From a January 8 post to George Stephanopoulos' ABCNews.com blog:
The Mayor's spokesman says that the remark "didn't come across as it was intended" and that Giuliani was "clearly talking post-9/11 with regards to Islamic terrorist attacks on our soil."
Whatever the Mayor meant, it's not what he said. All of you who have pointed out that I should have pressed him on that misstatement in the moment are right. My mistake, my responsibility.
The first time it was uttered, it seemed so comical, so dumb. Bush White House Press Secretary Dana Perino told Sean Hannity on November 24, 2009: "We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term."
The second time was a little more nuanced, a little more slick. On December 27, Republican strategist Mary Matalin falsely claimed Bush "inherited the most tragic attack on our own soil in our nation's history." Nevermind that the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks occurred 8 months into Bush's presidency and more than a month after he received a Presidential Daily Briefing titled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."
But the third time was so definitive, so wrong, there could be no doubt it's a conservative talking point. On Good Morning America today, Rudy Giuliani falsely claimed: "We had no domestic attacks under Bush. We've had one under Obama." Surely Rudy Giuliani himself couldn't forget 9-11, could he? Of course not. Rather, there is something far more sinister going on.
At least up until recently, the Bush defenders portrayed his record as "no attacks on the U.S. under Bush's watch after 9-11." But now, with the passage of more time, the defenders are growing bolder in their attempts to rewrite history. Now they want to completely erase the Bush administration's responsibility for the failures leading up to 9-11, to say nothing of the other terrorist attacks carried out or attempted during that time, including the anthrax attacks and the 2002 attack at the El Al ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport.
Forgetting 9-11 is bad enough. Rewriting its history for political gain is utterly shameful.
CNN just aired a long segment on the trial of alleged bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Their go-to "Terrorism Analyst" for the discussion? Larry Johnson.
Johnson, of course, is infamous for repeatedly offering the racially-charged claim beginning in May 2008 that according to his "sources," a video tape exists of "Michelle Obama railing against 'whitey' at Jeremiah Wright's church." No tape was ever produced. In attempting to explain earlier this year why the tape was "never revealed and used," Johnson claimed: "One theory is that the hardline conservatives in possession of the tape did not want John McCain to win, a plausible theory given the hard right's reluctance in general to aid McCain's campaign."
Is this really the most credible person CNN could dig up to discuss the Abdulmutallab trial?
On the other hand, unlike Fox News go-to terrorism analyst Michael Scheuer, I don't think Johnson has cited a major al Qaeda attack on America as "the only chance we have as a county right now." So he's got that going for him.
What's missing from The Hill's write-up of Rudy Giuliani's appearance on ABC's Good Morning America today?
The part where Giuliani falsely claimed there were no terrorist attacks in the U.S. Under President Bush. You know, the part of the interview that just about everybody else found most noteworthy.
As the Daily World (Opelousas, LA) reported, the effort to recall Landrieu "is 'useless'" and "invalid because there's no legal way to recall a congressman or U.S. senator, [Secretary of State Jay] Dardenne said." From the article:
Ruben T. Leblanc, of 505 Wiltz St. Lot No. 4 in New Iberia, properly filed a recall petition with the secretary of state's office, but it was rejected as being invalid because there's no legal way to recall a congressman or U.S. senator, Dardenne said.
The recall process stops there because Dardenne said he could not mail copies of an invalid petition to registrars of voters across the state to certify signatures. He discussed his decision with Leblanc this week and sent a letter citing his reasons and a copy of an attorney general's ruling on recalling federal officials.
Dardenne based his decision on a 2008 opinion issued by Attorney General James "Buddy" Caldwell when a Jefferson Parish man wanted to recall U.S. Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao.
Caldwell said research found that only the respective bodies of Congress can decide on the suitability of its members and remove them. The state constitution provision on recalls applies only to state and local officials.
By the way, Secretary of State Dardenne - the man who rejected the petition effort - is a Republican.
In 2003, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service wrote that "the United States Constitution does not provide for nor authorize the recall of United States officers such as Senators, Representatives, or the President or Vice President, and thus no Member of Congress has ever been recalled in the history of the United States."
Fox Nation could have easily learned that the effort is "useless" if they had just used something called Google (apparently not a preferred tool of Fox News employees). As of 1:30pm today, the 2nd link for "Landrieu petition" is the Daily World article (the first is now Fox Nation).
Some in the conservative media are accusing Media Matters of calling the Wall Street Journal's John Fund an "ass weasel." That is false.
The claim appears to have originated with a recent American Thinker article by James Simpson about universal voter registration (which was subsequently reposted on other outlets like The Cypress Times). In it, Simpson wrote this:
The left has predictably launched vicious smear attacks against John Fund for bringing universal voter registration to our attention. A Google search of the issue brings up any number of nasty ad hominem attacks. Most notable is Media Matters, the leftist group whose sole purpose seems to be to smear Republicans and defend the left's indefensible policies. They put up this gem: "Right-Wing Ass Weasel John Fund Doesn't Like Universal Voter Registration because of ACORN."
