Media Matters: Right again makes an anti-American ass of itself following Obama's Nobel win
On Friday, the nation awoke to the news that the Nobel Peace Prize had been awarded to President Barack Obama. "I am both surprised and deeply humbled," Obama said that morning. "I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership...I will accept this award as a call to action."
But sadly, Obama's words failed to touch the hearts of some of the world's most esteemed and principled critics and commentators, all of whom have proven their love for America and her values time and again. I'm kidding of course.
After resolutely working to undermine Chicago's bid for the 2016 Olympic Games and then roundly applauding the International Olympic Committee's decision to eliminate the U.S. city from competition, the right-wing media responded with furor to the Nobel Committee's decision. "I did not realize the Nobel Peace Prize had an affirmative action quota," wrote Erick Erickson at the conservative RedState, who just last week had laughed at the idea that Obama had improved America's standing in the world.
"He's sided with Marxists Castro, Chavez, Morales and Ortega. ... Obama's bankrupted the US economy and destroyed the morale of our military," chimed in Gateway Pundit, another right-wing blogger. "No wonder he was awarded the Nobel." A poll question on Lou Dobbs' website expressed shock at the fact that the award had gone to "Our Supreme Leader." Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade (the brown-haired-guy-who-isn't-Steve-Doocy) suggested that Obama had delayed making a decision to send more troops to Afghanistan in order to win the award, even though the White House said it was unaware that Obama had even been nominated. "The World Apology Tour yields dividends," succinctly wrote prominent right-wing blogger and Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin.
Indeed, the idea that Obama had been rewarded for deliberately weakening the United States was soon a central theme from the right. "They [the Nobel Committee] love a weakened, neutered U.S, and this is their way of promoting that concept," radio host Rush Limbaugh said in an email to Politico. "Obama did make a big show of appeasing Iran during its election crisis," added conservative blogger Ed Morrissey. "Perhaps they should change the award's name to the Neville rather than the Nobel."
The volume emanating from the right quickly impacted more mainstream reporters. Time's Simon Robinson penned an online piece explaining how the award could prove politically harmful to the president, and Nancy Gibbs wrote a widely circulated article for Time as well, this one explaining why the Nobel was "the last thing [Obama] needs." She's right... we all know the Nobel Prize is something that should be avoided, you know, like cancer. Sigh.
It wasn't long before the calls started for Obama to turn down the award, from a variety of sources. Malkin, CBS' Chip Reid, Time's Mark Halperin, John Bolton, Slate.com's Mickey Kaus, The Weekly Standard's Mary Katharine Ham, and The Atlantic's Jeffery Goldberg all echoed the theme, among others.
"[H]e has to turn it down -- because it is such a joke -- that he'll turn it down and it's the only way for him make a win out of this," said Fox News' Glenn Beck. "Only his arrogance will stop him from doing it." For his part, Beck had an explanation for what was really going on, as well as a suggestion for who Obama could hand the award over to.
"These progressives are extraordinarily powerful," he explained, channeling conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. "And this campaign of Barack Obama, this global campaign for Barack Obama, is done by global interests that have extraordinary power. They're very well connected."
In what had to be a highlight of his lunacy, Beck continued: "The Nobel Peace Prize should be turned down by Barack Obama and given -- you ready for this? Oh, this one's gonna make headlines -- should be given to the Tea Party goers and the 9-12 Project." This makes sense, seeing as that the undeniable currents of racism, violence, and xenophobia the Tea Party "movement" embodies represent the very essence of what Alfred Nobel's prize is all about. Sigh, again.
But at the end of the day, it was El Rushbo who really made headlines. It turned out that the Taliban was also against the Nobel Committee's decision, something that didn't give Limbaugh a moment's pause.
"I think that everybody is laughing" he said. "Our president is a worldwide joke. Folks, do you realize something has happened here that we all agree with the Taliban and Iran about and that is he doesn't deserve the award. Now that's hilarious, that I'm on the same side of something with the Taliban, and that we all are on the same side as the Taliban."
Speak for yourself, Rush.
Other Major Stories This Week
Limbaugh again trying to Ram his way into the NFL
Almost six years to the day after radio host Rush Limbaugh resigned in disgrace from his brand-spanking new gig on ESPN's Sunday NFL Countdown for, as CNN reported at the time, "his statement that Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb was overrated because the media wanted to see a black quarterback succeed," El Rushbo confirmed this week that he's interested in buying the St. Louis Rams.
