?
I doubt he made that one up. Sounds like a Rush-ism to me.

Texas is a mere wall of the right wing echo chamber.

[Pookster]

Not at all. In any case, I'm sure they will dig up what regiment he was in and clarify this soonish. Even if it turns out to be 100 percent untrue, you don't factcheck your uncle as you grow up.

You may not have done it intentionally, but you did post an inaccurate description. First "to arrive at" is not what he stated.

[Pookster]

Well Obama seems to be setting a pattern on that front. First was "Crazy Uncle" Wright and now this new one. I find it incredible that a man sat in his attic for 6 months and suffered life long trauma from entering a concentration camp that according to the Wiki article appears to have been mostly evacuated when he got there. Did he not see combat prior to this experience. WW2 was an extremely bloody style of warfare and he had to have seen at the very least carnage as grisly and horrific as he could have witnessed at this camp. Given his audience and given that he is just a politician I believe he just threw this out as a way of establishing his family's military "cred" while at the same time accusing McCain of ignoring heroic vets like his uncle.

Here's the quote as posted on CNN ...

"I had a uncle who was one of the, who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps and the story in our family was is that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn’t leave the house for six months," Obama said. "Now obviously something had really affected him deeply but at that time there just weren’t the kinds of facilities to help somebody work through that kind of pain."

I'm not sure where the idea that he stayed in the attic for six months came from, but the full quote says he didn't leave the house for six months. How long he stayed in the attic is not revealed.


Edited to add link to CNN article: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/category/presidential-candidates/barack-obama/

[Pookster]

... he calls his white grandmother a racist ...

Sir, partisan rhetoric is one thing, but this is just flatly untrue. As much as this incident was discussed, you really should know better. Please tell me you're better than this.

[boloboffin]

I love Obama. He makes a simple mistake (for example, if Clinton had been evading rocket grenade launches instead of sniper fire in Bosnia) and the Right Wing Wurlitzer starting pumping out the attacks. The issue is hashed out, Obama's tale is completely verified except for the single detail he got wrong, and those veterans STILL need PTSD help.

All a Democratic presidential candidate has to do at this point is make a simple mistake in an otherwise completely correct story and the RWW will give him two days of free publicity. Of course, what else do they have to do? Get a Dunkin' Donuts ad pulled because Rachael Ray's got on a Yassar Arafat scarf (http://www.boston.com/ae/celebrity/articles/2008/05/28/dunkin_donuts_yanks_rachael_ray_ad/)? Apparently. They ought to be put to some use.

[gdnp]

If this is the worst gaffe they can pin on Obama November will be a cake walk.

Talk about a tempest in a teapot.

[gdnp]

Next, I expect to hear that someone interviewed a neighbor who claims that his uncle, in fact, was seen exiting the house to pick up the newspaper only 5 months after he returned.:rolleyes:

[Tricky]

Not at all. In any case, I'm sure they will dig up what regiment he was in and clarify this soonish. Even if it turns out to be 100 percent untrue, you don't factcheck your uncle as you grow up.
My point exactly.

I used to listen to my father's war stories. If one factchecked them, you'd find that he'd been several places at the same time. I finally figured out that when when he said "We", he didn't mean his battalion. He meant "The Allies". Could Obama have been confused by this too?

[kallsop]

Given how meticulous Obama's people are I'm surprised they let this happen.


Given Obama's ever evolving make-it-up-as-you-go foreign policy, it's totally unsurprising that he runs his mouth and sometimes junk comes out. His handlers have a full time job, that's for sure.

Obama needs to slow down and think before he speaks. Oh my gosh, that means he'll be talking even slower than he does already. Strike that thought! On the bright side, we have lots more comedy material to look forward to from Obama before November.

[gdnp]

My father is from England, born in 1932. The family lore is that all his male cousins died fighting the Nazis in WWII.

I have quoted this many times, but the truth is, I don't know too much about the English side of my family. I barely met my grandparents. Quite honestly, I have no evidence my father even had any cousins.

Fortunately, I am not running for president, lest someone discover they actually died fighting the Italians.

[kallsop]

It's all over for the excuse brigade:

Obama admits reference to Auschwitz was wrong (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2740383620080527?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true)

That's a wrap.

[Pookster]

Given Obama's ever evolving make-it-up-as-you-go foreign policy, it's totally unsurprising that he runs his mouth and sometimes junk comes out. His handlers have a full time job, that's for sure.


Well, the make-it-up-as-you-go thingy seems to be an affliction that is more demonstrable with some of his critics, especially here.

Just sayin'

[Pookster]

It's all over for the excuse brigade:

Obama admits reference to Auschwitz was wrong (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2740383620080527?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true)

That's a wrap.

This is sooo yesterday news.

[Pookster]

Thanks, Pookster, and Undesired Walrus. I'm just surprised people were hopping all over me for going with something posted on the CBS News website. Granted, they have been wrong in the past, or at the very least, fake but accurate.

I meant to respond to this yesterday. We're all wrong at times. The inaccuracies floating around these days just makes everything look suspicious on its face to me. I don't mind admitting when I'm wrong. :)

[BPSCG]

I love Obama. He makes a simple mistake (for example, if Clinton had been evading rocket grenade launches instead of sniper fire in Bosnia) and the Right Wing Wurlitzer starting pumping out the attacks. The issue is hashed out, Obama's tale is completely verified except for the single detail he got wrong...Completely verified? Which part?

Let us agree this great-uncle exists.

Has it been verified that he was with the U.S. troops that liberated Auschwitz, whoops, sorry, liberated Buchenwald, whoops, sorry, again, marched into Buchenwald, whoops, sorry, yet again, liberated camps that were near Buchenwald?

Has it been verified he was even in the U.S. Army? I'm sure someone somewhere is tracking that down even as we discuss this.

Of course, there's no way to verify that his great-uncle went up into the attic, though I suppose it wouldn't be surprising. The question is, how long did he stay up there, and for what reason? Was it because of some post-traumatic stress, which would suit Obama's narrative perfectly and conveniently? Or was it just to put his old uniform in mothballs? (FWIW, I went up into our attic the day after Mrs. BPSCG and I were married, to put her wedding dress in storage, but if anyone suggests it was because I'd been traumatized by the wedding reception, or that I didn't come down leave the house for six months, he's a liar...)

The problem here is that Obama has a history of smudging the details of the narrative of his life (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/saywhat.asp), and it appears that he does it for the purpose of allowing voters to project their own desires onto him. The effect strikes me as being similar to someone's reading his own horoscope and being delighted at how accurately it describes him, when in truth it would describe almost anyone. And similarly, people hear what Obama says, and unless they parse what he says very carefully, and know their American history (good luck with that), they'll believe that Barack Obama's parents got together and came to America because of the Selma, Alabama civil rights marches in 1965.

We know that at least part of Obama's original story was either mistaken or a lie. Let's not jump to conclusions and assume that therefore "the rest of Obama's tale is completely verified."

[Pookster]

Completely verified? Which part?

Let us agree this great-uncle exists.

Has it been verified that he was with the U.S. troops that liberated Auschwitz, whoops, sorry, liberated Buchenwald, whoops, sorry, again, marched into Buchenwald, whoops, sorry, yet again, liberated camps that were near Buchenwald? ...


Has it also been verified that Obama was actually giving the speech in Las Cruces, New Mexico? Was he actually inside the city limits?

Oh, and Ohrdruf is a part of Buchenwald. I'm pretty sure that's been verified, but we can double check if you want?

[Upchurch]

has it also been verified that Obama was actually giving the speech in Las Cruces, New Mexico? Was he actually inside the city limits?

Oh, and Ohrdruf is a part of Buchenwald. I'm pretty sure that's been verified, but we can double check if you want?
Pook, don't you understand that Obama is eeeevil? People actually seem to like him and he's a politician. You can't get much more eeeevil than that. Naturally, we must keep digging until we find out how he is eeeevil.

Get with the program.

[Pookster]

Pook, don't you understand that Obama is eeeevil? People actually seem to like him and he's a politician. You can't get much more eeeevil than that. Naturally, we must keep digging until we find out how he is eeeevil.

Get with the program.

I'm just asking questions. Aren't you interested in the twoof ... err ... truth?

We need a real investigation!

[gdnp]

Would it not be more productive to debate which candidate has the better program to aide returning veterans with PTSD, traumatic brain injuries, etc?

Oh, I'm sorry. Off topic.

Carry on with your nit picking.

God help Obama if we find out this "uncle" of his was actually a first cousin once removed...

[boloboffin]

Completely verified? Which part?

Let us agree this great-uncle exists.

