What Fresh Hell Is This?

July 28, 2009

More On Birther Nation

Can The State of Hawaii be any clearer (from the AP)?
State officials in Hawaii on Monday said they have once again checked and confirmed that President Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen, and therefore meets a key constitutional requirement for being president.

They hoped to stem a recent surge in the number of inquiries about Obama's birthplace.

"I ... have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen," Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said in a brief statement.
Then there's this a few paragraphs down:
However, it appears Congress has moved on and has accepted Obama's island birthplace. The U.S. House on Monday unanimously approved a resolution recognizing and celebrating the 50th anniversary of Hawaii becoming the 50th state. A clause was included that reads: "Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961."
I suspect, however, that all these "facts" won't deter teh crazie much.

UPDATE: The resolution passed the House by a vote of 378-0.


the Other Ken said...

You're right about facts not really affecting the thought processes of the conspiracy afflicted. I've dealt with many lefty 9/11 "truthers" over the years and facts bounce off them like so many balled up socks.

Heir to the Throne said...

You can tell when the birthers have really gone crazy.
When they put a giant "IMPEACH" on the banners of their blogs.

EdHeath said...

Yeah, Other Ken, if any one on the liberal side has ever done something wrong, then any conservative group like the "Birther's" not only get a free pass, we have to believe them.

Will you, Other Ken, acknowledge there were no WMD's in Iraq? Will you acknowledge that invading Iraq and then torturing prisoners has undermined this cause of spreading democracy that we are supposed to be spreading?

I assume, Other Ken and HTTT, that this puts to rest any thought that there is any legitimacy to the “Birther” cause, and that you now join liberals in condemning “Birther’s” for trying to undermine the President?

Heir to the Throne said...

you now join liberals in condemning “Birther’s” for trying to undermine the President?
I will join this cause with the progressives who condemned the Nutroots for pushing the BS Bush AWOL/TANG memos story.
Know any?

the Other Ken said...

I’ve always thought that the birthers were a waste of my time Ed, so you can imagine how I feel about those that think that the paucity of shells found with chemical or biological payloads indicate somehow that Iraq had given up their WMD aspirations or that the actions of a few misguided individuals with their treatment of captured terrorists somehow indicate an official policy of mistreatment by the United States of America.

Maria said...

WMD's were the reason given for starting the war and torture was a policy that came from the top including Cheney and the Bush "legal" team.

the Other Ken said...

The threat of WMD was one of a number of reasons cited as reasons to remove the Saddam regime (admittedly one that was stressed.) It is true that vast stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons were not found but that doesn’t negate the contention that Iraq was a WMD threat. The Kay and Duelfer reports make it clear that, while the weapons had mostly been destroyed, Iraq maintained its programs and the capability to recreate those weapons. They were mistaken about Iraq in that they believed that the weapons continued to exist but they were not mistaken in the belief that Iraq continued to be a WMD threat.

Regarding “torture,” the Bush Administration provided very specific rules to allow enhanced interrogation techniques to be used under controlled conditions for very specific and important purposes. There was no “torture” nor was there any policy that allowed or approved of torture.

Maria said...


LOL You're one of the few who believes that. Not even the former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East believes what you're spouting:

The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Paul R. Pillar, who was the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, acknowledges the U.S. intelligence agencies' mistakes in concluding that Hussein's government possessed weapons of mass destruction. But he said those misjudgments did not drive the administration's decision to invade.

"Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war," Pillar wrote in the upcoming issue of the journal Foreign Affairs. Instead, he asserted, the administration "went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq."

"It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between [Bush] policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized," Pillar wrote.

I'll translate for you: Bush/Cheney LIED us into the war. You are correct in saying that WMDs weren't the only reason. The other reason was the other BIG LIE: Bush/Cheney constantly tried to connect Iraq with 9/11.


Waterboarding has ALWAYS (prior to the last administration) been considered to be torture. All the way back to the Spanish Inquisition. That's why the US prosecuted the Japanese for doing it to our own soldiers.

Just because you have doctors present doesn't mean it isn't torture and they didn't even follow their own rules that they set up. Moreover, now we know that the torture didn't even provide any useful intelligence.

Really at this point, you're like You're like one of those Japanese soldiers hiding in the caves in the 1970s still fightinh WWII.

Give it up.

You lost.

No one is buying it anymore.

the Other Ken said...

You quote some ex-CIA guy as if he’s an authority on what Bush and Cheney were thinking and you tell me that water-boarding has always been considered torture when in fact what the CIA was doing is very different from what was previously called “water torture.”

With all due respect Maria, and being cognizant that I’m a guest on your blog, I can’t really see much difference between what you’re telling me and the kind of things that the birthers are saying.

kimber45 said...

Hmmm. On the one hand, the birthers, who, in the face of solid documentation, refuse to accept that evidence.

On the other, those who believe documentary evidence and testimony that the United States trumped up, to the point of fraud, the case for war in Irag, and that the Bush Administration sanctioned torture.

And, ken, you "can't see much difference" between the two?

Oh, well.