Drudge headline distorted Clinton comments to suggest she said "Obama Not Muslim 'As Far As I Know' ... "
SUMMARY: A Drudge Report headline linking to a 60 Minutes interview of Sen. Hillary Clinton read, "Hillary: Obama Not Muslim 'As Far As I Know' ...," falsely suggesting that Clinton characterized the issue of Sen. Barack Obama's religion as unresolved. In fact, she did the opposite.
On March 3, the Drudge Report linked to online news portal Breitbart.tv video footage from the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes under the headline "Hillary: Obama Not Muslim 'As Far As I Know' ... ," falsely suggesting that Sen. Hillary Clinton characterized the issue of Sen. Barack Obama's religion as unresolved. In fact, she did the opposite. Correspondent Steve Kroft first asked Clinton, "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" to which Clinton replied, "Of course not. I mean, that's -- you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that." Kroft then asked, "And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim," to which Clinton replied, "Right. Right." Only after Kroft went on to ask, "You don't believe that he's a Muslim or implying, right?," did Clinton respond, "No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know" [emphasis added].
Following Clinton's response to Kroft's third query on the subject, Kroft said, "It's just scurrilous --" to which Clinton responded, "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."
From the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes:
KROFT: One of the things that we found in Southern Ohio -- not widespread -- but something that popped up on our radar screen all the time, people talking about it, this idea that you're a Muslim.
OBAMA: Right. Did you correct them, Steve?
OBAMA: There you go.
KROFT: Where's it coming from?
OBAMA: You know, this has been a systematic email smear campaign that's been going on since, actually, very early in this campaign. Clearly, it's a deliberate effort by some group or somebody to generate this rumor. I have never been a Muslim, am not a Muslim. These emails are obviously not just offensive to me, somebody who's a devout Christian who's been going to the same church for the last 20 years, but it's also offensive to Muslims because it plays into, obviously, a certain fear-mongering there.
KROFT: It happened again last week when this photo of Obama, in ceremonial African tribal dress during a visit to Kenya, was featured prominently on the Internet and attributed to people in the Clinton campaign. Senator Clinton disavowed any knowledge of it.
KROFT: You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?
CLINTON: Of course not. I mean, that's -- you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.
KROFT: And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim.
KROFT: You don't believe that he's a Muslim --
CLINTON: No. No. Why would I? There's no --
KROFT: -- or implying, right?
CLINTON: No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.
KROFT: It's just scurrilous --
CLINTON: Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time.
An analogy
Q: Is it raining outside?
A: No.
Q: Are you SURE it's not raining?
A: It's not raining, as far as I know.
When someone is repeatedly asked a question, he or she may emphasize the limits of his or her own knowledge.
Your first "A" is wrong. She did say "No", and leave it at that....she went on to say "I mean, you know.....and on and on". Which propelled the questioning to continue, which is what she wanted.
Don't be naive.
Her first three words were "Of course not."
I'd prefer if the phrase "Of course not" were getting as much attention as "as far as I know" which came after being asked repeatedly.
I totally agree with MM on this one.
That's an extremely erroneous and misleading headline.
The only thing I will add is that the headline originated from Breitbart.tv. It's not really Drudge's headline; he re-published it. But Drudge should know better; he operates a huge site, and he has the responsibility to check these things out. He should have watched the video himself, in which case he would have seen it was a bad and erroneous headline.
MM is right on this one.
I would disagree. Mmfa may have a complaint about how another entity runs it's own website, but they have failed if their quest is to highlite mis-information. Hilary did say "no....as far as I know" when responding to her knowledge of Obama being Muslim. I think it is typical of democrats to 'cover all bases' in case they need to flip-flop on the subject at a later time (a very common occurance among democrats).