Has it been verified that he was with the U.S. troops that liberated Auschwitz, whoops, sorry, liberated Buchenwald, whoops, sorry, again, marched into Buchenwald, whoops, sorry, yet again, liberated camps that were near Buchenwald?

Has it been verified he was even in the U.S. Army? I'm sure someone somewhere is tracking that down even as we discuss this.

Of course, there's no way to verify that his great-uncle went up into the attic, though I suppose it wouldn't be surprising. The question is, how long did he stay up there, and for what reason? Was it because of some post-traumatic stress, which would suit Obama's narrative perfectly and conveniently? Or was it just to put his old uniform in mothballs? (FWIW, I went up into our attic the day after Mrs. BPSCG and I were married, to put her wedding dress in storage, but if anyone suggests it was because I'd been traumatized by the wedding reception, or that I didn't come down leave the house for six months, he's a liar...)

The problem here is that Obama has a history of smudging the details of the narrative of his life (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/saywhat.asp), and it appears that he does it for the purpose of allowing voters to project their own desires onto him. The effect strikes me as being similar to someone's reading his own horoscope and being delighted at how accurately it describes him, when in truth it would describe almost anyone. And similarly, people hear what Obama says, and unless they parse what he says very carefully, and know their American history (good luck with that), they'll believe that Barack Obama's parents got together and came to America because of the Selma, Alabama civil rights marches in 1965.

We know that at least part of Obama's original story was either mistaken or a lie. Let's not jump to conclusions and assume that therefore "the rest of Obama's tale is completely verified."

He said Auschwitz. It was Buchenwald. He's admitted his mistake. Everything else is true. Deal.

ETA: "...his grandmother's brother, Charlie Payne, helped liberate a Buchenwald sub-camp in April 1945 as part of the 89th Infantry Division."

http://www.star-telegram.com/466/story/666618.html

[BPSCG]

Has it also been verified that Obama was actually giving the speech in Las Cruces, New Mexico? Was he actually inside the city limits?

Oh, and Ohrdruf is a part of Buchenwald. I'm pretty sure that's been verified, but we can double check if you want?

Pook, don't you understand that Obama is eeeevil? People actually seem to like him and he's a politician. You can't get much more eeeevil than that. Naturally, we must keep digging until we find out how he is eeeevil.

Get with the program.

I'm just asking questions. Aren't you interested in the twoof ... err ... truth?

We need a real investigation!

Would it not be more productive to debate which candidate has the better program to aide returning veterans with PTSD, traumatic brain injuries, etc?

Oh, I'm sorry. Off topic.

Carry on with your nit picking.

God help Obama if we find out this "uncle" of his was actually a first cousin once removed...Sure, it would be more productive. Why don't you start a thread?

But do none of you think it's useful to discuss a candidate's veracity? Is the fact that he's been repeatedly disingenuous not important?

How do you square this news report (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4452990)...

Rev. Wright was part of the Obama campaign, as a member of the candidate's religious advisory board.


But, as reported by ABC News' Sunlen Miller, during an interview Friday with MSNBC's Keith Olberman, Sen. Obama confirmed that Rev. Wright is no longer on the Obama campaign spiritual advisory committee.
...with this statement (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/04/29/politics/fromtheroad/entry4056168.shtml) of Obama's?
“He was never my ‘spiritual advisor,’” Obama said. “He was never my spiritual mentor; he was my pastor.”At what point do you start thinking he's too free and easy with the truth? Does it only matter when Hillary Clinton lies?

[BPSCG]

Everything else is true.Of course, you have no way of knowing this.

[boloboffin]

Of course, you have no way of knowing this.

You have no real reason to question it.

[Cleon]

You have no real reason to question it.

Of course he does! Obama said "Auschwitz" rather than "Buchenwald," which makes him a lying liar whose pants flame to the heavens.

(It's really funny watching the conservatives manufacturing reasons to dislike Obama. Especially on questions on honesty, after the past eight years.)

[daredelvis]

Of course he does! Obama said "Auschwitz" rather than "Buchenwald," which makes him a lying liar whose pants flame to the heavens.

(It's really funny watching the conservatives manufacturing reasons to dislike Obama. Especially on questions on honesty, after the past eight years.)

Especially on the issue of personal stories from someone old enough to remember the Reagan years. Confirmation bias anyone??

Daredelvis

[Upchurch]

How do you square this news report (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4452990)...

...with this statement (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/04/29/politics/fromtheroad/entry4056168.shtml) of Obama's?
Wright was on Obama's African American Religious Leadership Committee with over 170 other ministers. Assuming Wright had 1/170th of an advisory voice on a committee that was never called "the Obama campaign spiritual advisory committee", you are right.

On the other hand, if you consider that Wright never had the title "spiritual advisor" (note the quotation marks in your quote) then it squares just fine.

How far are you willing to stretch this to make your point?

At what point do you start thinking he's too free and easy with the truth?
Again, when it is something of substance.

Does where his great-uncle served matter when the point he is talking about is taking care of our veterans? Does whether Wright was on some committee of Obama's matter at all for anything?

[BPSCG]

You have no real reason to question it.Then it should all be easily proved. Have at it. I'll be sitting here, waiting patiently.

Start with the six months without leaving the house part. You can also explain how you know he stayed in the house because of PTSD, and not because he was just a lazy layabout like his grandfather (you know, the guy who dismissed his grandmother's nervousness about a black guy who approached her at the bus stop on her way to work, prompting Obama to suggest his grandmother was a racist?).

See how artfully Obama does this? What does he actually tell you?

Great uncle saw Buchenwald.
Great uncle came home.
Great uncle went up to the attic.
Great uncle didn't leave the house for six months.That's it. He doesn't actually say great uncle had PTSD, he doesn't actually say great uncle's allegedly odd behavior was the result of seeing the horrors of Buchenwald. He lets you fill in the blanks and connect the dots, he lets you draw the conclusion that what he saw at Buchenwald shook him so badly that he wouldn't leave the house for six months. But Obama never explicitly says that. And if it turns out to be untrue, if it turns out that, say, his great uncle was in the house those six months because he fell down the stairs coming out of the attic and broke both legs and a few ribs...

And given Obama's previous smudging of the truth, I ask again, at what point do you start questioning his veracity? At what point do you start saying, "these aren't just harmless fibs; they go to his character"?

[ImaginalDisc]

Could you try again, BPSCG, but be more despicable this time?

"He doesn't actually say great uncle had PTSD, he doesn't actually say great uncle's allegedly odd behavior was the result of seeing the horrors of Buchenwald. He lets you fill in the blanks and connect the dots, he lets you draw the conclusion that what he saw at Buchenwald shook him so badly that he wouldn't leave the house for six months. But Obama never explicitly says that."

Who would have diagnosed his uncle with PTSD, a time traveling psychologist? The term didn't exist in usage until the 70's, and didn't exist as part of the formal language of mental health until 1980.

If Obama had claimed his uncle had PTSD, rather than describing symptoms consistent with PTSD, I'm sure you would have jumped up and down screaming that the condition couldn't have diagnosed then.

[gdnp]

That's it. He doesn't actually say great uncle had PTSD, he doesn't actually say great uncle's allegedly odd behavior was the result of seeing the horrors of Buchenwald. He lets you fill in the blanks and connect the dots, he lets you draw the conclusion that what he saw at Buchenwald shook him so badly that he wouldn't leave the house for six months. But Obama never explicitly says that. And if it turns out to be untrue, if it turns out that, say, his great uncle was in the house those six months because he fell down the stairs coming out of the attic and broke both legs and a few ribs...

BSPCG, what part of "family story" did you not understand? This man returned from WWII more than a DECADE before Obama was born. So his great uncle's behavior and motivation is irrelevant as long as Obama had no reason to doubt the story his family told him.

[Upchurch]

And given Obama's previous smudging of the truth, I ask again, at what point do you start questioning his veracity? At what point do you start saying, "these aren't just harmless fibs; they go to his character"?
How about when those harmless fibs start leading the country to an unnecessary war? I'd think that would be a big red flag, right there.

[varwoche]

Start with the six months without leaving the house part. You can also explain how you know he stayed in the house because of PTSD And when were done investigating Obama's great uncle, let's say we pour over the detailed military records of three generations of McCains and compare them pixel by pixel to McCain's book. I'll bet cash $ we can find all sorts of discrepancies. :confused:

(you know, the guy who dismissed his grandmother's nervousness about a black guy who approached her at the bus stop on her way to work, prompting Obama to suggest his grandmother was a racist?). It's like a poorly written spin-bot is generating this stuff it's so ridiculous.

That's it. He doesn't actually say great uncle had PTSD If only unborn Obama could have conducted a psychological evaluation.

he doesn't actually say great uncle's allegedly odd behavior was the result of seeing the horrors of Buchenwald ... But Obama never explicitly says that. Maybe Obama doesn't know precisely why his great uncle purportedly had problems. You know, that not even born yet thing.

[Upchurch]

If only unborn Obama could have conducted a psychological evaluation.
Worse, Unborn Obama could have only diagnosed his great-uncle with shell shock. We would need Time-Traveling Obama to diagnose his great-uncle with PTSD.

(I'm starting to see a line of action figures: Underwater Obama, Outer Space Obama, etc. Unfortunately, Bowling-Fun Obama would suck and Flight Suit Obama would just be a rip-off.)


eta: And, of course, ImaginalDisc beat me to it. :p

[Uzzy]

So, how about a debate on policy? Anyone up for that rather then this meaningless drivel?

[Pookster]

But do none of you think it's useful to discuss a candidate's veracity? Is the fact that he's been repeatedly disingenuous not important?

Sure, if its done objectively, reasonably, and fairly. But when the critic is discovered quoting things out of context, misquoting, and outright putting words in the candidate's mouth, don't complain when you're ridiculed for making a post like this.

[Tricky]

Especially on the issue of personal stories from someone old enough to remember the Reagan years. Confirmation bias anyone??


LOL. No lie!

Remember the time at the Medal of Honor ceremonies when Reagan told the story of the heroic pilot who refused to bail out of his plane because his gunner was wounded. They tried to find out who this brave pilot was, and it finally turned out that it was the plot of a fictional movie, A Wing and a Prayer. Yeah, Obama's gonna have a hard time topping that.

[skeptical]

And given Obama's previous smudging of the truth, I ask again, at what point do you start questioning his veracity? At what point do you start saying, "these aren't just harmless fibs; they go to his character"?

Can you explain to me why it was amusing and charming when Reagan would regale his audiences with stories that were fabricated from whole cloth, but when Obama makes a simple mistake in a story that appears to be mostly correct, its a question of his "character"?

For example, Reagan claimed that he served in an army unit that filmed death camps in WWII, when in reality he never even left the US. He told this to the Israeli Prime Minister. Now THAT is a whopper, making up a story about yourself in WWII and telling it to a visiting dignitary. If you are going to put an inability to tell the truth up as an indicator of questionable character, Reagan had character issues in spades. Funny as I don't recall anyone on the right hopping up and down about his character, then or now. In fact one might say he is quite revered in such circles. http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15680.html

But the real problem with all of this is quite succinctly pointed out in the link: "What difference does it make? Has the political world become so consumed with bile, and so overwhelmed with trivia, that this harmless error is evidence of something important?"

Indeed. I would expect a bit more substance on a board that is filled with critical thinkers, but I guess this is why I have often thought that politics is religion for the secular minded.

[gdnp]

LOL. No lie!

Remember the time at the Medal of Honor ceremonies when Reagan told the story of the heroic pilot who refused to bail out of his plane because his gunner was wounded. They tried to find out who this brave pilot was, and it finally turned out that it was the plot of a fictional movie, A Wing and a Prayer. Yeah, Obama's gonna have a hard time topping that.

To quote the great communicator: "There you go again..."

[ImaginalDisc]

Can you explain to me why it was amusing and charming when Reagan would regale his audiences with stories that were fabricated from whole cloth, but when Obama makes a simple mistake in a story that appears to be mostly correct, its a question of his "character"?

Do you want a contemporary apology for Reagan's antics, or a retrospective one?

A) Reagan's a great communicator who knows what the true conservative values are and knows that the American people need to feel good about him, I mean themselves.

B) He stopped communism with the clever use of rhetoric and jelly beans, and how dare you make fun of the dead, and the somewhat mad. How can you criticise his speaches when he destroyed communism with his perfect smile? If even one word had been misplaced, Mr. Gorbyportwinestainface might not have brought down that wall!

[Tricky]

Do you want a contemporary apology for Reagan's antics, or a retrospective one?

A) Reagan's a great communicator who knows what the true conservative values are and knows that the American people need to feel good about him, I mean themselves.

B) He stopped communism with the clever use of rhetoric and jelly beans, and how dare you make fun of the dead, and the somewhat mad. How can you criticise his speaches when he destroyed communism with his perfect smile? If even one word had been misplaced, Mr. Gorbyportwinestainface might not have brought down that wall!
:mad:Yeah, how dare they make fun of Reagan. When he made those mistakes he was old and sick and younger than McCain is now....

[skeptical]

Do you want a contemporary apology for Reagan's antics, or a retrospective one?

<apology info snipped for brevity>

I suppose what really galls me is the _outrage_, the sheer apoplexy reflected by the echo chamber about what could only be called a minor gaffe in a folksy story told at a holiday gathering. Not exactly something a reasonable person would think should even be a blip on the radar screen.

What I really don't get is why it is so difficult to just attack Obama, or any candidate for that matter, on policy grounds. There are ample opportunities to exploit weaknesses in each candidates substantive positions, but instead its primarily this asinine drivel. But, reading some of the comments on the blog posts, I suppose concentrating on substance is a bit much to ask from a lot of people.

[corplinx]

And when were done investigating Obama's great uncle, let's say we pour over the detailed military records of three generations of McCains and compare them pixel by pixel to McCain's book. I'll bet cash $ we can find all sorts of discrepancies. :confused:
.

I'm sure of it too. However, when it goes into a stump speech I'm sure it whatever claims are made will be parsed as well.

Let's reflect back on what he said:
""I had a uncle (1) who was one of the, who was part of the first(2) American troops to go into Auschwitz(3) and liberate the concentration camps(4),"

Now, here is the truthful version:
"I had a great-uncle who helped liberate the Langenstein camp."

That is a pretty startling difference. By omitting "great" he makes the relation closer. His link to a patriotic concentration camp busting person is closer by omission.

He then stretches the truth by saying he was part of the first. He wasn't first to enter Auschwitz or Buchenwald. His troop was the first to go into Langenstein-Zwieberge. But, Obama's clarification is that he meant Buchenwald. If you expand Langenstein-Zwieberge to Buchenwald proper however, he was not part of the first troops there.

He then substitutes the much more well known extermination camp Auschwitz for the much lesser known Langenstein-Zwieberge sub-camp. This is such a dramatic difference in scale that one wonders if it was intentional. Langenstein-Zwieberge was not an extermination camp.

Finally he uses camps in the plural. However, the wikipedia page from the 83rd only has record of them liberating the one sub-camp.


With all of this in mind, why does one have to criticize the right wing web sites for being tough on Obama over this. The only difference I see between this and Hillary's sniper story is that he has the plausible deniability of saying his (great) uncle told him that way. However, he would probably say "great uncle" in this case to put distance between them.

He told a tall tale. Plain and simple. Its really not that big a deal except that the Obama supporters made a lot of noise over the Hillary sniper story and turnabout is after all fair play.

Edited to Add: The other reason its getting play is because McCain/Hillary are morally compromised people who lie. Obama is the new honest change guy. Since this story runs counter to the image he has cultivated, its news. I'm sorry you don't like that, but thats the way news works.

[Tricky]

Not necessarily, Cor. As I've pointed out, in order to be a lie, the person who tells the story has to know it is untrue. It is quite possible that Obama believed his relative's tale and just repeated it. Careless, perhaps, when you know all the words you say will be scrutinized down to their phonetic correctness.

It is hard to argue that Hillary didn't know her story was... erm... exaggerated.

[Pookster]

I'm sure of it too. However, when it goes into a stump speech I'm sure it whatever claims are made will be parsed as well.

Let's reflect back on what he said:
""I had a uncle (1) who was one of the, who was part of the first(2) American troops to go into Auschwitz(3) and liberate the concentration camps(4),"

Now, here is the truthful version:
"I had a great-uncle who helped liberate the Langenstein camp."

That is a pretty startling difference. By omitting "great" he makes the relation closer. His link to a patriotic concentration camp busting person is closer by omission. ...

I have great aunts and uncles. I've never called them anything but aunt and uncle. I didn't omit the "great" to make them appear to be a closer relation. That's just what they were called.

This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about in my prior post. This is hardly an objective, reasonable, or fair discussion of veracity. I already caught you changing words in a prior post. Now we have this level of critique. This has gone way beyond pathetic.

[corplinx]

I have great aunts and uncles. I've never called them anything but aunt and uncle. I didn't omit the "great" to make them appear to be a closer relation. That's just what they were called.