The link does not lead to Media Matters' website. Instead, it goes to a YouTube page titled "FoxBastardPeople," which is not operated by Media Matters.
The owner of the page apparently embedded one of Media Matters' clips of Fund appearing on Fox & Friends to discuss ACORN and took the liberty of giving it a different title. We titled the clip, "Fund claims universal voter registration would 'mean ACORN's goal of voter fraud will be realized.'"
From a January 8 FrontPageMag.com interview of Fox News strategic analyst Ralph Peters:
FP: How much confidence, exactly, do you have in this administration providing safety to Americans against our enemies?
Peters: Unfortunately, I have no faith-none-in the administration's seriousness, when it comes to protecting Americans. A president who insists, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that every next terrorist is just an "isolated extremist" with no connection to Islam isn't interested in solving the problem.
FP: Your view of Janet Napolitano? Why is she still heading Homeland Security?
Peters: I'd rather not view Janet Napolitano at all. This woman is so far out of her depth that it can't be measured with Newtonian metrics. She was a politically correct appointment, period. On the positive side, word is that she'll be gone in the next few months-Obama's too vain to fire her right now, while the administration's under fire over the Christmas terror attempt, but he realizes what a political liability she's become.
There's another, unfortunate, side to this. When representing our country, especially on security matters, appearance and physical presence matter. It would be great if that were not so, but facts are facts. Even if Napolitano were a security genius, she doesn't project a forceful, capable image to our deadly enemies (or to our allies). Again, every one of Obama's cabinet-level appointments has been about domestic politics, not about their effectiveness on the world stage.
Well, at least he can't blame Bush for Napolitano.
In terms of job approval ratings, that is [emphasis added]:
President Barack Obama enters 2010 with one of the lowest approval ratings of any president heading into his second year, according to a new Gallup poll out Wednesday.
Fifty percent approve of how Obama has handled his job as president, the second lowest total since Gallup started polling. Obama beats only Ronald Reagan, who started 1982 with a 49 percent approval rating.
For weeks now I've been chuckling as I listen to conservative pundits go on and on about what a failure Obama is and how the country is turning on him, and that his presidency is a shambles, etc., etc. When in fact, Obama's first 12 months in office almost exactly mirror (ratings-wise) the first 12 White House months experienced by Ronald Reagan. Yes, the same Ronald Reagan who conservatives point to today as a towering Oval Office success; a man who was beloved by the masses.
And so rather than acknowledging that uncomfortable similarity between Reagan and Obama, fact-free commentators like Karl Rove claim Obama is the most unpopular, first-year president. Ever.
False. The truth is Obama and Reagan remain locked arm-in-arm.
UPDATED: I continue to be slightly puzzled by the media's on-going obsession with Obama's polling numbers and how he's only at 50 percent. (Big news!) The non-stop hand-wringing seems a bit odd considering that Obama's Oval Office predecessor served nearly his entire second term with an approval rating below 50 percent, and left the presidency with an almost incomprehensibly low 22 percent approval rating.
But today's Obama's at 50 percent, so that's big (bad!) news.
UPDATED: A bit more context about the Beltway media's Chicken Little-style reporting about Obama's 50 percent approval rating, which is uniformly deemed as being borderline disastrous. Guess what President Bush's approval rating was when he first entered office in 2001? Yep, almost exactly the same as Obama's rating today. But do you recall endless media hand-wringing about Bush's super-soft poll numbers back then?
Neither do I.
Washington Post columnist David Broder thinks Barack Obama is trying to do too much -- and that it's his own fault:
Obama, on the other hand, came into Christmas Day with an overloaded set of self-imposed tasks. He was winding down one inherited war in Iraq and expanding another one in Afghanistan. He was renegotiating our relations with other powers in the world and attempting to enlist their help in confronting outlaw regimes in Iran and North Korea. And simultaneously, at home, he was being pressed to rescue a badly wounded economy while lobbying a reluctant but allied Congress to pass controversial, ambitious changes in health care, climate control and financial regulation.
Raise your hand if you think dealing with two "inherited" wars and rescuing a "badly wounded economy" constitute "self-imposed tasks." How about dealing with financial regulation and a badly broken health care system? Anyone think those are optional? Yeah, I didn't think so.
Broder contrasts Obama's purportedly full plate with the ease with which President Bush shifted into fighting terrorism:
Bush reacted with anger and a determination to punish the people who wreaked the havoc.
For Obama to establish a new priority would obviously be much more difficult than it appeared to be for Bush. And this new priority would be a much less comfortable fit for Obama than leading a war on terrorism was for Bush.
Seems like there should have been room in there somewhere to mention that as "comfortable" as Bush was punishing "the people who wreaked the havoc," he was also pretty darn comfortable punishing the people who didn't. Or that Bush's obsession with the people who didn't wreak the havoc probably contributed to the fact that Osama bin Laden remains free to this day.
But Broder didn't bother mentioning either of those things. I guess that's why he's called the "best of the best."
From the Fox Nation, accessed on January 8: