I'll start with saying I'm glad I misread you -- there are so many people here in the US who repeat these kinds of things out of pure partisanship. What was in that clip was no reasoned debate, condemning Obama's use of fear, it was two propagandists for the right-wing party trying to spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about the opposition party's candidate for the Presidency.

I agree with your assessment that the low point of Obama's trip was the Israel leg. He always steps up his rhetoric about Iran, and that makes me nervous. He did the same thing when speaking to AIPAC here in the states (the pro-Israel lobby), and he caught a lot of flak for it from his base.

I think the main thing Europeans have to worry about is the echoes of 9/11 that are still ringing here in this country. They're no longer clearly audible, but it's just below our register, affecting our subconscious. The public in this country will not elect anyone who would not make the appeal to the world to aid us in our so-called "fight against extremism".

However, if you look back at his earlier comments from the beginning of the primary, you'd see he spent a lot of time talking about the need to "change our mindset" and to not act out of fear. That's part of why he's got Hope and/or Change emblazoned on his signs and bumper stickers. Hillary (and the rest of the Democratic field) blasted him for being "weak on terror", and he made a clear turn about a year ago to make sure he kept sounding a tougher line about extremism.

I think he's now in a place where he has to keep the momentum on this going, because he can't win without doing that.

That said, he has made it clear he will listen to our allies more -- so even if he does get carried away, I do think pressure from Europe would affect him. I think if he wins, he will begin the long process of trying to reverse the pervasive fear running through the populace -- fears that Bush amplified for his own purposes.

John McCain on the other hand will happily give Europe the middle finger if they protest an American plan to invade Iran, because many people here think that shows "good leadership" and "independence". He'll also happily continue to perpetuate those fears about terrorism. He has said on many occasions that the "fight against Islamic Extremism is the transcendent challenge of the 21st century."

From what I see, Bush has pushed this country a great distance towards fascism. McCain's a member of the same political party, and it's clear that all the same advisers have gotten their hooks into McCain, because he's gone from a moderate that I actually kinda liked, to being in lock step with Bush, not only on issue positions, but also the combative, disrespectful, fear mongering overtones. He's also got the media propagandists helping him (like the ones in your clip), who dig up ridiculous claims like Obama is a muslim, or a terrorist, or that he wasn't born in the US (which would make him ineligible for the Presidency).

That's why I reacted the way I did to your post.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
I hope you're following my line of thinking, I'm brainstorming it all right out in full flow...

To Americans, these events will be soaked in pride, hope and patriotism, there is nothing wrong with that.

But to a British politician or to the Lords who have reign over the politicians, it paints a very different picture. It's one thing when Luther King makes speeches about civil rights in this way, it's another when Obama talks about uniting forces against extremism, and even goes as far as talking about Iranian nukes. That's the language of fear, that's the kicker, that's the alarm bell - and I mean that in the most literal sense, this language of fear is one of the things Winston Churchill warned about in the tomes of books he wrote after WW2, about how the world must avoid the same thing happening again, and how he regretted that Britian didn't move sooner against Germany.

These are very specific things contained in Obama's speeches, and I really don't know what to make of it. I think you should be thankful that at least somebody in American media saw this from a perspective of history. WW2 is very fresh in the minds of people in England, the country is soaked in the history of that war in every town and city and bit of countryside and Obama's words are very potent and a bit scary to be frank in that context.

That's why I say it's all about persepective, and what makes it frightening is that Obama's speechwriters couldn't have made it any more potent in the context of WW2.

Phew.

Yeah I'm in Ireland!

Man, I was a news junkie for years, I picked it up from my grandfather. I was one of those guys who sat and watched BBC News 24, all day long, changing over to the ITV news to see their take on the same stories. All I ever watched on TV was News and Star Trek.

I remember the exact moment when BBC News started to change and go the way of American news. It was in 2003, when David Kelly, the british UN weapons expert was found dead in a forest near his home. Just a couple of days previous, I had watched the entire live 2 hour cross examination of David Kelly in front of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, as he completely tore holes in the dossier that the UK government had put forward claiming that Saddam had WMD. I had been following the whole story in impeccable detail, online, on TV, bookmarking everything I could, and I had been looking forward to seeing David Kelly appear in front of the committee.