This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about in my prior post. This is hardly an objective, reasonable, or fair discussion of veracity. I already caught you changing words in a prior post. Now we have this level of critique. This has gone way beyond pathetic.

I'm merely defending the right to criticize it. I think ultimately its pointless. Politicians exaggerate. Politicians stretch the truth. This isn't a new idea to I don't find Obama's tall tale special.

I just resent the idea that somehow its improper to discuss it. This indignation that with all the problems we face, how dare people focus on something so trivial as a statement that runs counter to the image of the candidate seems very convenient to me.

Tricky: I still hold to that. Relatives war stories are biggers than the wars themselves. Without being psychic, there isn't a way to know. I was just playing devil's advocate.

[joobz]

I'm sure of it too. However, when it goes into a stump speech I'm sure it whatever claims are made will be parsed as well.

Let's reflect back on what he said:
""I had a uncle (1) who was one of the, who was part of the first(2) American troops to go into Auschwitz(3) and liberate the concentration camps(4),"

Now, here is the truthful version:
"I had a great-uncle who helped liberate the Langenstein camp."

That is a pretty startling difference. By omitting "great" he makes the relation closer. His link to a patriotic concentration camp busting person is closer by omission.
that's stupidly wrong. My wife's family calls every older relative who is not a direct blood line (e.g., grandparent, parent) uncle/aunt. They do not distinguish great uncle, uncle in law... Even Some family friends are also called sometimes called uncle.

Similarly, all cousins are called cousins. I never here her say, she's my second cousin twice removed. Note that she is closer to some of her second cousins than first and some of the family friend "Uncles" than blood relation uncles. But the conotation of "second cousin" and "family friend" would imply the opposite.

He then stretches the truth by saying he was part of the first. He wasn't first to enter Auschwitz or Buchenwald. His troop was the first to go into Langenstein-Zwieberge. But, Obama's clarification is that he meant Buchenwald. If you expand Langenstein-Zwieberge to Buchenwald proper however, he was not part of the first troops there.
So You are upset because he wasn't part of the troops to first enter Buchenwald but part of the First troops to enter Langenstein-Zwieberge, which was part of the Buchenwald camps. That's a silly complaint.

He then substitutes the much more well known extermination camp Auschwitz for the much lesser known Langenstein-Zwieberge sub-camp. This is such a dramatic difference in scale that one wonders if it was intentional. Langenstein-Zwieberge was not an extermination camp.Only if "one" has a strong desire to hate the person giving the recount of a family story.


Finally he uses camps in the plural. However, the wikipedia page from the 83rd only has record of them liberating the one sub-camp.
Ahhh. good catch. It is completely unlikely that the family story he was relaying had such gross errors. I mean, I always fact check every family story I'm told before repeating it to others. :rolleyes:


With all of this in mind, why does one have to criticize the right wing web sites for being tough on Obama over this. The only difference I see between this and Hillary's sniper story is that he has the plausible deniability of saying his (great) uncle told him that way. However, he would probably say "great uncle" in this case to put distance between them.that's a nice supposition, which has no bearing on reality.



He told a tall tale. Plain and simple. Its really not that big a deal except that the Obama supporters made a lot of noise over the Hillary sniper story and turnabout is after all fair play.

Edited to Add: The other reason its getting play is because McCain/Hillary are morally compromised people who lie. Obama is the new honest change guy. Since this story runs counter to the image he has cultivated, its news. I'm sorry you don't like that, but thats the way news works.
That'll teach him to tell family stories!

[Pookster]

... He then substitutes the much more well known extermination camp Auschwitz for the much lesser known Langenstein-Zwieberge sub-camp. This is such a dramatic difference in scale that one wonders if it was intentional. Langenstein-Zwieberge was not an extermination camp.

Finally he uses camps in the plural. However, the wikipedia page from the 83rd only has record of them liberating the one sub-camp.

You might want to read this post by Brainster ...

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3739646&postcount=143

And Ohrdruf is a part of Buchenwald.

Also, where did Obama "substitute" Auschwitz for the much lesser known Langenstein-Zwieberge sub-camp? Am I missing something here? I could've sworn he said it should've been Buchenwald? Help a girl out, won't ya?

What is with this "extermination" camp thing with you. Did it need a license or certificate to be a place where prisoners were killed? Did not being "technically" an extermination camp make what happened there "such a dramatic difference in scale"?

From your wiki link ...

Although Buchenwald technically was not an extermination camp, it was a site of an extraordinary number of deaths.

A primary cause of the deaths was illness due to harsh camp conditions, and hunger was also prevalent. Malnourished and suffering from disease, many were literally "worked to death", as inmates had only the choice between slave labour or inevitable execution. Many inmates died as a result of human experimentations or fell victim to arbitrary acts perpetrated by the SS guards, and yet other prisoners were simply murdered—the two primary methods of execution were shooting and hanging. At one point, the ashes of dead prisoners would be returned to their families in a sheet metal box—postage due, to be paid by the family. This practice was eventually stopped as more and more prisoners died.[citation needed]

Summary executions of Soviet POWs were also carried out at Buchenwald. At least 1,000 Soviet POWs were selected in 1941-1942 by a task force of three Dresden Gestapo officers and sent to the camp for immediate liquidation by a gunshot to the back of the neck, the infamous Genickschuss, using a purpose-built facility.

The camp was also a site of large-scale trials for vaccines against epidemic typhus in 1942 and 1943 . In all 729 inmates were used as test subjects, with 280 of them dying as a result. Because of their long association in cramped quarters in Block 46, the typhus killed more people and infections lasted longer than would have been the case had healthy adults been infected with the disease.


FFS, man. Get a freakin' grip. Sheesh.

[Cleon]

???

In my life, I've been privileged to know multiple great-uncles, great-aunts, and even a few great-great uncles and aunts.

I always just referred to them as "uncle," "aunt," and so forth.

The idea that calling him "uncle" was intentional in order to make him seem "closer" is ridiculous.

[boloboffin]

Unbelievable. Obama says Auschwitz instead of Buchenwald and it's a tall tale. Unbelievable.

Hatred is a sad, sad thing.

[Pookster]

I'm merely defending the right to criticize it.

No, you're being ludicrous. Please tell me you're better than the recent posts you've made on this thread. You were really just trying to be silly? To pull our leg? Right?

I think ultimately its pointless. Politicians exaggerate. Politicians stretch the truth. This isn't a new idea to I don't find Obama's tall tale special.

So that gives you license to do the same?

I just resent the idea that somehow its improper to discuss it. This indignation that with all the problems we face, how dare people focus on something so trivial as a statement that runs counter to the image of the candidate seems very convenient to me.

I'm not complaining that it's being discussed. It's the way it's being discussed. There's no attempt to be objective, reasonable, or fair with posts like you and some others are making. What you are doing is pathetic and should be beneath you.

Tricky: I still hold to that. Relatives war stories are biggers than the wars themselves. Without being psychic, there isn't a way to know. I was just playing devil's advocate.

If only.

[Tricky]

The idea that calling him "uncle" was intentional in order to make him seem "closer" is ridiculous.
True. If they wanted to make them seem closer, they'd do like we do in Alabama. Call 'em "Uncle Daddy".


















(Of course, in Alabama, that is often an accurate statement of relationship.)

[Tricky]

If only.
Actually, Pookster, there is some truth in what he says. I've know Corplinx a long time and it is quite accurate to say he loves arguing for the sake of arguing and is not averse to taking a position that isn't necessarily his own. He's a pretty good guy once you get to understand him, but can be a real insult-dog in an argument.

[daredelvis]

Actually, Pookster, there is some truth in what he says. I've know Corplinx a long time and it is quite accurate to say he loves arguing for the sake of arguing and is not averse to taking a position that isn't necessarily his own. He's a pretty good guy once you get to understand him, but can be a real insult-dog in an argument.

And on top of that Corplinx was the first in this thread to introduce the "you don't factcheck your uncle" truism.

Daredelvis

[ImaginalDisc]

???

In my life, I've been privileged to know multiple great-uncles, great-aunts, and even a few great-great uncles and aunts.

I always just referred to them as "uncle," "aunt," and so forth.

The idea that calling him "uncle" was intentional in order to make him seem "closer" is ridiculous.

My grandmother's older sister had eight kids, and each of her kids married and had at least four children. That branch of the family is so large and complicated that everyone younger than her generation calls her Tia Mami regardless of their degree of relatedness, translation: Aunt Mom. Her husband of a bajillion years Tio Papi translation: Uncle Dad.

