About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Media start timers on stimulus, Obama "honeymoon period"

February 17, 2009 9:00 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: Since Congress passed President Obama's economic recovery bill, several media figures have warned that Obama could suffer political consequences if the nation's economy does not improve substantially in a short amount of time. But Obama has consistently emphasized the long-term nature of economic recovery, repeatedly stating that the recovery "will likely be measured in terms of years and not months."

156 Comments

Since Congress passed President Obama's economic recovery bill, several media figures have warned that Obama could suffer political consequences if the nation's economy does not improve substantially in a short amount of time. For example, during the February 17 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk, senior White House correspondent Major Garrett asserted: "If economic results don't begin to happen rapidly, then the stimulus bill, which is not as popular as he is, will begin to converge with his own personal popularity and could bring that back down." Host Trace Gallagher later said: "How long is the honeymoon period? I mean, we're going to start the clock here a few minutes from now when this bill is signed. How long? Is it a week? Is it six months? When do we say, 'Look, we need results on this thing, lest we go back and look for more money'?" But Obama has consistently emphasized the long-term nature of economic recovery, repeatedly stating that the recovery "will likely be measured in terms of years and not months." Obama has also stated that recovery "will not come easy or happen overnight, and it is altogether likely that things may get worse before they get better. But that is all the more reason for Congress to act without delay."

Others in the media have echoed the claim that Obama could suffer politically if the economy doesn't improve quickly. For example:

  • During the February 17 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh claimed: "If we don't see unemployment drop in two months, we can say it didn't work. And we're gonna -- we're gonna proclaim it loudly, that it didn't work."
  • During the February 17 edition of MSNBC Live, Republican strategist and FoxNews.com contributor Andrea Tantaros asserted that the recovery package "is a Democratic bill. So, if this bill fails -- and we will know very quickly if it stimulates the economy or it doesn't -- Democrats as a party will pay in the polls."
  • During the February 14 Fox News special Trillion with a T: How To Spend $1,000,000,000,000.00, host Bret Baier asked Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ): "If the economy doesn't turn around fairly quickly, will President Obama pay a political price?" Flake responded: "I think so."

In February 13 remarks to the Business Council, Obama stated:

Now, passing this plan is a critical step, but as important as it is, it's only the beginning of what I think all of you understand is going to be a long and difficult process of turning our economy around. To truly address this crisis, we will also need to address the crisis in our financial sector to get credit flowing again to families and businesses. And we need to confront the crisis in the housing sector that's been one of the sources of our economic challenges. I'll be discussing that extensively soon. We're going to need comprehensive financial reform in the way government relates to the financial markets in order to deal with the complex challenges of the 21st century -- both as a way to restore trust and also ensure that a crisis like this can never happen again.

And finally, we have to approach our budget in a responsible way. It's my strong belief that we're going to have to invest in the short term to get our economy moving again and that we would be foolish to ignore our current perils. But I also think that it's important for us to think in the midterm and long term. And over that midterm and long term, we're going to have to have fiscal discipline. We are not going to be able to perpetually finance the levels of debt that the federal government occur and carry.

And that means investing in priorities like energy and health care and education that will grow our economy again. But it also means eliminating those programs that are wasteful and duplicative, and that we simply cannot afford. We have to once again live within our means. We're going to have to make some tough decisions that many of you are already making in your companies, but the federal government has not made with respect to our operations.

It will take all of these steps to not only lead to an economic recovery, but to lead to a long-term path to economic prosperity. And this work will not be easy. Our recovery will likely be measured in years and not months. All of us -- government, business, labor, and citizens -- will have responsibilities to meet. And I will be looking to all of you for your ideas and innovations, for your help not only crafting the policies of the 21st century, but crafting a government for the 21st century that can be a partner with you. Your best practices should be our best practices.