Anyone who watched it live was completely blown away by it, it couldn't have been any more dramatic. The government totally shot themselves in the foot. That night on the news, the BBC got stuck right into Tony Blair and the UK government and they continued to do so for the next couple of days, exposing all the lies about the Iraq war. It seemed finally that we were going to get the whole truth, and David Kelly was the key to the whole thing.

Then David Kelly was found dead, an alleged suicide. The same day the government went on the offensive against the BBC, people in the BBC were sacked over the next few weeks, government mouthpieces started appearing on all the TV news programmes shouting down presenters and acting very very strange indeed.

That is the exact moment when it changed. The BBC started becoming very very dumbed down very very quickly. Reports on the Israel/Palestine conflict became very watered down, that was when I really knew that the government had gagged the BBC (also happened in the 80s when Thatcher was in power during the Falklands war). The only decent reports were hour long specials broadcast at 1am or 2am, the normal daily news became a joke. Even the presenters were changed.

Within a year, the ITV News (Independent TV news in the UK), which had been reporting very consistently about the whole debacle ceased broadcasting.

Now the House of Lords - very little of what goes on in there is ever covered on the news. To see it you have to watch the live broadcasts on the Parliament channel (which I don't get any more cos I cancelled my cable a few months ago). It's where law is made, the house of commons is the showpiece for the public. All the stuff they decide in the commons has to go to the Lords where it is actually discussed at a very high level of detail and intelligence before it can be made law. The Lords also recommend what the UK prime minister should be saying to foreign presidents during state visits, a good example was when Blair was going to Russia and the Lords wanted him to confront the Russians about old KGB type activity rearing its head again - fascinating stuff, not a bit of it was ever on the normal news.

The Lords are probably the most well versed people on the history of Europe you could possibly meet. It is an education watching them debate sensibly and intelligently without all the pomp and drama you get on the TV news. They have bloodlines going way way back, they are soaked in the history of Britain and Europe. (Tony Blair near the end of his term even made moves to get rid of the Lords altogether when he wanted to get his 48 days detention without trial bill passed into law, the BBC actually started running hit pieces on the Lords, another sign that the BBC had changed)

Anyway, the point is, the Lords are a bit jumpy about stuff like this, and I'm sure it won't have gotten past them. Someone will have raised it for discussion. Obama making speeches in Israel about fighting extremism is very dangerous for Britain because I have watched discussions about the oppression of Palestine in the Lords and how delicately it has to be handled because the UK is an ally of the US which is an ally of Israel. Following that up with an event reminiscent of a British coronation more than a US presidential acceptance speech will really be ringing alarm bells.

I hope you're following my line of thinking, I'm brainstorming it all right out in full flow...

To Americans, these events will be soaked in pride, hope and patriotism, there is nothing wrong with that.

But to a British politician or to the Lords who have reign over the politicians, it paints a very different picture. It's one thing when Luther King makes speeches about civil rights in this way, it's another when Obama talks about uniting forces against extremism, and even goes as far as talking about Iranian nukes. That's the language of fear, that's the kicker, that's the alarm bell - and I mean that in the most literal sense, this language of fear is one of the things Winston Churchill warned about in the tomes of books he wrote after WW2, about how the world must avoid the same thing happening again, and how he regretted that Britian didn't move sooner against Germany.

These are very specific things contained in Obama's speeches, and I really don't know what to make of it. I think you should be thankful that at least somebody in American media saw this from a perspective of history. WW2 is very fresh in the minds of people in England, the country is soaked in the history of that war in every town and city and bit of countryside and Obama's words are very potent and a bit scary to be frank in that context.

That's why I say it's all about persepective, and what makes it frightening is that Obama's speechwriters couldn't have made it any more potent in the context of WW2.

Phew.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
Are you, as your name implies, from Ireland?

I'm definitely curious on your take as to why the House of Lords would have an objection to what Obama said in Israel, or the fact that he plans on giving a speech to 75,000 campaign volunteers at his nomination (different from inauguration, BTW).

I did a couple searches of BBC News's site, and it seemed to generally be reporting positive reactions in the UK and elsewhere to Obama's trip. Is the UK media as distorted as the US's these days?