Seriously.
In a statement released to KMOX News Radio, Limbaugh said he and others were "part of a bid to buy the Rams and we are continuing the process. But I can say no more because of a confidentiality clause in our agreement with Goldman Sachs. We cannot and will not talk about our partners. But if we prevail we will be the operators of the team."
In response to the news, numerous sports journalists and figures -- including contributors to ESPN, where Limbaugh was briefly employed -- have criticized the idea of Limbaugh as an owner, often noting Limbaugh's history of racially incendiary remarks.
CBSsports.com's Mike Freeman said, "my head exploded after hearing this Limbaugh news. ... Limbaugh is a pungent bowl of stark raving bigoted lunacy." Former NFL receiver Keenan McCardell struck a similar tone, saying, "Limbaugh would definitely hurt" the Rams, "the way he talks makes me think he's a racist," while the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's Bryan Burwell said, "Limbaugh's American Dream is a potential nightmare waiting to happen for the Rams."
If anyone thought Limbaugh would try to placate concerns over his potential ownership of professional football team by softening his tone, they'd be no doubt mistaken. Just two days after confirming his interest in the Rams, Limbaugh told his audience that basketball was "the favorite sport of gangs." But hey, it wasn't a dig against football, right?
It's not surprising then that NFL players are reportedly saying they "wouldn't play for" a Limbaugh-owned team due to his "flat-out racist" comments.
Here are ten reasons players and fans are justifiably worried.
Right-wing media swine push H1N1 vaccine conspiracy
If you wind up getting the H1N1 virus, you can blame Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. OK, not exactly. But they certainly are doing their best to stir up fears that the H1N1 vaccine is potentially harmful, that shots will be mandatory and that it is all somehow part of a government plot to control people. Which means millions of followers will likely forego getting the recommended vaccine and thus the flu will become an even greater public health problem.
Limbaugh's fearmongering on the vaccine is rooted in his continued effort to oppose the administration over anything at anytime. Following the administration's suggestion that everyone get vaccinated, Limbaugh said on his Wednesday program: "I'm not seeing these mass deaths from the swine flu." He added: "All I see is a bunch of typical government panic and hype." Limbaugh continued:
Who put the notion that you gotta have this shot, or this nasal spray -- whatever the hell the vaccine is -- whoever the hell put in your head the notion that you gotta do it? Government did. The Obama government, to be specific. It is one of my fervent objectives and goals ... to convince as many people as possible that the damn government is not God, and nobody in it even comes close to being as competent as you are to run your life. And yet, 'Oh my God, the government report says ...' The next time you hear 'The government says...' don't believe it. You'll be healthier, trust me.
Sounding a bit like a 13-year-old who has just been told he has to be home by 10 p.m., Limbaugh attacked HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for encouraging everyone to get the shot telling her, "Screw you, Ms. Sebelius! I am not going to take it, precisely because you're now telling me I must. It's not your role, it's not your responsibility, and you do not have that power. I don't want to take your vaccine. I don't get flu shots."
Limbaugh later took his ball and went home, stating, "I'm just like -- I'm a contrarian, I'm a non-conformist -- you have some idiot government official demanding, telling me I must take this vaccine. I'll never take it."
As one might expect, Beck's fearmongering about the vaccine is a little less contrarian and a lot more crazy. Beck has been raising "questions" about the vaccine - thus suggesting it is anything but safe - for the last couple weeks. Last month on his radio show, Beck said:
I am not willing to go on the air with anything because one thing that you get wrong on this and it -- it can lead to a lot of death one way or another, you know? If you say, 'Don't take the swine flu vaccination,' and then it turns out that the swine flu this particular wave is virulent and the vaccination would have helped, well then, you know, what role did I play in that? The opposite is true; I say, 'Everybody take the vaccination,' and that turns out to be deadly, what role did I play in that? I'm just not willing to do that.
Not to burst your giant head, Glenn, but if the vaccine turns out to be "deadly," I'm sure people will direct their concerns elsewhere. That is, if society is still intact. On the other hand, if people don't get the vaccine because you suggested not to and they get sick, and God forbid, die from the flu, well, that's on you, Glenn.