In February 12 remarks to Caterpillar employees in East Peoria, Illinois, Obama stated:

Passing this plan is an important step -- but it's just one step. It's only the beginning of what we're going to have to do to turn around our economy. So to truly address this crisis, we're also going to need to address the home mortgage crisis. We're going to have to get credit flowing again. We need to reform our financial markets, both to restore trust and ensure that a crisis like this can never happen again. And whether it's rebuilding our schools or reforming our health care system or investing in clean energy, much work remains to lay the foundation for long-term economic growth and fiscal responsibility.

We've got to spend some money now to pull us out of this recession. But as soon as we're out of this recession, we've got to get serious about starting to live within our means, instead of leaving debt for our children and our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren. That's not the responsible way. That's not how folks here in Peoria operate in their own lives, and they should expect the government is equally responsible.

So the road ahead is not an easy one. Some of our plans might not always work out exactly the way we'd like. Our recovery will likely be measured in terms of years and not months.

In February 9 remarks in Elkhart, Indiana, Obama stated:

We know that even with this plan, the road ahead won't be easy. This crisis has been a long time in the making, and we know that we cannot turn it around overnight. Recovery will likely be measured in years, not weeks or months. But we also know that our economy will be stronger for generations to come if we commit ourselves to the work that needs to be done today. And being here in Elkhart, I am more confident than ever before that we will get where we need to be.

In a January 8 speech at George Mason University in Virginia, Obama said (retrieved from the Nexis database):

Now, this recovery plan alone will not solve all the problems that led us into this crisis. We must also work with the same sense of urgency to stabilize and repair the financial system we all depend on. That means using our full arsenal of tools to get credit flowing again to families and business, while restoring confidence in our markets. It means launching a sweeping effort to address the foreclosure crisis so that we can keep responsible families in their homes. It means preventing the catastrophic failure of financial institutions whose collapse could endanger the entire economy, but only with maximum protections for taxpayers and a clear understanding that government support for any company is an extraordinary action that must come with significant restrictions on the firms that receive support. And it means reforming a weak and outdated regulatory system so that we can better withstand financial shocks and better protect consumers, investors, and businesses from the reckless greed and risk-taking that must never endanger our prosperity again.

No longer can we allow Wall Street wrongdoers to slip through regulatory cracks. No longer can we allow special interests to put their thumbs on the economic scales. No longer can we allow the unscrupulous lending and borrowing that leads only to destructive cycles of bubble and bust.

It is time to set a new course for this economy, and that change must begin now. We should have an open and honest discussion about this recovery plan in the days ahead, but I urge Congress to move as quickly as possible on behalf of the American people. For every day we wait or point fingers or drag our feet, more Americans will lose their jobs. More families will lose their savings. More dreams will be deferred and denied. And our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.

That is not the country I know, and it is not a future I will accept as President of the United States. A world that depends on the strength of our economy is now watching and waiting for America to lead once more. And that is what we will do.

It will not come easy or happen overnight, and it is altogether likely that things may get worse before they get better. But that is all the more reason for Congress to act without delay. I know the scale of this plan is unprecedented, but so is the severity of our situation. We have already tried the wait-and-see approach to our problems, and it is the same approach that helped lead us to this day of reckoning.

From the February 17 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk:

PATTI ANN BROWNE (anchor): Well, Major, with the Democrats in control here, what is at stake for President Obama politically?

GARRETT: Well, it's very simple, Patti Ann. Right now if you look at the polling data on the stimulus bill, the stimulus bill runs anywhere from 10 to 20 points behind President Obama's personal popularity and leadership qualities. Eventually, if not starting at the moment he puts pen to paper today, those two polling data -- pieces of data are going to merge. The president is going to be married to the stimulus bill. It's his bill. He can say it was written in Washington, it was written by Congress, but he advocated strongly, strenuously, went around the country saying, "This bill needs to be signed, it needs to be passed, and it needs to be passed in a big, big hurry." Well, he got the bill. He got it passed in a big hurry.