But, to complain because another website doesn't use the 'proper headline' according to how mmfa wants it to is just plain silly and a huge waste of resources. If there's any mis-information, it would be coming from mmfa. They are the ones who are trying to have a direct quote changed so that Hilary doesn't appear to be an Islami-phobe. She said he isn't a Muslim as far as she knows. I heard her say that, and I think she quickly added that ending phrase in just to cover her huge but, in case he turns out to be a closet-muslim. To leave that part of the quote out would drastically change and inacurately depict a direct quote.
Is there anything more wrong with Drudge 'miss-using' that as a headline, when mmfa does the same thing? Her statement is a huge thing for her to say and headline worthy. Her denial of her denial is much more headline grabbing and worthy of being at the top of anyone's website who wishes to get the truth to the public. Expressing their dislike of the headline (for whatever reason) shows a desire for inacurate portrayal of a news worthy story.
"Hilary did say "no....as far as I know" when responding to her knowledge of Obama being Muslim."
No, she did not. She said there was no basis for believing he was a Muslim as far as she knew. The difference is that you can recognize a basis for believing something without actually believing it. But Hillary said she didn't even know of any such basis, which is why she said "of course not" originally. And the "as far as I know" line came after Kroft had asked about it four times, it's not as if she was chomping at the bit to say it.
Read it again, what I left out was "that's", the "no basis for that" was after the quotes I stated, not exactly in the middle as you falsely claim. It's all there in black and white.
Who is blind to what now?
you, i guess. your "fake" quote: "i mean, you know....and on and on."
her exact words: "of course not. i mean that's -- you know, there is no basis for that..."
yeah, i know what you meant, you know? you're picking out fragments of her first answer and ignoring her emphatic and direct statements.
I stand by every single post of mine, feel free to quote me accurately whenever it suits you, no need to compensate me.
has it occurred to you that Clinton is on touchy ground in being asked to agree on the insistence Obama is not a moslem?
Picture this then: do you think Obama is a Christian? 'Of course not, there's not basis for that.' My next question, if she was that forthright about it, would be 'why, whats wrong with being a christian?' there are many many moslem people in teh United States. To hear an argument over Obama's faith that depicts being a Moslem as a negative attribute is not something Clinton want's Moslem American's to hear. It's only a negative attribute to insecure white american's who can't differentiate between religious extremists and the vast swathe of moderate moslems.
Your distaste for Clinton is blinding you to the realities of this political tightrope all the candidates are walking. but do continue, its transparent enough to be funny.
Her clever deftness in the way she answered it, her "as far as I know" wink and a nod are all subtle ways she gingerly keeps it alive.
What's funny is how so many of you can't or won't admit it.
wow you appear to have missed my point. no surprises there. can you at least pretend to address what i'm suggesting?
maybe we have a difference of opinion on what Clinton is doing here... but its very obvious to me that she isn't trying to infer that Obama is a Moslem. i'm not failing to see anything, i'm weighing up the whole interview, given that she repeatedly says 'no' to the question. but like i already said, please continue...
No, because what you're suggesting is baseless and ridiculous and unworthy of some serious discussion. Have it with someone else, I am not interested in entertaining something so wildly off the deep end.
I stand by my statements, if you disagree, fine.
'baseless and ridiculous and unworthy of some serious discussion'
are you serious???? you DONT think that the Clinton and Obama campaigns have thought very carefully about Islam and Obama's heritage and the impact of public discussions on Moslem voters? I'm very suprised and your naivety, i dislike just about everything you have to say but I didn't pick your inability to grasp this basic reality, thats not like you.
If Obama forcefully denounces Islam by insisting to the point of aggression that he is not a Moslem, without platitudes to Muslim voters (maybe, i'm not a moslem but i respect islam) then he alienates a large portion of voters. Not just Moslem's, but the left-wing that is sympathetic to the plight of Moslem's denigrated for their religious beliefs (in America, of all places.) If you think Clinton isn't acutely aware of that reality when she is asked if she thinks Obama is a moslem, then i'd suggest your quote applies in reverse.
Seriously, can anybody else not see this?
No, his entire schtick about the "insecure white americans". The whole premise of his argument regarding that is ridiculous.
Perhaps you'd like to go there with him, as I said, I am not interested.
"It's only a negative attribute to insecure white american's who can't differentiate between religious extremists and the vast swathe of moderate moslems."
Would you take out "white" or take out the entire sentence? IMHO, you should leave your statement alone so that your racist hatred of white Americans shines brightly and makes everything you say worthless because it comes from a racist who has no desire to compromise, simply use another commentary to show his hatred of white people in America.
"To hear an argument over Obama's faith that depicts being a Moslem as a negative attribute is not something Clinton want's Moslem American's to hear."
I'll take on your point. Romney had to face question after question that depicted his religion with a negative attribute, why should muslims have it any easier? I didn't see any 'false headline' stories from mmfa about Romney's problem with the medias misleading headlines concerning his religion, did you? If your point is that Hilary's answer is somehow anti-Islam when she added the "as far as I know", then she is doing it purposely. She either doesn't want muslim votes or she doesn't want to appear 'terrorist freindly' at a critical point of her campaign.
But, if she's smart, she wouldn't concentrate on his Muslim roots to sway voters in her direction, she should concentrate on his Chicago roots. You know, the corupt Chicago political machine that's been crooked for the past 50 (or so) years. He seems to proudly claim the Chicago connection, she should use it to her advantage. If you ever want to see a "model" for corrupt government, go to Chicago. Obama is/was a part of it.
Julia, Sweety......I wait for the day when you contribute a post that hasn't been repeated endlessly, already, by dozens of other parroted rubberstampers here.
Actually, you can blame Drudge if you want too, but it's the breitbart.tv headline that says it, Drudge just linked to it.
As for the "as far as I know" comment, why would Mrs. Clinton say it at all? "As far as I know"......sounds like a wink and a nod subtle implication that there is perhaps more to know. She knew exactly the wiggle room she wants to leave on this issue, the Clintons are masterful when it comes to wordsmithery.
Kroft asked the same question 3 times.
He asked once, and got, "of course not."
He rephrased it, and Hillary confirmed that she takes Obama at his word.
He asked it a third time, and Hillary said "no," 3 times.
I guess you have to hand it to Kroft, badgering Hillary until she finally exposes her ice-cold, calculating nature to you by naming that tune in four notes.
I think she could have been more emphatic, but she pretty much had me at, "of course not."
"Of course not. I mean, that's -- you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that."
That sounds like a "no" to me. The "as far as I know" later doesn't even apply to whether she thinks he's a Muslim or not. It applies to whether there's any basis for even believing that he's a Muslim. That's a very important distinction.
"As far as I know" is just so Clintonesque. Meaning she could find out more information dwn the line? A very strange little soundbite for her to make.
Her campaign must know they lose so much with a wishy washy stand like that. It will only help Obama.
I use the phrase "as far as I know" too when I want to emphasize the limites of my knowledge.
The phrase as she used it doesn't refer to if Obama is a Muslim, but to if there is any basis for thinking he is.
Is this the same as Pres. Bush promising to fire anyone in his Administration who knew anything about the outing of a CIA agent? Can't seem to find that on the Drudge Report? The Sludge report probably carried it.
Looks like everyone agrees, can't trust a politician. If they say one thing they mean another...And I thought this was election season.
I'm saying this as someone who was on the fence over Clinton and Obama for a long time.
If my friend was asked, "Does Dave drown kittens?", I'd want them to say "No! Of course not", and not add-on "I take him at his word he doesn't" or "Not as far as I know".
"Well, we just disagree. She should have simply said, "No, of course not""
Hey Dude, that's what she DID! She was unequivocal. Get it?
Yes, she DID say "No, of course not". You are correct.
If that was ALL she said, it WOULD, imho, have been unequivocal. But that isn't all she said.