But Beck loves conspiracy theories, and thus devoted his October 8 show to debunking some crazy Internet rumors - thus giving them unnecessary air time -- about the government implanting microchips in people via the H1N1 vaccine. He ultimately concluded that the government is not doing this -- shocking -- but said that such chips exist and people should be watching the government and the corporation developing the chips to make sure it doesn't happen in the future.
In a telling conversation on Thursday night's O'Reilly Factor, Beck betrayed his feelings toward his audience after O'Reilly asked him if he planned to get the vaccine to which Beck replied, "I've decided not to share if I'm going to get it or not." O'Reilly pressed some more saying, "Oh, come on, Beck. Millions of people take their cue from you." Beck, still refusing to give in to O'Reilly's question, said, Look at this guy. You know, look at this guy. I know they're like zombies" [emphasis added].
And after Beck joked about getting a chip in his arm if he were to get vaccinated, O'Reilly called him out in a hilarious exchange pitting his view of the Factor's journalistic standards to that of Beck's Fox program:
O'REILLY: Oh, is that what it is now? You think they're going to inject a chip in everybody's arm?
BECK: No, no, no. That's actually one of the reasons we covered it. That is one of the big things on the Internet. They're going to track you when you -
O'REILLY: They're going to inject something in you?
BECK: Yes. And we've spent a lot of time --
O'REILLY: A lot of time?
BECK: Debunking that. So, there's no chip coming!
O'REILLY: See, on the Factor, we would spend --
BECK: I know it's a surprise, but this is why --
O'REILLY: Just wait for me. See, on the Factor we would spend two seconds debunking it: "That's nuts!"
For once, we actually agree with Bill O'Reilly.
Right's anti-gay witch hunt marches on
As we said last week, the conservative media is again capitalizing on homophobia in the hopes of political gain, launching an all-out attack against Kevin Jennings, an official with the Department of Education official. The right has claimed that 21 years ago, when Jennings was a 24-year-old teacher at Concord Academy in Massachusetts, he "cover[ed] up statutory rape" by not reporting to authorities a conversation he had with a student who told him about being involved with an "older man."
Media Matters disproved the heart of that right-wing tale last Friday conclusively showing that the former student in question was 16 in 1988, the legal age of consent in Massachusetts both then and now.
And yet this week, the attacks continued, many of which displayed the right's stunning ability to completely ignore reality whenever it sees fit. A Washington Times editorial pushed the idea that Jennings "violated Massachusetts law" over 20 years ago by "covering up" sexual misconduct. In other words, the Times was still reporting a lie 48 hours after it had been publicly disproven.
Two days later, Jeffrey Lord of The American Spectator wrote yet another piece claiming that Brewster was 15 years old. At this point, the story had been dead for four days, but it didn't matter. After one of Lord's readers noted that the issue had already been resolved, Lord still wasn't convinced. "If Jennings provides that fact and can document it," he wrote, "we will be happy to correct." (He apparently doesn't consider a driver's license to be a legal document.) Doubling down, Washington Examiner chief political correspondent Byron York made the same fallacious accusation on the same day.
The baseless attacks continued. Fox News' Sean Hannity pushed a fabricated link between Jennings and NAMBLA, while Rush Limbaugh said that Obama had empowered "child abusers" and "perverts." The Fox Nation website called Jennings "lewd."
It wasn't long before the real motivation behind the right-wing media's passion was made all too clear. On October 6, the right began targeting Chai Feldblum, a lesbian who has been an outspoken advocate for gay rights. She is currently President Obama's nominee to head the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Feldblum is a signatory to a 2006 statement entitled "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage" which argues that "marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others." The statement is entirely unrelated to the duties Feldblum would have as an EEOC commissioner, which include enforcement of existing federal laws involving job discrimination and providing oversight of federal equal employment opportunity regulations, practices, and policies.
But this doesn't matter to the Right, which immediately twisted Feldblum's words beyond recognition. A WorldNetDaily article stated that with the 2006 document, she had praised polygamy, a falsehood. And it only got worse from there.
"I'm telling you, the entire federal government is going to have to be fumigated some day when these deviants and degenerates are finally sent packing" wrote WND editor and CEO Joseph Farah. The website CatholicOnline.org also published anti-Feldblum pieces. One, written by Deacon Keith Fournier, claimed that Feldblum "actually believes that the protections provided under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution have become outdated," an absurd charge.