Unless you're European aristocracy, who always refers to their relations by this or that many greats, seconds or thirds, and eight times removed?

[Darth Rotor]

Obama's grand-uncle spent 6 months in the attic because he was also the first US soldier to find Anne Frank's diary.

Kiddie porn can be horrific, I hear.

Why are you looking at me like that? :confused:

[Pookster]

Actually, Pookster, there is some truth in what he says. I've know Corplinx a long time and it is quite accurate to say he loves arguing for the sake of arguing and is not averse to taking a position that isn't necessarily his own. He's a pretty good guy once you get to understand him, but can be a real insult-dog in an argument.

That may be true, but not in his most recent posts. I'll take your word for other times.

[Pookster]

And on top of that Corplinx was the first in this thread to introduce the "you don't factcheck your uncle" truism.

Daredelvis

It was how he morphed some of Obama's words into something he didn't say that raised the flag with me. He may have accidentally done it, but he's done it several times now in this thread. It just rang of 9/11 truther tactics to me, but I'll assume this isn't what he's like.

[Darth Rotor]

It was how he morphed some of Obama's words into something he didn't say that raised the flag with me. He may have accidentally done it, but he's done it several times now in this thread. It just rang of 9/11 truther tactics to me, but I'll assume this isn't what he's like.
Not well played, Pookster.

Corplinx has made more sense than you have in this thread. He did not use any truther tactics, he actually got down into the weeds and tried to sort out the historical merit of this non-story, made an allowance for fact checking ( or not ) one's uncles' war stories, whilst the rest of you lot were having a cat fight.

When you reach his level of candor, I'll let you know.

Obama ought to be smart enough to know that when he speaks, he'll be examined. It is the year 2008. Pretending that playing fast and loose with facts is OK does not match his marketing scheme, which is to be a wind of fresh air blowing the same old hot air out of Washington.

In this case, his penchant for speaking in an undisciplined fashion resulted in a gotcha.

No, it's not curtains for the free world, but in a matter of image management, which Presidential campaigns are, you are a fool to give your opponent weapons to use against you when you are packaged as someone who is above standard political BS. He'll learn, and adapt, or he'll bury himself with careless remarks like that on matters of a bit more moment unless his opponents are more careless.

Yay, let's see who is less careless. We really have set the bar for a 2 foot high jump here. :mad:

Please pardon me whilst I vomit.

DR

[Pookster]

Corplinx has made more sense than you have in this thread. He did not use any truther tactics, he actually got down into the weeds and tried to sort out the historical truth, made an allowance for fact checking ( or not ) one's uncles' war stories, whilst the rest of you lot were having a cat fight.

Too cute. Sure he got down in the weeds ... and the gutter too. He's misquoted Obama several times now. If he admits he was wrong, then no problem. If you saw a cat fight in my posts, then you weren't reading them.

When you reach his level of candor, I'll let you know.

I'll be waiting with bated breath. I can only hope to obtain your high opinion.

Obama ought to be smart enough to know that when he speaks, he'll be examined. It is the year 2008. Pretending that playing fast and loose with facts is OK does not match is marketing scheme, which is to be a wind of fresh air blowing the same old hot air out of Washington.

But in this case (and some others on this forum lately), the level of critique has been absolutely ridiculous, if not outright dishonest. I've called several on it and pointed out where they were doing just that. I'd hope those on this forum were above the gutter tactics that I've seen.

[Tricky]

Not well played, Pookster.

Corplinx has made more sense than you have in this thread. He did not use any truther tactics, he actually got down into the weeds and tried to sort out the historical merit of this non-story, made an allowance for fact checking ( or not ) one's uncles' war stories, whilst the rest of you lot were having a cat fight.

When you reach his level of candor, I'll let you know.

Obama ought to be smart enough to know that when he speaks, he'll be examined. It is the year 2008. Pretending that playing fast and loose with facts is OK does not match his marketing scheme, which is to be a wind of fresh air blowing the same old hot air out of Washington.

In this case, his penchant for speaking in an undisciplined fashion resulted in a gotcha.

No, it's not curtains for the free world, but in a matter of image management, which Presidential campaigns are, you are a fool to give your opponent weapons to use against you when you are packaged as someone who is above standard political BS. He'll learn, and adapt, or he'll bury himself with careless remarks like that on matters of a bit more moment unless his opponents are more careless.

Yay, let's see who is less careless. We really have set the bar for a 2 foot high jump here. :mad:

Please pardon me whilst I vomit.

Not a good backhand return, Darth.

It has been difficult and frustrating to try to keep the discussion from degenerating into a examination of minutae that is not a discussion of the "gaffe", but an attempt to portray Obama as untrustworthy because he confused the names of two death camps. Sure, politicians should know not to shoot from the lip, but if you microscopically examine every syllable that comes out of their mouth, you're going to find a few mistakes. Obama is far from the worst of the three candidates in this respect.

And there is some truth that this kind of "you made a tiny factual mistake" argument does bear some resemblance to the logic of conspiracy theorists and ID-supporters who think that if you can throw doubt on the tiniest aspect of a thing, then the whole thing is rotten.

Now I'm not saying Corplinx is one of the guiltier parties, but he is, in fact, the insult dog and his attacks are biting. That's his style, and I don't think it is by accident. When a dog is biting you, it is sometimes difficult to put that out of your mind, stand back and admire the dog for his biting skills. You can't expect newbies to be familiar with all the history of some of our more, um, colorful posters.

I also think your characterization of Pookster is way off target. He/she hasn't approached the level of vituperation of some of the participants here, and has even conceded a point or two.

So take some pepto and watch the tennis game play out. This isn't a love match.

[Darth Rotor]

Not a good backhand return, Darth.
Well, I was using a seven iron. :boggled:
It has been difficult and frustrating to try to keep the discussion from degenerating into a examination of minutae that is not a discussion of the "gaffe", but an attempt to portray Obama as untrustworthy because he confused the names of two death camps.
I read the whole thread. Not sure why. Corplinx "pandering to the Jewish vote/using Holocaust as a symbol" is about the only sense anyone made beyond a pol once again tripping over his tongue and talking too much.
Sure, politicians should know not to shoot from the lip, but if you microscopically examine every syllable that comes out of their mouth, you're going to find a few mistakes. Obama is far from the worst of the three candidates in this respect.
He is the best speaker of the three, period, with the slight problem of being unable to execute pith as a method.
And there is some truth that this kind of "you made a tiny factual mistake" argument does bear some resemblance to the logic of conspiracy theorists and ID-supporters who think that if you can throw doubt on the tiniest aspect of a thing, then the whole thing is rotten.
No. Corplinx being called out as a Troofer? Tricky, I don't think I much care for anyone trying to tar my brother in Troofer slamming like that. Sorry. Be sorta like some SOB calling you a commie. I might get a bit exercised. (Aside: if you are reading, EJ, please note that I know how to use that term.)
You can't expect newbies to be familiar with all the history of some of our more, um, colorful posters.
True.
I also think your characterization of Pookster is way off target. He/she hasn't approached the level of vituperation of some of the participants here, and has even conceded a point or two.
OK, so my loyalty to my fellow Troofer Slamming Bro (remember, I came into JREF forums in attack mode on 9-11 troofers) got the better of me.

@ Pookster: I'll take another look.
So take some pepto and watch the tennis game play out. This isn't a love match.
Of course not, it's politics, which these days means

"How shall I compare thee to a pile of manure? Let me count the ways."

SSDD

DR

[ImaginalDisc]

Of course not, it's politics, which these days means

"How shall I compare thee to a pile of manure? Let me count the ways."

SSDD

DR

These days? You expose your ignorance. Jefferson hired people to smear his own VP in print. Cicero, in the senate, mocked Julius Ceasar for taking it up the ***.

Never outside of a political science text book has politics been tidy, honest, or fair. Whatever Golden Age of fair play you imagine existed in the past is a figment.

[gdnp]

God help Obama if we find out this "uncle" of his was actually a first cousin once removed...

When I said, this, I thought it would be the height of nit-picking absurdity. Only now I see that Corplinx considers it a gaffe that Obama said "uncle" and not "great uncle." So I have to raise the bar...

God help Obama if we find out that this "great uncle" of his was actually a step-great uncle or worse, a step-great-uncle-in-law...

I can just imagine the next gaffe:

Reporter: what's that you're eating for lunch, Mr. Obama?

Obama: It's ham and Swiss cheese on rye bread.

Reporter: I just checked with the guy at the deli. He says it's not ham, it's honey ham;, it's not Swiss cheese, it's Emmentaler cheese made in Finland. Actually, it's not even cheese. It's cheese food product. And the bread is not rye, it's Russian Rye

JREF thread: Obama's Russian deli gaffe: why can't he tell the truth? Why does he hate America?