Let's just think about this for a second. We're in the middle of February. If you compare this to the first hundred days of FDR during the Great Depression and how much was spent then and how many programs were put in place, this amount of money, number one, is larger; number two, it's been dealt with by Congress much more rapidly than were the spending programs put together and signed by FDR in the first hundred days of his administration. So everything is happening faster, as the president asked for. If economic results don't begin to happen rapidly, then the stimulus bill, which is not as popular as he is, will begin to converge with his own personal popularity and could bring that back down.

GALLAGHER: Major, when you say, "rapidly" -- I know you're going to be in these White House briefings everyday, putting Robert Gibbs' feet to the fire on this. How long is the honeymoon period? I mean, we're going to start the clock here a few minutes from now when this bill is signed. How long? Is it a week? Is it six months? When do we say, "Look, we need results on this thing, lest we go back and look for more money"?

From the February 17 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: We haven't even gotten to TARP II, which is going to be a trillion dollars -- the nationalization of the banks. And we haven't even gotten to Stimulus II, which is going to happen. And one of the reasons it's going to happen -- look, we've got things that we can measure here. Right off the bat. This thing's gonna get signed in one hour. If we don't see unemployment drop in two months, we can say it didn't work. And we're gonna -- we're gonna proclaim it loudly, that it didn't work. If we don't see a bunch of new schools being built, if we don't see a bunch of roads and bridges being repaired, above what's already happening, we're gonna say, "Hey, this isn't working." Because I'll tell you what's gonna happen. When the economy rebounds for whatever reason -- and it will not be this stimulus package -- but we have a totally in-the-tank, sycophantic, they're-gonna-die-of-anal-poisoning-someday media that cannot wait to credit Barack Obama for any -- the smallest little economic uptick.

If, for example, this Caterpillar guy -- and I wouldn't be surprised if this happens -- if the Caterpillar guy, within, say, three weeks of the stimulus being passed -- remember, he's on Obama's economic advisory team in the White House. Let's say a month from today, Caterpillar announces they're gonna rehire a thousand people. Do you realize -- do you realize what the news is going to look like that day? Because what's the story now? The story is Obama went out and said, "Caterpillar guy CEO told me that if the stimulus is passed that we're gonna start hiring people." The next day, the Caterpillar CEO says, "Eh, not quite sure. I think we're still facing layoffs. It's going to be a little while before we can start hiring back."

OK, so that's where we are. What if in a month, Caterpillar starts hiring people? I think you should look for bigger headlines in The New York Times than on V-E Day. The headlines will be bigger the first economic report that's an uptick than they were for when we won in World War II. The fix is in, folks. The fix is in to make this guy the most successful, the most rapidly successful president ever. And that's why if unemployment in two months is still going up, this is a failure. If you don't see any new schools, if you don't see any roads being repaired, bridges blah da ba da ba da, then we're going to proclaim it a failure because we're being -- "Now, but Rush, but Rush, Obama says it's going to take a while." They're saying all kinds of things. I'm not going to react to what they say. They're saying it's going to be a long time. I think they're just lowering expectations. I think one of the reasons they really hustled to put this through is that they know at some point the economy's going to recover. They want to be able to give the stimulus package and thus Obama credit for it. That was one of the real reasons for haste, in addition to getting a bunch of pure garbage in this bill passed into law before anybody could see it. Back in a moment.

From the 10 a.m. ET hour of MSNBC Live on February 17:

TANTAROS: Contessa, I'm happy -- I'm actually happy the Democrats did it this way. Because now, this is a strictly -- this is a Democratic bill. So, if this bill fails -- and we will know very quickly if it stimulates the economy or it doesn't -- Democrats as a party will pay in the polls.

From the February 14 Fox News special Trillion with a T: How To Spend $1,000,000,000,000.00:

BAIER: If the economy doesn't turn around fairly quickly, will President Obama pay a political price?