"In short," read an editorial from the Traditional Values Coalition published on RightSideNews.com, "she wants the gay agenda to trump the First Amendment and religious freedom to impose the gay agenda on all Americans -- including those with strongly held religious beliefs about homosexuality."
The witch hunt goes on, and as it does, the words of Joseph Welch, whose dramatic chastisement of Senator Joseph McCarthy helped to end his immoral campaign, seem to ring louder every day: "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?"
This week's media columns
This week's media columns from the Media Matters senior fellows: Eric Boehlert looks at The New York Times' pointless pursuit of right-wing "buzz" stories; Jamison Foser says The New Republic should apologize for publishing Betsy McCaughey's dishonest assault on Clinton health care reform efforts in the '90s; and Karl Frisch declares "all aboard" as the right's Fox News gravy train rolls on.
Greg Lewis predicts the future health of St. Louis Rams players and fans if Rush Limbaugh buys the team in The Friday Rush, a review of Limbaugh's radio shows over the past week.
Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, MySpace and Digg
Media Matters maintains active online communities on the nation's leading social networking sites. Be sure to join us on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, MySpace and Digg and join in on the discussion.
Do you listen to podcasts? Try the Media Matters Minute
For months now, radio shows and stations throughout the country have been carrying the Media Matters Minute, a daily minute-long recap of our work topped off with the "most outrageous comment" of the day. We encourage you to subscribe (iTunes / RSS) to the Minute's daily podcast hosted by Media Matters' Ben Fishel.
Special thanks to this week's contributors: Brian Frederick and John V. Santore.
This weekly wrap-up was compiled and edited by Karl Frisch, a senior fellow at Media Matters for America. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the web as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube or sign-up to receive his columns by email.
I wouldn't have liked it if a year ago, George W. Bush got the Nobel Prize.
But I'm not surprised that this common sense conclusion evades you.
I think, short of purposefully inciting violence against people or America, there is no unamerican speech - Disagreeing must not be looked down upon just for the sake of disagreeing.
~
A little knowledge goes a long way. You should try it some time.
Randy
But if someone else who's new to this discussion would actually like an explanation, either read through some of the previous threads here, or watch this video from Rachel Maddow. It's 11 minutes long, but it gives one quite a good idea of why someone who has great aspirations gets this prize sometimes.
Like Aung San Suu Kyi, the woman under house arrest in Burma who has not yet dislodged the military junta - she won in 1991.
Or like Desmond Tutu, who won in 1984 for his work against apartheid. He hadn't yet defeated it.
Or the Dalai Lama. Or anyone who's won for their peace efforts in the Mideast - did we get peace there when I wasn't looking?
Often they give the prize to someone who has inspired hope, with the expectation that their aspirations will inspire others.
Actually, it would be more productive to always select someone like Obama, rather than simply rewarding people who were successful, if one wants to foster peace.
But don't let your Obama Derangement Syndrome spoil your weekend, dull one.
I KNOW that Obama's been very successful in changing the direction that the USA was heading, and that's a successful thing, but it's not a tangible thing, like getting a peace treaty signed.
But you already knew that your distortion of my comment wasn't valid and didn't make the point you were trying to make, numbnuts.
Here's some of what they say.
...the judges found his promise of disarmament and diplomacy too good to ignore.
They lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease U.S. conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen its role in combating climate change.
Jagland said the committee whittled down a record pool of 205 nominations and had "several candidates until the last minute," but it became more obvious that "we couldn't get around these deep changes that are taking place" under Obama.
Aagot Valle, a lawmaker for the Socialist Left party who joined the Nobel committee this year, said she hoped the selection would be viewed as "support and a commitment for Obama."
"And I hope it will be an inspiration for all those that work with nuclear disarmament and disarmament," she told AP in a rare interview. Members of the committee usually speak only through its chairman.
The Nobel committee said it paid special attention to Obama's vision of a nuclear-free world, laid out in a speech in Prague and in April and at the United Nations last month.
Former Peace Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, said Obama has already provided outstanding leadership on nuclear non-proliferation.
"He has shown an unshakable commitment to diplomacy, mutual respect and dialogue as the best means of resolving conflicts," ElBaradei said.
You must be delusional if you don't understand this!
It's like you getting turned down for a job because you don't think that the fact that you don't have the requisite qualifications should matter - somehow you know better than the people trying to hire someone to fill a position what standards they should hold.