Here, there's already a meme forming about how this trip is going to hurt Obama domestically.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
http://politics.videosift.com/video/Obamas-Speech-Something-the-Fuehrer-would-have-done

In regards to this, I think it's important that this stuff be posted, sifted, and discussed. I'm not into posting stuff that I personally believe or subscribe to. I'm quite the opposite, I post stuff because I want to know what people think so I can get a big brainstorm of commentary. I don't know what to make of it, but I have an excellent knowledge of WW2 and whether intentional or not this is resonates with that history and is very dangerous ground for Obama and America to be on.

To be absolutely honest with you, I wouldn't be surprised if this and the Israel visit are items for discussion in the House of Lords in the UK.

>> ^nickreal03:
This is not a game these are people's life. Nothing wonderful about killing anyone. Get a life!


Oh but there is something wonderful about getting shot at.

In the words of Winston churchill, "there is nothing like being fired upon with no effect"

Also you gotta love snipers.

"As the pivotal intellect in the breaking of the German Enigma codes, Turing arguably made a greater contribution to defeating the Nazis than Eisenhower or Churchill. Thanks to Turing and his 'Ultra' colleagues at Bletchley Park, Allied generals in the field were consistently, over long periods of the war, privy to details German plans before the German generals had time to implement them. After the war, when Turing's role was no longer top secret, he should have been knighted and feted as a saviour of his nation. Instead, this gentle, stammering, eccentric genius was destroyed, for a 'crime', committed in private, which harmed nobody. Once again, the unmistakable trademark of the faith-based moralizer is to care passionately about what other people do (or even think) in private." -- The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins.

I know you don't want votes, but the Churchill story is worth it's own upvote.

Here are just 4 of my favorite William F. Buckley Quotes:

"Franco is a part, and an integral part, of Western civilization... [the] convergence of the multifarious political philosophical, religious, and cultural tendencies that have shaped Spanish history... the man to whom the Spanish people look--as the Chinese have looked to Chiang [Kaishek], for all his faults--for leadership."--William F. Buckley, National Review, March 9, 1957

"General Franco is an authentic national hero... [with the] talents, the perseverance, and the sense of the righteousness of his cause, that were required to wrest Spain from the hands of the visionaries, ideologues, Marxists, and nihilists that were imposing... a regime so grotesque as to do violence to the Spanish soul, to deny, even, Spain's historical destiny. He saved the day.... The need was imperative... for a national policy [to]... make this concession to Churchill this morning, that one to Hitler this afternoon.... Franco reigns... supreme. He is not an oppressive dictator.... only as oppressive as is necessary to maintain total power..."--William F. Buckley, National Review, October 26, 1957

"The central question that emerges... is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes--the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race." --William F. Buckley, National Review, August 24, 1957

"He was a prophet...McCarthy's record is... not only much better than his critics allege, but, given his metier, extremely good...he should not be remembered as the man who didn't produce 57 Communist Party cards but as the man who brought public pressure to bear on the State Department to revise its practices and to eliminate from responsible positions flagrant security risks"--William F. Buckley in his book McCarthy and his Enemies


William F. Buckley: friend to fascists and segregationists everywhere.

Maybe if they had cut together speeches as if Hitler was singing the words. Otherwise its just two really played out memes in juxtaposition.

Meh.

Oh and HollywoodBob, the Third Reich was hated for military aggression and ethnic cleansing. I don't think Churchill and Roosevelt were cool with Hitler until they got wind of his fantastic parades.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Absolute power corrupts absolutely - eventually. We're only human so succession has to be factored in. But sorry, although I know there have been and are benevolent despots in the world that worked- I cannot agree that it would ever be a good choice for starting a new government - because we're human.

Of course I recognize the irony that VideoSift is not a true democracy. But the analogy between a community website and a country only goes so far. I can't chain you to your computer if you decide you want to leave.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
heh - can't slip anything by you, can I? I was intentionally vague, but I was talking about democracy. I think certain authoritarian governments of the past have proven more effective. The problem with them wasn't a particular ruler, but the method of succession, which inevitably would produce a ruler that was not just ineffectual, but harmful. Augustus was an incredible leader, but ultimately, the method of succession in the Roman Empire would lead to someone like Nero.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Do you mean voting for quality content or democracy?

In reply to this comment by jonny:
I knew the quote, but didn't realize that was Churchill. I thought it was a supreme court justice or something. On a side note, and maybe you already guessed this about me, I don't necessarily agree that it's better than all the others that have been tried.

In reply to this comment by dag:
It's actually a mangled Churchill quote:

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

heh - can't slip anything by you, can I? I was intentionally vague, but I was talking about democracy. I think certain authoritarian governments of the past have proven more effective. The problem with them wasn't a particular ruler, but the method of succession, which inevitably would produce a ruler that was not just ineffectual, but harmful. Augustus was an incredible leader, but ultimately, the method of succession in the Roman Empire would lead to someone like Nero.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Do you mean voting for quality content or democracy?

In reply to this comment by jonny:
I knew the quote, but didn't realize that was Churchill. I thought it was a supreme court justice or something. On a side note, and maybe you already guessed this about me, I don't necessarily agree that it's better than all the others that have been tried.

In reply to this comment by dag:
It's actually a mangled Churchill quote:

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Do you mean voting for quality content or democracy?

In reply to this comment by jonny:
I knew the quote, but didn't realize that was Churchill. I thought it was a supreme court justice or something. On a side note, and maybe you already guessed this about me, I don't necessarily agree that it's better than all the others that have been tried.

In reply to this comment by dag:
It's actually a mangled Churchill quote:

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

In reply to this comment by jonny:
Me either. My dogs do that a lot, one of them usually with all sorts of strange noises. I didn't mean it as a personal dig, dag. I guess I'd rather see a site with a few hundred vids of exceedingly high quality than a site with thousands of vids of some quality. But it's not my site and as you've written, quality is very subjective. I liked that comment about voting being the worst way to determine quality, except for all the others.

In reply to this comment by dag:
What can I say? I am not immune to the cuteness.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
for real dude -- it's cute, but is this what you think is quality?

I knew the quote, but didn't realize that was Churchill. I thought it was a supreme court justice or something. On a side note, and maybe you already guessed this about me, I don't necessarily agree that it's better than all the others that have been tried.

In reply to this comment by dag:
It's actually a mangled Churchill quote:

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

In reply to this comment by jonny:
Me either. My dogs do that a lot, one of them usually with all sorts of strange noises. I didn't mean it as a personal dig, dag. I guess I'd rather see a site with a few hundred vids of exceedingly high quality than a site with thousands of vids of some quality. But it's not my site and as you've written, quality is very subjective. I liked that comment about voting being the worst way to determine quality, except for all the others.

In reply to this comment by dag:
What can I say? I am not immune to the cuteness.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
for real dude -- it's cute, but is this what you think is quality?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It's actually a mangled Churchill quote:

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

In reply to this comment by jonny:
Me either. My dogs do that a lot, one of them usually with all sorts of strange noises. I didn't mean it as a personal dig, dag. I guess I'd rather see a site with a few hundred vids of exceedingly high quality than a site with thousands of vids of some quality. But it's not my site and as you've written, quality is very subjective. I liked that comment about voting being the worst way to determine quality, except for all the others.

In reply to this comment by dag:
What can I say? I am not immune to the cuteness.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
for real dude -- it's cute, but is this what you think is quality?

my favorite Churchill quote;

"I would say to the House, as I said to those who have joined this Government, I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many long months of toil and struggle.

"You ask what is our policy. I will say, it is to wage war with all our might, with all the strength that God can give us, to wage war against a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime.

"You ask what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory. Victory at all costs. Victory in spite of all terror. Victory however long and hard the road may be. For without victory there is no survival."

—First speech as Prime Minister, House of Commons, 1940

continued...

Togo sent Ambassador Sato to Moscow to feel out the possibility of a negotiated surrender. On July 13, four days before Truman, Churchill, and Stalin met in Potsdam to prepare for the end of the war (Germany had surrendered two months earlier), Togo sent a telegram to Sato: "Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace. It is his Majesty's heart's desire to see the swift termination of the war."

The United States knew about that telegram because it had broken the Japanese code early in the war. American officials knew also that the Japanese resistance to unconditional surrender was because they had one condition enormously important to them: the retention of the Emperor as symbolic leader. Former Ambassador to Japan Joseph Grew and others who knew something about Japanese society had suggested that allowing Japan to keep its Emperor would save countless lives by bringing an early end to the war.

Yet Truman would not relent, and the Potsdam conference agreed to insist on "unconditional surrender." This ensured that the bombs would fall on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It seems that the United States government was determined to drop those bombs.

But why? Gar Alperovitz, whose research on that question is unmatched (The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, Knopf, 1995), concluded, based on the papers of Truman, his chief adviser James Byrnes, and others, that the bomb was seen as a diplomatic weapon against the Soviet Union. Byrnes advised Truman that the bomb "could let us dictate the terms of ending the war." The British scientist P.M.S. Blackett, one of Churchill's advisers, wrote after the war that dropping the atomic bomb was "the first major operation of the cold diplomatic war with Russia."

There is also evidence that domestic politics played an important role in the decision. In his book, Freedom From Fear: The United States, 1929-1945 (Oxford, 1999), David Kennedy quotes Secretary of State Cordell Hull advising Byrnes, before the Potsdam conference, that "terrible political repercussions would follow in the US" if the unconditional surrender principle would be abandoned. The President would be "crucified" if he did that, Byrnes said. Kennedy reports that "Byrnes accordingly repudiated the suggestions of Leahy, McCloy, Grew, and Stimson," all of whom were willing to relax the "unconditional surrender" demand just enough to permit the Japanese their face-saving requirement for ending the war.

Of course, political ambition was not the only reason for Hiroshima, Vietnam, and the other horrors of our time. There was tin, rubber, oil, corporate profit, imperial arrogance. There was a cluster of factors, none of them, despite the claims of our leaders, having to do with human rights, human life.

We face a problem of the corruption of human intelligence, enabling our leaders to create plausible reasons for monstrous acts, and to exhort citizens to accept those reasons, and train soldiers to follow orders. So long as that continues, we will need to refute those reasons, resist those exhortations.

wiki: Howard Zinn (born August 24, 1922) is an American historian, political scientist, social critic, activist and playwright, best known as author of the bestseller, A People's History of the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Zinn

Howard Zinn served as Second Lieutenant and bombardier, U.S. Army Air Corps where he flew combat missions in Europe, 1943-45.

Important enough to publish in full:

The Bombs of August

Dispelling the Myth of Lives Saved by the Hiroshima Bomb

by Howard Zinn

The bombing of Hiroshima remains sacred to the American Establishment and to a very large part of the population in this country. I learned that when, in 1995, I spoke at the Chautauqua Institute about Hiroshima, it being the 50th anniversary of the atomic bombing. There were 2,000 people in that huge amphitheater and as I explained why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unforgivable atrocities, perpetrated on a Japan ready to surrender, the audience was silent. Well, not quite. A number of people shouted angrily at me from their seats.

Understandable. To question Hiroshima is to explode a precious myth - that America is different from the other imperial powers of the world, that other nations may commit unspeakable acts, but not ours.

Further, to see it as a wanton act of gargantuan cruelty rather than as an unavoidable necessity ("to end the war, to save lives") would be to raise disturbing questions about the essential goodness of the "good war."

What could be more horrible than the burning, mutilation, blinding, irradiation of hundreds of thousands of Japanese men, women, children? And yet it is absolutely essential for our political leaders to defend the bombing because if Americans can be induced to accept that, then they can accept any war, any means, so long as the warmakers can supply a reason. And there are always plausible reasons delivered from on high.

That is why the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is important, because if citizens can question that, if they can declare nuclear weapons an unacceptable means, even if it ends a war a month or two earlier, they may be led to a larger question - the means (involving forty million dead) used to defeat Fascism.

The principal justification for obliterating Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that it "saved lives" because otherwise a planned US invasion of Japan would have been necessary, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands. Truman at one point used the figure "a half million lives," and Churchill "a million lives," but these were figures pulled out of the air to calm troubled consciences; even official projections for the number of casualties in an invasion did not go beyond 46,000.

In fact, the bombs that fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not forestall an invasion of Japan because no invasion was necessary. The Japanese were on the verge of surrender, and American military leaders knew that. General Eisenhower, briefed by Secretary of War Henry Stimson on the imminent use of the bomb, told him that "Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary."

After the bombing, Admiral William D. Leary, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the atomic bomb "a barbarous weapon," also noting that: "The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."

The Japanese had begun to move to end the war after the US victory on Okinawa, in May of 1945, in the bloodiest battle of the Pacific War. After the middle of June, six members of the Japanese Supreme War Council authorized Foreign Minister Togo to approach the Soviet Union, which was not at war with Japan, to mediate an end to the war "if possible by September."