I oppose him because he’s a Marxist

That’s what I was referring to.

Interestingly, this is exactly what conservatives said about Hillary Clinton. So, really, whoever Democrats nominated, you’d be saying the same thing.

Also, I love how the New York Times is a leftist rag until you want to use Corsi quoted David Brooks.

It just bugs me that that neocons somehow think they have lifted the veil of illusions and are seeing reality. You are not. You have your own set of ideas and you cloud your judgment with them.

Thanks for revisiting “Unfit for Command”. I also read it in 2004, cover to cover, and found its case pretty convincing. In particular, I was convinced by the fact that its author, and several of the people quoted extensively therein, were willing to debate the book and its claims at any time, to anyone… while Sen. Kerry avoided such confrontations like the plague.

I’m tempted to read “Obama Nation” as well, but I’m biding my time. Recent allegations of Mr. Corsi as a 9/11 conspiracy theorist give me pause as well.

In re Sen. Obama as a Muslim: as my father-in-law repeatedly points out to anyone who will listen, whether or not we believe Obama on this is beside the point. Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is the son of a Muslim… which, according to sha’aria, makes him a Muslim by birth. In the eyes of millions of Muslims worldwide, therefore, he is a Muslim, no matter what he says.

Add in, if you please, that Islam is notoriously intolerant of Muslims that convert to other religions, particularly if they have the bad taste to proclaim so loudly. In other words, to millions of Muslims worldwide, Obama is an apostate Muslim, and a blasphemer.

What will this mean, if Obama is elected President of the United States? I don’t know. But I don’t imagine it would be anything good.

respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline

The Swiftboat Vets’ claims were just “he said, she said” allegations, and if Kerry hadn’t been the star of “Winter Soldier,” they would have had no traction at all. Obama’s being a cipher makes him way too slick to be affected by Corsi’s tactics, and anyone relying on allegations of Islamic sympathies against Obama will find themselves sliding off into the political abyss where the neo-Nazis like to hang out.

I read a little bit of that and I only have to wonder if a similar book had been written about Bush and a similar “book” was written in defense of him what the reception would have been?

I don’t know enough to tell what is right and wrong in this case – there is no way too. I note that Carsi has many citations that are accurate in what they say. I note that the defense is mostly “nuh uh” along with a lot of graphics with strong wording. Of the two I will side with Carsi with no real knowledge of what is real – how can I not when one is documented and the other mostly pictures with the accused saying “Not True!”.

If that is the best defense one can come up with them it makes his case stronger. Kerry had the same issue, in both cases there is one well documented case and one that just says “not true”. If they were just both hearsay then there isn’t much one could say. However one side is fairly well supported and the other isn’t.

There is *no* leftist out there that would be swayed if the roles were reversed (in fact they would rant and rave about the general level of crap in the publication and the ability of those that believe that tripe to rationalize their believes) and I can not fathom why they think this would do anything different. Carsi’s book speaks to the anti-Obama people and the moderates, the linked defense only speaks to those that are already in Obama’s camp and no one else and, as such, was a waste of bandwidth and time.

His work on John Kerry, again, followed the evidence.

The New York Times is not known for putting the truth ahead of partisan politics. Trying to shoot a messenger who is well-researched only makes for double embarrassment for the Grey Lady who is losing so much money and readership that it may not exist in ten years.

The only thing about Corsi’s book that I have issues with are the Muslim themes that seem to provide a background context for Obama. I do not think Obama was ever a serious Muslim. Soetero (his adoptive father) was originally a Communist (just as his biological father was) and only got with Islam after the 1965 overthrow of the Communist regime in Indonesia. And his practice as a Muslim was meant as a survival technique. He eventually took up drinking and wenching, which are no-no’s under Sharia Law.

Obama is ideologically and psychologically more inclined towards Marxism/socialism, not Islam. I also think his dalliance with Christianity is not truly serious. If Black Liberation Theology is a heresy (and it is, by my theological training) then Obama’s latched on to a form of Christianity that simply dovetails with his prior Marxist beliefs.