But you fit the qualifications of a troll very well!
What do the nujobs have against a president espousing peace?
What I asked is why he deserved it over someone else. You could always argue Obama does deserve it, sure, but that just sets a really, really low bar.
by DellDolly (October 11, 2009 1:21 am ET)
before you continued to ask why he deserved it over someone else? The committee explained why, and I posted their response.
But my advice is that you don't hold your breath waiting for that. And maybe you'll ignore this advice just as often as you ignore my fact-filled posts.
It's direct links to comments by the committee which determines what qualifications matter. Those comments from the horse's mouth are facts. Not my opinions.
Or it's me posting factual info about previous winners who hadn't actually accomplished their goals when they won the Nobel Peace Prize. That's not my opinion, again. It's a fact that a military junta still rules Burma/Myanmar. It's a fact that Bishop Desmond Tutu only had the hope to end apartheid when he won the prize.
And it's a fact that if someone didn't know, pretty much right away, why the committee determined that Obama was a perfect recipient of this prize, it's not because the info wasn't available to them. The press release telling us that Obama won also told us why they selected him! One had to be trying to not learn the facts and had to be skimming the available info to not know them.
You wish that all I posted here was my opinion. It's that I back up what I say with facts that has your panties in a wad.
Bush isn't qualified to be a dog catcher!
The thought that Bush did so much for women in Afghanistan is a joke!
He STARTED a war in Afghanistan and then LEFT to start ANOTHER war in ANOTHER country, FAILING to complete the FIRST war!
Which is why we are STILL at war in Afghanistan 8 years later!
Conditions for women in Afghanistan in LIMITED areas have improved, but in other areas incidences of rape, forced marriage is on the rise AGAIN! AND MOST women CONTINUE to wear the burga out of FEAR for their safety.
The war in Afghanistan MAY have removed SOME of the Taliban, but it HAS NOT removed the religious fundamentalism which is the MAIN cause of violence against women!
But you are.
"He STARTED a war in Afghanistan and then LEFT"
No he didn't, we are still there as you pointed out. You can't have it both ways. But hey, why hasn't Obama solved the problems in Afghanistan, things have gotten worse on his watch.
"AND MOST women CONTINUE to wear the burga out of FEAR for their safety. "
Some Muslim women here in America also wear the burqa, do they also wear it out of fear for their safety?
And why are we not out of Iraq and why is Gitmo still in operation? Why are we still practicing the policy of rendition?
Change we can believe in, at least until the campaign is over.
You are a total moron always looking for a fight.
Go do your nails and hair instead of trying to look like a macho defender of thruth and the Anti-American way.
I must ask in all honesty, do you hate liberals because you wanted to go to the prom with some liberal kid who didn't ask you? I am sure your room is filled with pretty little stuffed animals and girlie things...now, put on your burqa and go out and meet a nice liberal guy. You might feel better.
Good God, do you REALLY think that Afghanistan was going to be "fixed" during the Bush administration years? Russia finally was forced to give up and withdraw, of course, that was with the US helping the Afghanis if memory serves me right.
It was atrocious that Bush put on the 'show' of going after the one who really was responsible for attacking us but failing to get him. It was even more atrocious that he attacked a country that had absolutely NOTHING to do with the attack.
As for Obama and the Nobel prize, I say good on the committee, good on him for his gracious acceptance, and shame on those who continually are attacking the US from within.
Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. Everything said was true - sure, she used a little hyperbole to suggest that Bush left Afghanistan, when all he did was starve it for attention for years and years by waging an unnecessary and ill-advised invasion of Iraq.
If you listen to anyone, Sec of Defense Gates, Gen McCrystal, anyone in a position of power in the military, they all say that the Bush policies were misguided and unproductive.
And woe be to the leader who actually takes time to think about an issue and get feedback from multiple sources before making a decision!
kydem it's hard to take you and other cons seriously when you refuse to acknowledge this point. You were lied to by the Bush administration,but you left the dems because of the criticism of GB. What a phony and good ridance.
False Pretenses
Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
By Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith
January 23, 2008
President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.
On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war...
"...President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14)..."
Explain this kydem:
Consider, for example, these false public statements made in the run-up to war:
On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "
In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year." A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction — an analysis that hadn't been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn't requested it.
In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more, an earlier DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear."
On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team's final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.
On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement "probably is a hoax."