[corplinx]

If you want to talk about issues of substance, there is a forum called "Politics" where you can discuss issues in the abstract. This is the Presidential election subforum and as we all know, elections aren't about the issues. They are about feeling, perceptions, memes, spin, image, and popularity. If people really voted on the issues, they'd all write in votes for much better people than they are offered.

The "gotcha of the day" seems to mostly offend people who support the candidate the gotcha is about.

[ImaginalDisc]

If you want to talk about issues of substance, there is a forum called "Politics" where you can discuss issues in the abstract. This is the Presidential election subforum and as we all know, elections aren't about the issues. They are about feeling, perceptions, memes, spin, image, and popularity. If people really voted on the issues, they'd all write in votes for much better people than they are offered.

The "gotcha of the day" seems to mostly offend people who support the candidate the gotcha is about.

You know, even though I just pointed hat politics have aways been ugly and dirt, that doesn't actually excuse the behavior. You seem to relish it in particular and are whining at those of us who find this sort of behavior base.

[Darth Rotor]

These days? You expose your ignorance. Jefferson hired people to smear his own VP in print.
Nope, I am confining my remarks to the present. It's called "staying on topic." Try it sometime.

Would you care to retract the pointless, and gratuitous, personal attack?

DR

[ImaginalDisc]

Nope, I am confining my remarks to the present. It's called "staying on topic." Try it sometime.

Would you care to retract the pointless, and gratuitous, personal attack?

DR

"These days" implies a comparison to other days. A foolish, groundless one in this case.

I know of no such pointless or gratuitous attacks I have made against you.

[corplinx]

You know, even though I just pointed hat politics have aways been ugly and dirt, that doesn't actually excuse the behavior. You seem to relish it in particular and are whining at those of us who find this sort of behavior base.

I don't relish it. Its a crooked game, but its the only game in town. If we weren't interested in it, we wouldn't be reading this subforum. This subforum is mostly about the crap of the day since thats what elections are about.

[Pookster]

If you want to talk about issues of substance, there is a forum called "Politics" where you can discuss issues in the abstract. This is the Presidential election subforum and as we all know, elections aren't about the issues. They are about feeling, perceptions, memes, spin, image, and popularity. If people really voted on the issues, they'd all write in votes for much better people than they are offered.

The "gotcha of the day" seems to mostly offend people who support the candidate the gotcha is about.

The "gotchas" can be interesting to discuss ... from both sides. It's when it gets to the level of misquotes and/or dishonesty that I'd hope we all could rise above. There's enough fun to be had without those kinds of things.

[Pookster]

It was how he morphed some of Obama's words into something he didn't say that raised the flag with me. He may have accidentally done it, but he's done it several times now in this thread. It just rang of 9/11 truther tactics to me, but I'll assume this isn't what he's like.

... No. Corplinx being called out as a Troofer? Tricky, I don't think I much care for anyone trying to tar my brother in Troofer slamming like that. ...

Oh, ffs. You obviously aren't reading my posts. Definitely, give another look. Sheesh.

[Texas]

Are you so jealous of Obama's gaffe that you feel the need to make a complete and utter fabrication yourself?

I really resent being called a liar. From his book

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjQ2ZTMyZTc2OTNkY2FkZDFlNzI2Zjg0MDVjZWE1ZDk=


"A man asked me for money yesterday. While I was waiting for the bus."

"That's all?"

Her lips pursed with irritation. "He was very aggressive, Barry. Very aggressive. I gave him a dollar and he kept asking. If the bus hadn't come, I think he might have hit me over the head."

I returned to the kitchen. Gramps was rinsing his cup, his back turned to me. "Listen," I said, "why don't you just let me give her a ride. She seems pretty upset."

"By a panhandler?"

"Yeah, I know - but it's probably a little scary for her, seeing some big man block her way. It's really no big deal."

He turned around and I saw now that he was shaking. "It is a big deal. It's a big deal to me. She's been bothered by men before. You know why she's so scared this time? I'll tell you why. Before you came in, she told me the fella was black." [Italics in original.] He whispered the word. "That's the real reason she's bothered. And I just don't think that's right."

[varwoche]

I really resent being called a liar. From his book

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjQ2ZTMyZTc2OTNkY2FkZDFlNzI2Zjg0MDVjZWE1ZDk= It's nice to see someone admit they made a mistake, seeing as this shows your statement wasn't truthful.

[WildCat]

???

In my life, I've been privileged to know multiple great-uncles, great-aunts, and even a few great-great uncles and aunts.

I always just referred to them as "uncle," "aunt," and so forth.

The idea that calling him "uncle" was intentional in order to make him seem "closer" is ridiculous.
I also called my great aunt "aunt", but when describing the relationship to others I always used "great aunt". I suspect you do also.

[WildCat]

So, how about a debate on policy? Anyone up for that rather then this meaningless drivel?
Oh, I'd love to have a thread about his endorsement of the execrable Todd "the toddler" Stroger for Chairman of the Cook County Board, but I doubt anyone here is really that aware of how Barack was completely manipulated by the sleazeball Dem power brokers in his home territory. And it would literally take nearly a whole book to explain the full story behind that fiasco.

[Texas]

Completely verified? Which part?

Let us agree this great-uncle exists.

Has it been verified that he was with the U.S. troops that liberated Auschwitz, whoops, sorry, liberated Buchenwald, whoops, sorry, again, marched into Buchenwald, whoops, sorry, yet again, liberated camps that were near Buchenwald?

Has it been verified he was even in the U.S. Army? I'm sure someone somewhere is tracking that down even as we discuss this.


"

Well just to add another interesting bit to Obama's Narrative about his family background in the military is this quote from his Race Speech discussing his white grandfather:http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/848200,speech031808.article



am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II

If I am not mistaken Obama said his great uncle served in Patton's army. It is not out of the question but it makes you wonder since Patton was considered the roughest toughest WW2 general and both his Grandfather and Great Uncle served under him. I had 3 uncles and my father that seved in WW2 and none of them were under the same command.

[Texas]

It's nice to see someone admit they made a mistake, seeing as this shows your statement wasn't truthful.

Just incredible.

[Tricky]

Well, I was using a seven iron. :boggled: I could have sworn you were using a wedgie.

I read the whole thread. Not sure why. Corplinx "pandering to the Jewish vote/using Holocaust as a symbol" is about the only sense anyone made beyond a pol once again tripping over his tongue and talking too much.
It's a variation on Godwin. Obmenemies (yes, I coined the word) are showing disproportionate outrage, and it would seem to a casual observer that they are trying to dis him for not knowing which satanic, evil Nazi camp he is talking about. If he mistook Fort Stockton for Fort Sumter,
would they be so angry?


He is the best speaker of the three, period, with the slight problem of being unable to execute pith as a method.
Ah, the soft prejudice of high expectations.:D


No. Corplinx being called out as a Troofer? Tricky, I don't think I much care for anyone trying to tar my brother in Troofer slamming like that.
As Pookster rightly noted and I gave some explanation, he was using what might be called Troofer tactics, i.e. focusing on a tiny specific to make a general assessment. I don't think Cor was the worst culprit, but sometimes in a thread like this, you confuse who posted what. I've made that mistake many times.

Be sorta like some SOB calling you a commie. I might get a bit exercised.
Well don't. I don't mind being called a commie. Some of my positions would rightly be described as communistic, though certainly not all. The same can be said of the US government. "Troofer" is certainly a much worse insult.

OK, so my loyalty to my fellow Troofer Slamming Bro (remember, I came into JREF forums in attack mode on 9-11 troofers) got the better of me.
Yeah, I know how you veterans are about your service in the wars.:D Maybe some day your great-nephews will tell of how you stormed The Discovery Institute.

@ Pookster: I'll take another look.
Do. Remember how so many people wrote Huntster off? You're not like that. It's one of the (few) things I respect about you.

Of course not, it's politics, which these days means

"How shall I compare thee to a pile of manure? Let me count the ways."

Well you know, even Summer days aren't that flattering to be compared to. Hot. Sweaty. Fly-infested. Besides, manure gets a bad rap. It is rich and fertile, and it is the best place to find hallucinogenic mushrooms.

[varwoche]

Just incredible. Odin have mercy on my soul for engaging in discussion on a skeptical forum requiring some nuanced thinking.

Texas, despite the casual way that words like racist are bandied about (here and elsewhere), being a racist (or a sexist or a whatever-ist) is not a binary state. All(?) people are a little bit racist, and/or a little bit sexist, and/or a little bit whatever-ist.