She went on to add "I take him at his word", and "as far as I know".
THAT, to me, in my opinion, is equivocation and coyness.
Look: I'd be happy with Hillary Clinton as the nominee, even tho I favor Obama. I like her and have supported her in the past. But, I'm sorry, that's the way I view her answer here.
Let's consider the context of the question in the first place.
"KROFT: It happened again last week when this photo of Obama, in ceremonial African tribal dress during a visit to Kenya, was featured prominently on the Internet and attributed to people in the Clinton campaign. Senator Clinton disavowed any knowledge of it."
In that context, do you really think that the answer is somehow unusual? She takes him at his word as opposed to believing the picture. The picture is not a basis for disbelieving what Obama is saying. Doesn't it also make sense that in this context one would want to say more than "of course not" since that doesn't address the specific "evidence" that's been brought up?
I'm not a Hillary fan either, but the more I look at this the less I understand how it's coy, suggestive, vague, or especially inviting further questions. It was a definitive statement that addressed the context of the question.
Except, as has been pointed out multiple times, the "as far as I know" applies to whether there's even any reason to believe such a thing. If someone repeatedly asked you if she shot Vince Foster, you'd probably find yourself saying something like "I don't know of any reason to think that". By your logic, that leaves room for doubt, since there might be reasons you don't know about. It leaves the possibility open that she actually did do it.
That's really the basis of the entire controversy here. She was asked about what she believed. But somehow she's supposed to make a definitive comment about something she really can't know for a fact at all. Is there any reason to believe that Obama's a Muslim? How could anyone possibly deny that with any certainty?dave coud you explain the "equivocation" in the following statements?
"there isn't any reason to doubt that", "there is nothing to base that on", and calling it a "ridiculous rumor".
Personally, I think she should have said, only, "No, of course not", PERIOD. End of answer.
The added-on "I take him at his word" caused Kroft to sense some equivocation there. That in turn prompted Kroft to ask the question again to see if she'd be more emphatic. But then came the "as far as I know."
Btw, I think this is the first time I've ever disagreed with an item here on this site. And as I said before, I would support Hillary and have in the past.
there was no equivocation in her first answer, by any stretch of the imagination. do you seriously think "no, of course not" would have ended it? if you see any equivocation in her first answer, it's because you are bending over backwards to find something that isn't there.
Apparently it's the "I take him at his word" part that is supposed to lead to other questions, somehow. I guess the idea is that Kroft thought that she believed what Obama said, but at the same time secretly believed that he was actually a Muslim. Except, of course, she already covered that by saying that there was no reason to doubt his word. Maybe Kroft expected her to break down and confess that she was lying in her first answer.
It's absurd. "I take him at his word" is definitive, there's no room for clarification or expansion on that concept. All Kroft did was ask her if she took him at his word (she just said that, idiot) and then repeat his original question. Just because Kroft doesn't believe her doesn't mean she gave a faulty answer.
The "as far as I know" is yet another qualifier (again, in my opinion) To me, it seems purposeful. I'd like to think I'm wrong.
My take is that I don't believe Hillary really thinks he's a Muslim. But she seems to want to plant the idea with people that she's not quite 100 percent sure.
Again: my perception --initially, and after reviewing and re-reading several times.
I'll also add that Hillary seems a bit less concerned about being really emphatic here than she did last week when she criticized Obama over renouncing --rather than rejecting-- Farrakhan.
"To me, personally, "I'll take you at your word" translates to 'some interesting evidence exists that the charges might have some validity, but I'll trust what he says in the meantime.' It's a qualifier, even if it's a mild one."
Did you not read what I wrote about the context? She was being presented with "evidence" during this exchange. Is it somehow suspicious that she alludes to the possibility of evidence when specific "evidence" was just brought up prior to the question?
Is Hillary supposed to be 'infallible' like Obama? 'As far as I know' is perfectly appropriate as she has no way to be 100% certain and is going by what he says.