On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: "What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources." As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One was an Iraqi con artist, code-named "Curveball," whom American intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January 2004 that he had "decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government]."
The false statements dramatically increased in August 2002, with congressional consideration of a war resolution, then escalated through the mid-term elections and spiked even higher from January 2003 to the eve of the invasion...
Short of such review, this project provides a heretofore unavailable framework for examining how the U.S. war in Iraq came to pass. Clearly, it calls into question the repeated assertions of Bush administration officials that they were the unwitting victims of bad intelligence.
Above all, the 935 false statements painstakingly presented here finally help to answer two all-too-familiar questions as they apply to Bush and his top advisers: What did they know, and when did they know it?
http://projects.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/
They lied 935 times. As this study showed it wasn't faulty intelligence, that was the line they were feeding to willing lapdogs such as yourself . They knew unthinking people like you would eat it up, and ta da,you are still repeating it. Wake up!
1.)In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year." A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction  an analysis that hadn't been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn't requested it.
2.)In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more, an earlier DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with Al Queda is unclear.
3.)On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team's final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.
4.)On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement "probably is a hoax."
I pointed out to you 4 instances where either Bush or someone in his administration went against known intelligence and infromation gathered at the time. He lied. This information was not given to the Democrats, they were not told of the conflicting information. But I know yoiu want to blame Obama so you just waffle about facts having some liberal bias,and therefore not being credible. Sad and weak argument.
I like the way you conservatives argue something being won or lost by a Democrat when it was YOUR policies that F it up in the first place. What is winning in Afghanistan kydem? What is the goal in Afghanistan kydem? What decisive action other than invading Afghanistan did Bush accomplish? Tell me why didn't GB send more troops there? Please answer these questions and tell me why shouldn't our representatives and President answer them before we commit more of soldiers and ask them to make the ultimate sacrifice? Your knee jerk against anything Obama won't work. If you are truly concerned about OUR soldiers you should want these questions answered. This is not about having the gonads as you say(how childish)it is about getting it right.
Then there was lies about the intelligence. And there was misrepresentations about that intelligence and how sure they were about what that intelligence was telling us. And we were all lied to by the Bush Administration in the lead-up to this invasion. Bush said that he'd try diplomacy first, but he didn't. He said we wanted to get the inspectors in there, but when they got in there and weren't finding any WMD's, he pulled them out and invaded instead.
When someone like you ignores that fact that the faulty intelligence didn't cause any other president to invade, that's your partisan bias speaking. And when you ignore the fact that the on the ground inspectors were debunking the faulty intelligence, yet Bush still invaded, that's nonsense. Bush relied upon the faulty intelligence (hypotheses based upon guesswork and estimates) even after he had real facts from the inspectors! That's the factual flaw in your argument!
after reading some of your posts one has to wonder. do you ever leave your house or even turn off fox news?
I don't even watch fox news except for O'Reilly, I don't listen to Limbaugh, Hannity or Beck. And I don't understand why you morons who seem to oppose war won't take an honest look at how our current president is putting lives in danger by his inaction on Afghanistan. Instead, you simply deflect back to the old tired arguments against Bush.
UNpatrioticKate, PLEASE do me a favor, STOP with the dumb a** questions.
Seriously, are YOU incapable of using Google?
Are YOU incapable of comprehending ANYTHING that doesn't come from the mouths of Fox Noise, Limbo, Insanity and Glenda?
Taliban still a major threat 8 years later...
Afghan women hiding for their lives...
Armed men gun down working woman in S Afghanistan...
Afghan women bear brunt of hypocritical ‘war on terror’...
Obama too, he hasn't actually done anything besides talk and continue Bush's foreign policy (there was already a time table to be out of Iraq made before Obama took office, keep in mind), why does he deserve it?
It wasn't for his accomplishments in office. It was because of his vision and his inspiration to others.
It's your wrong interpretation of what someone must do tbe qualified for the prize. You might want to read the Nobel Peace Prize Committee's press release in full. Here's an important snippet.
For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."
It's not about his actions at all. It's about his inspiration and his commitment to future actions.
But that was when we had White Presidents, it seems now Patriotism is Done.
I guess you haven't noticed that each time Obama opens his mouth the Extreme Right has a Fit?
Their plan is to hurt Obama by any means even if they have to Destroy America to do it.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
Reading you stuff is like listening to ConRadio over and over.