No, Obama didn't call his grandmother a racist. You spun his words into something they are not.

[Cleon]

I also called my great aunt "aunt", but when describing the relationship to others I always used "great aunt". I suspect you do also.

You really need to stop suspecting and assuming. You're really bad at it.

[novice skeptic]

He told a tall tale. Plain and simple. Its really not that big a deal except that the Obama supporters made a lot of noise over the Hillary sniper story and turnabout is after all fair play.

Edited to Add: The other reason its getting play is because McCain/Hillary are morally compromised people who lie. Obama is the new honest change guy. Since this story runs counter to the image he has cultivated, its news. I'm sorry you don't like that, but thats the way news works.

Best post of the thread imo. A politician used puffery to get over with a crowd. No big deal. Except Obamaniacs can't seem to admit that he's capable of baldface political behavior and not a messianic purveyor of change.

[Tricky]

Texas, despite the casual way that words like racist are bandied about (here and elsewhere), being a racist (or a sexist or a whatever-ist) is not a binary state. All(?) people are a little bit racist, and/or a little bit sexist, and/or a little bit whatever-ist.
When I was fifteen I was walking through a poor black neighborhood in my hometown of Bessemer Alabama when I was mugged by three black men. Lucky for me, they only robbed me and didn't seem angry because I only had seven dollars. I couldn't possibly describe them well. It was dark and mostly I was face down on the ground. Of course the police never found who did it, and since no "serious" crime was committed, they frankly didn't seem that interested in helping a kid too stupid not to walk though a black neighborhood at night.

Two years later I voluntarily entered a high school in the same home town that was not just predominently black, it was all black except for me. I learned a lot about how unfairly the blacks were treated in Alabama, but I wasn't harmed or even threatened. I was treated like royalty. I graduated from that school.

But I still wouldn't walk through poor black neighborhoods at night, though I did walk through poor white neighborhoods. I lived in one. Does that make me a racist? Why yes. Yes it does. As Varwoche (and Avenue Q (http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/avenueq/everyonesalittlebitracist.htm)) say, everyone is a little bit racist. There may even be very good reasons why they make assumptions about other races. I think my experience shows that some racist fears are based on reality.

The idea is to be aware of your prejudices and not let them control your life. Maybe prejudices should tell you not to make stupid decisions, like walking through a black neighborhood at night if you're a skinny white kid, but they shouldn't teach you to hate irrationally.

So is Obama's grandma a racist? Yeah. Just like me, she has fears of some things that are based on race. Is she wrong to have them? Maybe. Maybe not. I can't say. I'm dealing with my own racism and trying to not let it control my life.

[Tricky]

Best post of the thread imo. A politician used puffery to get over with a crowd. No big deal. Except Obamaniacs can't seem to admit that he's capable of baldface political behavior and not a messianic purveyor of change.
You have to remember that this thread started off as an attack against Obama. The OP had this link (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/05/020607.php). I don't think the "Obamaniacs" can be blamed for bringing the tone down to the gutter. That's where it started.

[Pookster]

I also called my great aunt "aunt", but when describing the relationship to others I always used "great aunt". I suspect you do also.

I only do if I'm describing the lineage for some reason. Otherwise, I don't clarify it for people. They're my aunts and uncles, and I refer to them as such all the time.

I have a friend who's aunt is old enough to be her grandmother. Her real grandparents were dead years before she was even born. Her aunt was her grandmother. She always calls her that -- granny. She introduced her to me as her granny. Her granny has real grandchildren as well, but you could tell my friend was no different in her eyes and the way she was treated. It was only when asking specifically about lineage that my friend would tell anyone she was really her aunt by blood.

You see, it all depends on the type of relationship between family members. Relationships tend not to just be black and white (no pun intended). We all grow up in different circumstances. Obama's childhood was far from typical. Think about that before judging others motives or intents so quickly like some are with Obama and his uncle.

[skeptical]

Best post of the thread imo. A politician used puffery to get over with a crowd. No big deal. Except Obamaniacs can't seem to admit that he's capable of baldface political behavior and not a messianic purveyor of change.

He is of course capable of political behavior, "baldfaced" and otherwise, but to think that he _intentionally_ said Auschwitz instead of Buchenwald, a fact which was trivially easy to check, seems a very odd belief. The simplest explanation is that he made a mistake. The other parts of the statement that are not exactly correct, such as saying "uncle" instead of "great uncle" might be classified as "puffery", but of an extremely mild variety.

And the point is not that a mistake was not made, it obviously was. The point is the absolute hysterics that have been made over an obvious simple mistake, calling the man a liar and saying that it calls into question his "character". That is absolutely asinine, and if calling asinine behavior asinine makes me an "obamaniac", so be it.

[gdnp]

Best post of the thread imo. A politician used puffery to get over with a crowd. No big deal. Except Obamaniacs can't seem to admit that he's capable of baldface political behavior and not a messianic purveyor of change.

As an Obama supporter I am perfectly willing to admit that he is susceptible to the use of baldface political behavior. For example, the incident during the Ohio primary when he railed against NAFTA and one of his advisors went to Canada to tell them he didn't really mean it may have been such an issue. It certainly smelled that way.

Here his only crime was mistaking two German concentration camps. The mistake may not have even been his, as he may have been told by his family that it was Auchwitz. Since it has been now reasonably well established that Obama had a relative that was involved in the liberation of a concentration camp, and the precise camp involved is immaterial to the point he was making, it is absurd to call this anything but an inadvertant mistake.

edit to add: I seem to have been scooped by Skeptical. Sigh.

Referring to a great uncle as an uncle is perfectly acceptable and not even worth of discussion. That this was even brought up reflects the depths to which Obama's detractors will sink.

[joobz]

I really resent being called a liar. From his book

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjQ2ZTMyZTc2OTNkY2FkZDFlNzI2Zjg0MDVjZWE1ZDk=
Perhaps I'm being Daff, But in that text, isn't it Obama's gramps whose saying, "I just don't think it's right."?

[Pookster]

Perhaps I'm being Daff, But in that text, isn't it Obama's gramps whose saying, "I just don't think it's right."?

I might be daff too, but that's how I'm reading it as well. I could be wrong though.

[Texas]

As an Obama supporter I am perfectly willing to admit that he is susceptible to the use of baldface political behavior. For example, the incident during the Ohio primary when he railed against NAFTA and one of his advisors went to Canada to tell them he didn't really mean it may have been such an issue. It certainly smelled that way.

Here his only crime was mistaking two German concentration camps. The mistake may not have even been his, as he may have been told by his family that it was Auchwitz. Since it has been now reasonably well established that Obama had a relative that was involved in the liberation of a concentration camp, and the precise camp involved is immaterial to the point he was making, it is absurd to call this anything but an inadvertant mistake.

edit to add: I seem to have been scooped by Skeptical. Sigh.

Referring to a great uncle as an uncle is perfectly acceptable and not even worth of discussion. That this was even brought up reflects the depths to which Obama's detractors will sink.


I really, don't care about the camp misstatement but I do find it incredible that his uncle was so traumatized by the experience that he came home, went to the attic, and didn't leave his hose for 6 months given his own Divisions historical record of its involvement with the camp in question. The following is an account from the 89th divisions website that talks about the divisions participation and the controversy over who were the first units to enter the camp.

http://www.89infdivww2.org/ohrdruf/ohrdrufintro.htm





The story now shifts to the 89th Recon Troop, a platoon leader of which sent me the following account. "My 2nd Platoon was reconnoitering ahead of the infantry regiment (355th) on that day and we came upon this complex and two German soldiers who were guarding the front gates. We shot and killed one, and the other ran off. Setting up a modest defense, we entered the compound and saw first hand the horror of life in a Nazi concentration camp. We radioed our troop headquarters for instructions and were told to remain there, keeping the inmates contained (this was hardly necessary, as most were in their bunks, hardly able to walk) while HQ contacted the infantry to relieve us. In less than three hours, the infantry (3rd Battalion, 355th Inf) arrived and we were sent on a new mission". Lastly, another member of our society who was in the 3rd Battalion of the 354th Infantry, advised me that shortly after the 355th Infantry took over the camp, the 3rd Battalion of the 354th replaced the 355th, also for only a short time. During these days, the 355th Infantry in its entirety had apparently been attached to the 4th Armored Division. All of this helps explain why both the 89th Division and the 4th Armored Division have been credited with liberation the Ohrdruf Concentration Camp.


The question I have is what are the chances of the uncle a PFC being a part of this Recon unit that actually entered the camp, stayed for 3 hours and then was relieved by units of the 4th Armored Division a division that also claims credit for the liberation? Army Recon is a pretty tough group of warriors and are not prone to the type of mental trauma attributed to the uncle from a 3 hour, assuming he was part of this platoon, stay in the camp.

[Pookster]

... If I am not mistaken Obama said his great uncle served in Patton's army. It is not out of the question but it makes you wonder since Patton was considered the roughest toughest WW2 general and both his Grandfather and Great Uncle served under him. I had 3 uncles and my father that seved in WW2 and none of them were under the same command.

Wasn't Patton over a heck of a lot of the army in Europe during that part of WWII?

[Pookster]

The question I have is what are the chances of the uncle a PFC being a part of this Recon unit that actually entered the camp, stayed for 3 hours and then was relieved by units of the 4th Armored Division a division that also claims credit for the liberation? Army Recon is a pretty tough group of warriors and are not prone to the type of mental trauma attributed to the uncle from a 3 hour, assuming he was part of this platoon, stay in the camp.

Until someone shows a real reason not to believe it, the odds are 1:1. All you have is an appeal to incredulity with this, so far.

[Texas]

Wasn't Patton over a heck of a lot of the army in Europe during that part of WWII?No, he was at that time trying to not lose a star or his entire command. Eisenhower was on the verge of firing him for his attitude towards Britain's Field Marshal Montgomery.

[novice skeptic]

You have to remember that this thread started off as an attack against Obama. The OP had this link (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/05/020607.php). I don't think the "Obamaniacs" can be blamed for bringing the tone down to the gutter. That's where it started.

I don't recall ever claiming that either side brought the tone down to the gutter. I also don't think there was anything particularly nasty or sleazy about the original post, nor would I even call it an "attack". Obama did what politicians do: pander to a crowd and embellish the truth to make themselves look better. No shame in that. I just find the self-righteous attitude of he and his followers to be just a tad bit too "cult of personality" for my tastes.

[Tricky]

The question I have is what are the chances of the uncle a PFC being a part of this Recon unit that actually entered the camp, stayed for 3 hours and then was relieved by units of the 4th Armored Division a division that also claims credit for the liberation? Army Recon is a pretty tough group of warriors and are not prone to the type of mental trauma attributed to the uncle from a 3 hour, assuming he was part of this platoon, stay in the camp.
Are you still trying to find out what actually happened? Give it a rest Big Tex, it doesn't matter. It may be a true story. It may be partially true or even embellished by Obama or his great uncle or even by some other family member that told Obama about what his great uncle did. Obama was either pretty dang young or maybe not even alive when it the story was related.

So he told a family anecdote. So what? This is not a serious character issue. Maybe he's even being fakily "family-centered". Again, so what? Politicians do that. They talk about positive things in their family. McCain, for example, doesn't focus on his infidelity that caused his first divorce, he talks about how wonderful Cindy is. Is he being dishonest about his family? No. He's just picking his anecdotes for political reasons.

[Texas]

I might be daff too, but that's how I'm reading it as well. I could be wrong though.


You didn't misread it. It was Gramps that said said the panhandler was black. But that wasn't what I was accused of lying about. It was this post by Undesired_Walrus He/she used a snip of my previous post and accused me of fabricating the comment

U_W's snip of my post

she was afraid of an aggressive black panhandler

U_W's accusation

Are you so jealous of Obama's gaffe that you feel the need to make a complete and utter fabrication yourself?

[novice skeptic]

And the point is not that a mistake was not made, it obviously was. The point is the absolute hysterics that have been made over an obvious simple mistake, calling the man a liar and saying that it calls into question his "character". That is absolutely asinine, and if calling asinine behavior asinine makes me an "obamaniac", so be it.

I don't know you or your track record of posting here or in other political forums, perhaps you treat all silly little gaffes and puff jobs equally harmless and have the same nonchalant attitude about them no matter who the speaker.

However, I find many of the people who are defending Obama's gaffes to the death are quick to jump on other politicians for similar mistakes. If that doesn't describe you, then I would say that you aren't an Obamaniac. But I will say, that as an intelligent political observer you might admit that there is indeed such a strain in many Obama devotees.

[Tricky]

I don't recall ever claiming that either side brought the tone down to the gutter. I also don't think there was anything particularly nasty or sleazy about the original post, nor would I even call it an "attack". Obama did what politicians do: pander to a crowd and embellish the truth to make themselves look better. No shame in that. I just find the self-righteous attitude of he and his followers to be just a tad bit too "cult of personality" for my tastes.
What is it you find "self righteous" about Obama? How is his self-righteousness different from other politicians? I fail to see it.

And while I support Obama now, I am hardly an "Obamaniac" or a member of a cult, though I do admit to being a politics wonk. I was an Edwards supporter. I've also admitted that Hillary might make a better president, but less electable. I think of the three, McCain would make the worst president, based on what I've seen of them. Sure, Obama has lots of flaws. I don't think you would find many people here who disagree with that. I just think he's the better of the two remaining viable candidates, and I think that would be borne out if people would focus on the important things they say, rather than the imprecision of family anecdotes.

[Texas]

Are you still trying to find out what actually happened? Give it a rest Big Tex, it doesn't matter. It may be a true story. It may be partially true or even embellished by Obama or his great uncle or even by some other family member that told Obama about what his great uncle did. Obama was either pretty dang young or maybe not even alive when it the story was related.

So he told a family anecdote. So what? This is not a serious character issue. Maybe he's even being fakily "family-centered". Again, so what? Politicians do that. They talk about positive things in their family. McCain, for example, doesn't focus on his infidelity that caused his first divorce, he talks about how wonderful Cindy is. Is he being dishonest about his family? No. He's just picking his anecdotes for political reasons.

Just as the sniper issue with Hillary or the Iraq misstatement by McCain was fodder for political discussion this is also a part of the picture of a blank slate candidate. He didn't tell this story around a campfire, he told, as a presidential candidate, to a political gathering using the effect of mental trauma to his uncle as the context of his attack on McCain's treatment of vets. That makes it more than a family anecdote, that makes it a campaign issue.

[SezMe]

The problem here is that Obama has a history of smudging the details of the narrative of his life (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/saywhat.asp), and it appears that he does it for the purpose of allowing voters to project their own desires onto him. The effect strikes me as being similar to someone's reading his own horoscope and being delighted at how accurately it describes him, when in truth it would describe almost anyone. And similarly, people hear what Obama says, and unless they parse what he says very carefully, and know their American history (good luck with that), they'll believe that Barack Obama's parents got together and came to America because of the Selma, Alabama civil rights marches in 1965.
You're mostly right, Beeps, but my reaction is that that sounds like good politics to me, not some terrible sin.

Obama is trying to get elected. If voters see him as somewhat of a blank slate that they project their hopes and fears on, then he'd be a fool not to encourage that. Not, of course by lying, but by using good psychology to make voters identify with him. Every successful politician does this but not as well as Obama. In short, you're criticizing Obama for being a good politician. Well, duh.

By the way, McCain has much to smudge about his past and does it well. Does that make him a bad guy? Does that cause you to question his character?

[SezMe]

However, I find many of the people who are defending Obama's gaffes to the death are quick to jump on other politicians for similar mistakes. If that doesn't describe you, then I would say that you aren't an Obamaniac. But I will say, that as an intelligent political observer you might admit that there is indeed such a strain in many Obama devotees.
As far as I can tell, there is a similar effect working on the other side of the aisle. Those who support McCain give him a pass on some pretty troubling statements, ignore his flip-flopping and pandering but are quick and relentless in their attacks on Obama, as witnessed by this thread.

It's to be expected - on both sides. So I don't think it adds much to remark on one side of the coin while ignoring it has another side.

[SezMe]

Especially on the issue of personal stories from someone old enough to remember the Reagan years. Confirmation bias anyone??
I think that's a cheap shot. I don't know how old BPSCG is or care that he has direct experience of Reagan. BPSCG is a sharp observer of the political scene and argues his case well. He's as up-to-date as any whipper-snapper on these here fora and woe unto him who goes into battle with him without a well-honed sword.

[Puppycow]

But I still wouldn't walk through poor black neighborhoods at night, though I did walk through poor white neighborhoods. I lived in one. Does that make me a racist? Why yes.

Only if your reason for not walking through the neighborhood is because it is a black neighborhood rather than because it is a dangerous place for you. That is, is there a rational reason for you to avoid that particular area?

Unless you want to water down the word 'racist.' If everyone's a racist, or reasonable people are racists, there's no shame in it, is there?