They were making a big deal of this today on MSNBC and pretending not to.
Tommy makes a great point -
When I went to the DrudgeReport I did notice that the big world headline for today is the looming war being caused by Hugo Chavez. Hopefully, this war monger can be stopped before we see more death an destruction in the region.
This is the kind of test in foreign policy challenge that Hillary and Obama must be able to deal with - so as a supporter of Obama I'm really waiting and expecting Obama to make it clear that the USA will not allow a reckless madman to destroy the peace.
Oh WOW!!! Chavez a MADMAN??? Come on, he's not Mr NiceGuy, but neither is your chimp in the White House, frankly. As for causing a war, I'll remind you that it was the U.S.-backed government of Columbia which created a bonafide casus belli with Ecuador, by invading its territory illegally, causing both Ecuador and Venezuela (both neighbours of Columbia) to take defensive actions.
Neither Columbia, nor the U.S. has the right to unilateraly invade another country. Period. Both are signatories of the U.N. charter. Under International (and U.S., I might add) law, the kind of raid Columbia undertook (as well as Turkey and the U.S.) is illegal. It was the very basis under which the Nazis were tried at Nuremberg.
Note that Columbia's view of its security is not so different than that expressed by Saddam Hussein in 1991... Or Hitler in 1939 for that matter. Dictators intent on invading neighbours tend to claim National Security as their justification. It's why such invasions, even under the claim of National Security were made illegal under the U.N. charter.
Love those trolls, don't you?
"When I went to the DrudgeReport I did notice that the big world headline for today is the looming war being caused by Hugo Chavez. Hopefully, this war monger can be stopped before we see more death an destruction in the region."
-Notanotherconservative
That situation is way more complex than "Chavez, the war monger, is causing a looming war." It's not like he just decided to send troops to the Columbian border, and Venezuela is not the only country to do so. Ecuador has also sent troops, mostly because Columbia conducted an anti-guerrilla raid into Ecuador. And the diplomatic crisis only began when Uribe cut Chavez off from acting as mediator between the Columbian government and FARC. AND, Chavez only sent those troops to the border in retaliation for the "cold-blooded murder" (Chavez's words, not mine) of 15 rebels and a rebel leader.
So yeah, I agree, the death and the destruction should stop. But what "death and destruction" has Chavez caused?
What is the over/under on the number of other talking heads who bring this up over the next 12 hours? I'm saying the o/u is 6 and I'll take the over.
I would prefer it is Sen. Clinton and anyone else asked this question respond with a simple sentence, "Sen. Obama is a Christian." This can be repeated ad naseum and we'll be done with this crud.
There are more important issues to address.
It looks to me like MMFA is doing it's best to say, "Hillary did not accuse Obama of being MUSLIM" and thereby giving the story some legs in the hopes that some voters will equate the negative connotations of "Muslim" to Obama.
Good work MMFA!
It's a variation of the old political ploy of saying, "I disagree with someone calling Obama a liar".
ps.
My good work MMFA was meant sarcatically and should have had ;-) at the end.
Ideally, she would have just said "No."
But she doesn't usually give one-word answers during TV interviews.
We don't have to assume sinister motives to explain a longer answer; it just isn't her style.
You give one word answers if that is all that is called for, and in the case that is all that was called for. There is no reason to go on and say, "I mean", and on after that, unless you were hoping to continue the questioning in some way. "No", or "Of course not", would have been sufficient, and it would have told the questioner that there was nothing further to explore by continuing in any fashion.
She is in the thick of an primary battle in a very close and contested race, do you really believe that it is beyond the Clintons, or most politicians for that matter, not to take every strategic advantage or opening and deftly use it to get a little leg up? She can't openly muddy the waters, so the media is the next best thing, or to at least fan the flames a little, even if only a little.