Are you sure you don't just copy this stuff? Because you certainly repeat the company line over and over and over?
Now your turn, can you answer me this...if the Dems have such control, why do they Repubs even show up? Do you feel you shouldn't be represented? Or are you just stating what the R's would do?
Really? You would cheer against an American president receiving an international award? That just seems insane to me. Party is NOT more important than country.
Obama signed an executive order closing the internment camp at Guantanamo Bay, fought to stimulate the economy, and has been a tireless voice for reforming the healthcare system. Bush invaded nations, destroyed his own nation's financial structure with deregulation, and cut taxes during wartime, something NO WORLD LEADER before him ever did.
Between Obama, and Bush, knowing what all of us "liberals" know to be 'indisputable truths', which political ideaology do you think deserves the award from Alfred Nobel?
I am proud of Obama.
If you consider "Bush deregulated " as an "Indisputable truth". back it up.
Study: Bush administration blocked efforts to
prevent housing crisis
http://rawstory.com/2009/10/study-bush-blocked-efforts/
Excerpt from the article:
Federal regulators in the Bush administration blocked attempts
by state governments to prevent predatory lending practices that resulted in the financial crisis now stalking the American economy, a new study from the University of North Carolina says.
In 2004, the Office of the Currency Comptroller, an obscure regulatory agency tasked with ensuring the fiscal soundness of America's banks, invoked an 1863 law to give itself the power to override state laws against predatory lending. The OCC told states they could not enforce predatory-lending laws, and all banks would be subject only to less-strict federal laws.
"Obama . . . fought to stimulate the economy." -- yet his efforts have done nothing to help the economy rebound.
"Obama . . . has been a tireless voice for reforming the healthcare system." -- yet he can't get reform passed.
I'm so glad you highlighted all of Obama's wonderful accomplishments. I can see now why he was so deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize!
The economy (based on recent unemployment figures, home sales, etc.) is maybe not getting a lot better, but it's surely not doing any worse.
Health care? That's a congressional problem.
You obviously know nothing about how the peace prize is awarded.
he stated his goal was to have it closed in january 2010. it may be pushed back a bit but it is in progress.
"Obama . . . fought to stimulate the economy." -- yet his efforts have done nothing to help the economy rebound.
actually, the economy is turning around. most indicators are pointing in a favorable direction. employment is still lagging as is the case in past recessions.
"Obama . . . has been a tireless voice for reforming the healthcare system." -- yet he can't get reform passed.
the healthcare bill are still working their way thru the process. a bill of this size is complicated and takes time. a bill will most likely pass and still may include a public option.
thanks for playing but once again you show your complete lack of knowledge about how things work in the real world.
------------------------------
The Midnight Review
Mum Is The Word
I just would like to know why is it so important that people say he didn't deserve it? What other station waged a campaign on one president before, name just 1 EVER??? They even treated Nixon with respect. He stepped down. We moved on. They didn't even complain about Ford not being elected 1/8 as much as they are on Obama. He is My President of My country darn it and I am defending him! I voted for him and stand behind it. You do what ever it is you are doing. I'll do whatever it is I am doing. Thanks media Matters.
In the interest of continuing education, appeasement is not when you talk to bad people, it's when you give stuff to bad people. Sorta like training Osama, arming Saddam, and giving advanced weapons technology to Iran to delay releasing hostages.
All they know is that they have to be opposed to all things Obama!!!!Fox and Rush told em so!!!Michael Steele knows !!!
Randy
Are you not the people who helped to elect a president who had NO EXPERIENCE in handling world affairs or running anything (oh sorry, forgot about ACORN), who rarely voted on anything and used the coward word 'present' instead? You helped get a man elected who is NOW the blame for tearing this country apart?
Your leader is George Soros. Obama is owned by every socialist, Marxist who through corruption climbed their way up to the now administration.
It was brilliant actually, let us put in a well spoken man of color and control him, then when people speak against HIS policies, let us call them racist.
Oh by the way, Obama has no policies, he says what is written for him. The man is always campaigning for his cause, I can not wait to hear the final charges from the cost of Air Force one this year, it will be outrageous.
Well..I have news for you all, you will fail.
I spend a lot of time in Europe and Asia. Trust me, I have seen it all.
Do not tell me...and us..what is Socialism..what is Marxism. I know it well and intend to spread the word of every truth.
Anti American..."oh..we care about the little guy" you say. Yet, Liberals give in ALL charities nearly 50% less than conservatives do. Please check this fact.
The truth is..you want to CONTROL the little man.
This will not happen..ever.
You did not think that Americans would see through you so quickly did you?
Nice try. Shame on you all.
Obama did nothing to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. People are laughing all over the world! Have you read the London Times? GB is very Liberal, yet they saw though it.
Do not be so afraid of Fox. You all are shaking in your boots, it is actually quite pathetic to see. Your words make you look weak.
Give my love to George and I will be watching to see if your blog is open to ALL opinions.
Showing up at presidential speeches with guns and signs advocating assassination doesn't seem so peaceful to me.
If the word fits, it should be used.
Grow up.
If the word fits , it should be used.
People have different reasons for being wrong.
People who think Obama shouldn't have gotten the prize because of their Obama Derangement Syndrome - those are the unAmerican ones. The ones who just don't understand the criteria? Not so much.
Criminal enterprise is used when the attitude of the organization is criminal. When criminality is condoned, not condemned, by the leadership.
So, no, ACORN is not a criminal enterprise, but Blackwater sure the heck is.
I guess it is perfectly acceptable to you that the management of acorn also covered up the theft of funds from the organization. But heck he was the boss's brother, he deserved the money.
Reality is that only at a couple of locations did they actually provide advice, and it was not the same advice and assistance at those limited locations.
The lead guy at ACORN did decide that the best option to keep ACORN afloat was to not publicize the theft of the money, but it was kept totally hidden. He didn't cover it up. He just didn't publicize it. I don't think that's right, and when his actions were exposed, he was forced out by the organization.
So, that incident is actually evidence that there's no criminal enterprise! When the actions of one person became exposed, the organization forced him out. That's like the exact opposite of what would happen in a criminal enterprise.
You really make yourself look incredibly ignorant when you don't think before you post, you know! It baffles me how people as ignorant as you are think you can educate the rest of us.
Democrats opposed the Iraq war.
Therefore, Democrats sided with Bin laden in that case.
Shame on Democrats.
RightWing Hate Radio driving the indies to the left.
Illegal invasion of Iraq.
The destruction of our Constitution.
The disregard of the middle and lower classes and laws.
Bush...
Cheney..
and many more..but one of the main reason could have been,,,wait for it..
Your ticket..McCain and Palin.
You mean to say that you never thought that anything on this short list could've been the cause. Maybe a little reading and venturing outside the teacup world would help illuminate you.
Are you sure you aren't fairlibs feminine side?
So shut your mouth with this ignorant "you're with al Qaeda" finger pointing. al Qaeda is a black-ops arm of U.S. military intelligence.
The U.S. has a large population of truly patriotic people. Some are patriotic, but in a dangerously misguided fashion. Most people watch sports and American Idol. A lazy, ignorant majority is all it takes for governments to go bad.
You are the one who wrote that we should pay attention to her when there's no credible evidence that we should pay attention to her hardly at all, and certainly not at all in regard to who might have infiltrated the US government before 9/11.
You claimed you had "truth" for us. Then you had a massive 'fail' with your proof of that truth. The problematic side of this debate is not coming from me.
Don't like national health care? Blame the insurance companies. We wouldn't be talking about it if they'd done a half-decent job.
Me and you POV, we'll cleanup this award process made by people from countries far way from here who have their own set of rules..How dare they not listen or take advice from America?
I suggest that the American soccer team refuse their invitation to the World Cup until the travesties of the Biology and Chemistry awards are changed.
Anyone else wishing to join me and POV, please reply to this request.
P.S. And I haven't even begun to get into those stinking award for Literature.
All scientists should just leave research alone. Science benefits no one. They are just trying to politicize DNA and further marginalize the God-loving right.
Just kidding, of course...
--------------------------------------------
The Midnight Review
Mum Is The Word
Show us a sign that your side would respond to kindness and compromise and we'll consider trying again.
I hope it works. That would bring the tally of campaign promises that he hasn't totally gone back on to...uh, one.
He basically told everyone over and over again that he'd been asleep for the last 20 years and got nominated anyway.
Are you saying that the anti-war and anti-G12 were more peaceful? Show me these violent "tea party" protesters who were arrested in mass numbers, please!