Tommy, while I agree Hillary should have just kept repeating "NO", Kroft should take some blame here. She gave an answer that should have been sufficient the first time he asked, but he wouldn't let it go.
What I'd rather see the MSM looking into is this:
African-American superdelegates said Thursday that they’ll stand up against threats, intimidation and “Uncle Tom” smears rather than switch their support from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to Sen. Barack Obama.
“African-American superdelegates are being targeted, harassed and threatened,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.), a superdelegate who has supported Clinton since August. Cleaver said black superdelegates are receiving “nasty letters, phone calls, threats they’ll get an opponent, being called an Uncle Tom.
“This is the politics of the 1950s,” he complained. “A lot of members are experiencing a lot of ugly stuff. They’re not going to talk about it, but it’s happening.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8762.html
Not a peep about this except from Politico. Not even found anywhere on Drudge. WHY isn't this being discussed by the media? Could it be they have a crush on Obama, & have it in for Hillary?
Jeter,
I don't deny the media crush on Obama at all. But I still think in this case, the Clintons have no interest in succinctly quieting this possible perception that Obama is a Muslim, why would they, if it gives people pause it may get her some votes.
I'm sorry, the media's fawning over Obama has little to do, for me anyway, with the way the Clintons operate. I accept both.
that's because you're not looking through the spectacles of someone who has a strong dislike for Clinton, in addition to being right-wing.
Jeter -
I read this article a couple of days ago and, frankly, I wasn't that impressed. There was nothing to indicate degree or frequency. I didn't see a single example cited that could remotely qualify as a smear, threat or intimidation. I can fully believe that some delegates are being pressured, but that's politics.
Watson, one of the examples cited as receiving pressure, points out the rationale for it herself. Those in her district applying the pressure point out that Obama received 61% of the vote compared to Clinton's 29%. As long as it doesn't cross a line, a degree of pressure to respect the wishes of the district's Democrats is reasonable.
Without specific examples, it looks like the use of the terms "threatened," "harrassed" and "intimidated" could easily be overstatement by a Clinton supporter. Or, maybe it is as bad as the article suggests, but I didn't see any real support for that idea.
Your argument might make an ounce of sense if there was something vague about her original answer. It wasn't "I don't really know", it wasn't "maybe", it wasn't "not as far as I know". It was "of course not", and on to explain that there's no reason to believe he's a Muslim. It's not as if there are two ways of interpreting that answer, so it didn't open up any avenues for clarification.
Oh come on, she is certainly not foolish enough to say "I don't really know".....saying "as far as I know" is an absolute qualifier, and as I said, it leaves the impression that there may be something she doesn't know.
Look, I have seen the footage here and it could be argued either way, I will admit that.....so I can accept those defending her and giving her the benefit of the doubt, but I stand by my original opinion.
Right, she doesn't know if there's any basis for possibly thinking that Obama is a Muslim. Do you? There's no basis for believing McCain is a cross-dresser, as far as I know. But I absolutely don't believe he is. That really doesn't make for much of a qualifier.
This is what you said:"Anything more that that propells the conversation, which is apparently what she was hoping for."
Can you identify what there is in her answer that is unclear? What demands clarification, exactly? The "as far as I know" was on the fourth question of the conversation, which is sort of late for an effort to "propel the conversation". That ship had already sailed by that point.
Somehow she knew that when she said "of course not" and said she believed what Obama said, and that there was no basis for believing he was a Muslim at all, that Kroft would keep repeating the question without any additional information to be gathered. That's some amazing psychic ability on her part, and on yours as well. If she can really control people like that, maybe she should be President after all.
DB,
I don't think I've ever gotten a note purporting that Obama is a Muslim, so I don't pay any attention to it. (Maybe I'm the only one?) I am of the opinion it is more of minor consequence even though some here say they have relatives or know of people who seem to believe it.
It is too bad that it comes up. All Obama can do is repeatedly deny it.
ps. Now that missing flag on his lapel is a different story. :-)
My heart goes out to you.
Genghiz,
Please post links to his past. If he is a Muslim, like you seem to be claiming, does that disqualify him?
No, it does not. However, it invalidates his claims that "he was NEVER a muslim"
How?
So yeah, this story again originated in World Net Daily, and btw, is the exact same story, word for word, as the WND story.
As far as invalidating the claims that he was never a Muslim? Hardly. That's like saying Bush is a Muslim, and gay to boot, because of this.
The only thing I've ever seen about it is on World Net Daily, which should tell you how credible the information is. Also, the story claims that Obama once worked for a non-profit alongside William Ayers. Ayers was once a member of the weathermen and now is a professor at the University of Illinois.
How about this: Bush's grandfather plotted a coup to overthrow the government too. Bush himself has a close working relationship with numerous Saudis, who continually bailed him out for every failed corporation he headed.
And, no - bad behavior by the Bushes or their connections to the Saudi regime doesn't give BHO a pass.
Don't forget us malcontents who are not yet shady.
First off, how do you know who I'm supporting?
Second, I didn't say it did, but did you vote for Bush? If you did, why were you not up in arms about his ties to Saudi Arabia? Saudi Arabia, where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from.
But hey, you may be right. Obama may be a secret Muslim plant who will allow all these terrorists into the US and as soon as he's elected we're all gonna die. Because of course he will be supreme commander and ruler of everything, and no one will have a voice in this communist/socialist state, except for freedom fighter Sean Hannity.
Of course, if you're Christian, that shouldn't be a bad thing. You'll go to heaven. Much better than here.
That wasn't directed at you, just an "in general."
Of course, if you're buddhist, you realize that one's religion is only another path to enlightenment, and is thus a non-issue, since you praise and support all peaceful exhibitions of faith (and the Muslim faith, in it's true form, is a peaceful one.)
So why are you getting all up in arms about Obama being a Muslim?
No, Islam is not a peaceful religion (far from it). In case you wonder why, as a Buddhist, I distrust Islam; I've three words for you - Nalanda, Takshashila, and Bamiyan.
No, Islam is not a peaceful religion (far from it).
I would say that about most religions.
Uhm, yes it is. Islamic Jihad and holy wars are a perversion of the Muslim faith. Just like how Christian terrorists use a perverted form of Christianity. Or Jewish terrorists.
So, what, Musilim is not a peaceful religion because of a few cities in India?
Look at any country that has a Islamic minority population of > 10% and you'll only see civil war. Where Islam is a majority religion (except in a country or two like Turkey and even that's under siege), non-muslims have NO rights. That should tell you more about Islam than "3 cities in India" [sic].
No, the history of Islam is one of intolerence, hatred, and genocide.
You could say that about most religions.
"if you spent half the time researching his past as you all do worshipping him"
1/2 of 0 = 0
"Obama participated in fundraisers that were organized by recognized Islamic terrorists incl. the Khilanis"
God this is so easy. Well, if the Khilanis are terrorists, why aren't they arrested? I mean, it would be pretty easy. All you'd have to do is march up to his office at Columbia University. I can give you the address if you want. Or are you overstating?
This shows you to be a member of the Moronic Middle Moniker Movement using Barack Obama's middle name as a rallying cry for bigots.
If you want to be taken seriously, don't package the sewage about his middle name along with whatever else you're selling.
God, even Karl Rove said you shouldn't do this. But go right ahead, that's just more support for Obama. You do know you're defeating yourself, yes?
LOL...we'll see about that in the General.
This is what I posted over the weekend on the Savage Weiner thread. It provides you with everything you need to know about the significance of Obama's middle name:
Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. was born and named after his father in 1961.
This was 18 years before Saddam Hussein assumed power in Iraq and began his maniacal dictatorship,
26 years before the founding of Hamas,
27 years before the founding of al Qaeda,
25+ years before the founding of Hezbollah,
10 years before the founding of Palestinian Islamic Jihad,
and 33 years before the Taliban inflicted its reign upon Afghanistan.
Osama bin Laden was 4 years old in 1961.
Ayman al-Zawahiri was 10.
The Obama campaigns dissembling on "we don't know HOW he was registered as a muslim" speaks to the attempted revisionism.
Sounds like you're promoting a conspiracy theory.
"Obama-Axelrod-Omorosa"
What are you four years old?
The only one promoting conspiracy theories is yourself.
BTW, Axelrod is Obama's "handler" and Omorosa AKA Michelle Obama is the acerbic, know-it-all who thinks hating her country is so 60s-like and cool.
Omorosa AKA Michelle Obama is the acerbic
Grow up.
I far as I know she said she loved her country and her and Obama have respect for the Constitution which is what makes America so great. On the other hand, modern day conservatives have shown disdain for the Constitution and therefore (in my opinion) hate the country.
Geez....that word is used by some people who don't have a clue about what it means. You want to read about a real racist? Try Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's spiritual father (or some such); the man cannot express a single thought without blaming whiteys or Jews.
I could also provide you a link to Farrakhan but I hear that Obama has "denounced and rejected" (wink-wink, nudge-nudge) Farrakhan's endorsement of him.
Nah...let's just start with Jeremiah Wright for the time being.
Right.
BTW, I see that you haven't mentioned a single word about that arch-racist, Whitey/Jew hater, Jeremiah Wright.
Oh of course not.
The racist never can smell their own stink.
sounds like Obama-Axelrod-Omorosa
Sounds like Stranger.
Oh yeah this guy Pipes, such a smart man you can trust his judgement.
Pipes was a strong backer of the Iraq War, saying that Saddam Hussein posed an "imminent threat" to the United States.[3] In a New York Post article published April 8, 2003, Pipes expressed his opposition to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's concerned prediction that "[the] war [in Iraq] will have horrible consequences...Terrorism will be aggravated...Terrorist organizations will be united...Everything will be insecure." Though this concern was echoed by various other politicians and academics cited by Pipes in his article,[18] Pipes argued that "the precise opposite is more likely to happen: The war in Iraq will lead to a reduction in terrorism."
I thought you were going to say, '...and all I got was this lousy t-shirt'.
Guilty as charged. I don't even need to use the mouse and keyboard anymore.
I just shout delete into the internet tube that runs under my house and the posts vanish.
They reported that you died from a heroin overdose a little more than 20 years ago. Is Elvis with you too?
If you believe in forever
Then life is just a one-night stand
If there's a rock and roll heaven
Well you know they've got a hell of a band
;-)
Also I think it was reported the same way on Fox News's website that Hillary said this.
Fox News also is saying that Hillary might bank on the Rezko story taking down Obama if she loses either Texas or Ohio and the delegate count remains as close as it is now.
Genghiz, I have read all the links you have posted, I saw nothing that showed Obama has terrorist sympathies. So he raised money for humanitarian aid to Palestinians? Who cares, they have it pretty crappy. The whole Israel/Palestine battle isn't black and white, both sides have done terrible things and had terrible things done to them. The article said he appeared at fundraisers for for what the UN calls Palestinian "refugee camps." I'm not seeing the connection between feeding displaced refugees and funding terrorism.
Also who cares if he was enrolled as a Muslim student on his paperwork in 1st grade. I some how doubt he filled that paperwork out himself.
Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with the death of Vince Foster..... as far as I know.
Hillary Clinton is not a lesbian.... as far as I know
Hillary Clinton did not at one time support the Black Panthers.... as far as I know
See how it works? The point is that when you qualify your NO with a "as far as I know" you lend credibility to the rumor. Hillary touts her political experience, you better believe she knew exactly what she was doing.
oh please, she was careful to parse her words, leaving it open for others to infer that he might be a muslim
it is time for mm to stop schilling for hillary