FLAKE: I think so. I mean, everybody recognizes that it's not a good thing to carry this level of debt and to have this big a deficit.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by magnolialover (February 17, 2009 9:10 pm ET)
         

      Obama has about 3 years for this to work, in other words, in time for re-election. Of course they have all started the timers though. I mean, they started their "Obama Failing" timers at about 12:30PM on 20-Jan-09. It didn't take them too long really.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (February 17, 2009 9:37 pm ET)
           

        who in the press ever started a bush timer? And shouldn't this be considered treason?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by sigtek44bc1345 (February 17, 2009 10:32 pm ET)
             

          Treason? Questioning the direction the president is taking us is treason? I guess the democrats and liberals commited treason for eight years by that standard.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by pointofview (February 17, 2009 10:42 pm ET)
               

            Of course it is treason to question the chosen one.  Dont expect them to do anything about Burris either, a Dem senator could never commit treason.  The mistakes Obama has made in the first few weeks alone are better than any reality show could ever be.  I mean really, who can honestly doubt that 50 million for the arts will not stimualte the economy? 

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (February 17, 2009 11:09 pm ET)
                 

              Don't you think it'd be sporting to let that strawman have a tag-team partner? Nah,on second thought, I guess the two of you against one imaginary opponent is a pretty good match.

              Report Abuse
            • Author by Brabantio (February 17, 2009 11:37 pm ET)
                 

              "Dont expect them to do anything about Burris either, a Dem senator could never commit treason.  The mistakes Obama has made in the first few weeks alone are better than any reality show could ever be."

              Interesting juxtaposition of comments there.  What does Obama have to do with the appointment of Burris?

              I don't know who's defended Burris, anyway.  He never should have been appointed to begin with, and I'll be happy to see him kicked out.

              Report Abuse
            • Author by captfoster2 (February 18, 2009 12:54 am ET)
                 

              pointofview, sigtek44bc1345, and Cheney2012....

              You three clowns are made for eachother!

              Admittedly... Snoopy should not have claimed that it was potentially 'treason'... but considering the way the press handled Clinton and now Obama and treated Bush with kid gloves since 9/11... true... the media did jump on Bush early on... but nearly all of it was justified, but seriously... are you three for real?

              POV.... while it may be true that the $50 million for the arts won't stimulate the economy today... art is a very important part of for this countries well being... in the future at some point... several young kids would be able to enjoy the richness of said art and become better citizens for it... so I would submit to you that it would stimulate the economy over the next several decades and would easily pay for itself at a future date! But somehow I doudt you are capable of seeing that far intot he future.

              Sigtek... are you kidding me? Bush was never actually elected in 2000... he was given the job by a Supreme Court that superceded its authority and Republicans galore that incessently rail all the damn time about States rights (it was Florida's right as a State to demand a full recount) but that was the wrong answer for States rights champions... so Bush started off on a sour note, not only that, he WAS a dunderhead who did not finish what cheap time he did in the military!

              Cheney2012.... well... what can I say... you bring nothing of substance to the table... your boring!

              Report Abuse
              • Author by markbfoot199 (February 18, 2009 11:12 am ET)
                   

                Capt, you are amazing how delusional you are with these lies. 

                One, yes the arts may be important, but this bill was about the creation of jobs and should have never been apart of this bill.  They could have created another bill for that, but it would have never passed so it was stuck in this one.

                Two, Bush was not given Kitten Glove Treatment; the mainstream media treated Bush like he was a moron, or a idiot.  Anytime they could show a bad light on him they did.  Example.  Obama hit his head on the helicopter last week, but did not make the news.  IF it were Bush, it was a highlight of the News, it would have been on Letterman that night and SNL would have done a joke that weekend.  Sure we will not be seeing that with this President, just like they will never show him smoking.  IF it were Bush they would have followed him around and found shot video of not only him smoking but then run a report of how is he breaking the law by smoking somewhere that was not legal.  Then you all would ask that he be impeached.

                Third, not only was he elected they went back and did multi counts and studies and it proved it was a valid election.  Of course you would have not know that since it was not mainstream media. 

                Last, Snoopy, how about you look up the word “treason” before using it here.  You are the first to jump on a poster if you do not think the word was used correctly, but yet you do the same.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by Mrs. Teufelshunde (February 18, 2009 1:36 pm ET)
                     

                  a) I saw Obama hitting his head on CNN.  I assume you also saw it on "the news", unless you are claiming that you're taking jaunts on Marine One now.

                  b) There have been studies done of the media coverage of the 2000 election, and there were significantly more negative news stories about Gore than about Bush.  And Gore managed to win anyway!

                  c) The arts do create jobs.  I don't understand this obsession that the stimulus package only create construction jobs.  Creative types do often get paid for their work.  Example:  My mother has worked as a public school music teacher for 25 years.  The NEA helps keep arts and music in schools, not to mention privately funds many projects that do in fact keep people employed.

                  d) The recount was stopped by the Supreme Court.  Gore won the popular vote.  Studies have shown that based on the method Gore wanted Florida to use for the recount, he probably would have lost.  However, they did NOT employ that method, because, again, the Supreme Court stopped the recount.  And studies have shown that a full recount would have left Gore with the victory.

                  Report Abuse
            • Author by thejbomb65 (February 18, 2009 8:28 am ET)
                 

              don't talk of treason considering what W, and Dick had been up to over the last eight years.

              Report Abuse
          • Author by thejbomb65 (February 18, 2009 8:26 am ET)
               

            well questioning W was certainly demonized so i find it funny that the pot is calling the kettle black

            Report Abuse
          • Author by nerzog (February 18, 2009 8:48 am ET)
               

            Idiot.  That's exactly what troglodytes like Hannity and O'Reilly belched out whenever Democrats criticized President Numbnuts when the Iraq War was going down the crapper.

            Snoopy was using sarcasm.  Look it up.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by NiceguyEddie (February 18, 2009 8:52 am ET)
               

            Where have you BEEN for the last 8 years, dude?  Under a rock?  That EXACTLY what the Repug's and Con's HAVE been saying about the liberals for the last eight!!!  THAT'S WHY SNOOP SAID IT THAT WAY!!! IT APPLIES YOUR OWN STANDARD OF REASONING TO YOURSELVES!!! 

            Snoop was being ironic.  Your just being stupid.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by markbfoot199 (February 18, 2009 11:00 am ET)
               

            Sig, I agree, I have seen for years the count down to the end of the Bush Administration.  I just find it funny now that the shoe is on the other foot and doing the same as they did for years, they just cannot accept it.  What happen to tolerance?

            Report Abuse
        • Author by Cheney2012 (February 17, 2009 11:15 pm ET)
             

          All of the liberal press -- and many of the leftists in Congress did exactly that on Sept. 20, 2001.  And since MMFA likes to quote Obama and this economy not being a quick fix, here is what President Bush said, in part, on that night before a Joint Session of Congress:

          "Now this war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat. Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

          As Obama has warned us now about a lengthy process so too did George Bush.  However, the leftists in the media and elsewhere expected it to be over in a matter of months and they manipulated the modern-day impatience of the American people for their personal and political gain.  We're well within our rights to do the same on the economy.  And since current criticism doesn't give aid and comfort to the enemy it isn't treason, while the left's criticism was the very definition of the term.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by pointofview (February 17, 2009 11:22 pm ET)
               

            If only the left could use, see, or understand logic, then your post would make a difference.  Far to many on the left however are like snoopy and the col, and they will not let facts or reason stand in their way. 

            Report Abuse
            • Author by mk3872 (February 17, 2009 11:25 pm ET)
                 

              As soon as you see items in a reply here like "The Chosen One" such as from our friends like pointofview, you KNOW they are on a steady diet of Hannity & Limbaugh. Mmm, mmm, good! Eating up all that yummy right wing nut dribble!

              Report Abuse
            • Author by cArn (February 17, 2009 11:36 pm ET)
                 

              Your last post which Col responded to was nothing more than a strawman. Yet you have to nerve to talk about understanding logic? Give me a break.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Cheney2012 (February 17, 2009 11:38 pm ET)
                   

                Anything that shuts up the left is a strawman. 

                Report Abuse
                • Author by cArn (February 17, 2009 11:42 pm ET)
                     

                  No. I think you just made that up. ;)

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by pointofview (February 17, 2009 11:50 pm ET)
                       

                    No, I am pretty sure he is right.  No matter what point is made here that casts even a shadow on a dem talking point, the shouts of starwman and troll begin.  It really is amusing, and the main reason I keep coming back. 

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by cArn (February 18, 2009 12:06 am ET)
                         

                      The shouts of strawman and troll are legitimate if you are in fact using strawmen or being a troll. Saying that we leftists believe no one can question the "chosen one" or that no Dem can commit treason is a complete mischaracterization of our support for Obama and Dems. Portraying us all as blind, cultist followers so you can easily dismiss us is disingenuous. No outside observer would disgaree with you if that were the case. But it isn't. Hence it's a strawman.

                      Here's a link to help with your apparent confusion: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

                      The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

                         1. Person A has position X.
                         2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
                         3. Person B attacks position Y.
                         4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

                      This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Cheney2012 (February 18, 2009 12:34 am ET)
                           

                        The lengths a lefty loon will go to avoid an argument

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by funnymanpants (February 18, 2009 12:41 am ET)
                             

                          >>The lengths a lefty loon will go to avoid an argument

                          Name calling is not an argument. Do you have anything of substance to add to this discussion?

                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by cArn (February 18, 2009 1:26 am ET)
                             

                          What a substantive post! Keep up the good work, DickieBoy!

                          Report Abuse
            • Author by Cheney2012 (February 17, 2009 11:37 pm ET)
                 

              I couldn't agree more.  These people don't need to be convinced, but rather defeated.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by pointofview (February 17, 2009 11:43 pm ET)
                   

                You are correct.  In two years we will pick up seats in congress after the country is reminded what a Carter style dem is like in the white house.  In 4 years, we will take back the white house. 

                Report Abuse
                • Author by progressiveright (February 17, 2009 11:57 pm ET)
                     

                  You will lose seats as you will be seen as the barrier in the way of succes and your GOP members of Congress will watch there approval rating drop even lower while Obama's and the Congressional Dems' approval will go up.  I hope the GOP learns to be what the oppisition in the UK is called and that is Loayal Oppisition.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by princeofwheels (February 18, 2009 12:20 am ET)
                       

                    Why don't the Cons just start their own party? They've destroyed the Republican Party. They are too cowardly to step out in front. They are used to hiding in the dark.

                    Report Abuse
              • Author by Brabantio (February 17, 2009 11:44 pm ET)
                   

                Considering the vast majority of Americans opposed the war, you're up against a highly superior force of "traitors".  Good luck with that battle.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by Cheney2012 (February 17, 2009 11:48 pm ET)
                     

                  Yes...see above comment about manipilation of the impatience of the American people despite that Bush was clear that the War on Terror (not Iraq) would be a long and unconventional struggle.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by progressiveright (February 17, 2009 11:52 pm ET)
                       

                    The War on Terror is one that can never be won because of the fact that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.  You can never win a war of ideals witch is what the War on Terror is.  Bush also said terrorism has never worked however if you use Bush's own deffinition of terrorism the founding father's of both the United States and modern Isreal were terrotists.  Use facts not propaganda to make points.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Cheney2012 (February 18, 2009 12:06 am ET)
                         

                      I agree with your War on Terror comments. See reply to Brab below

                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by markbfoot199 (February 18, 2009 11:25 am ET)
                         
                      FYI, our Founding Fathers would not have been considered terrorist. They (our founding fathers and soldiers) unlike these cowards wore a uniform, followed the laws of war. They sent letters to England asking to be a independent country. These cowards do not wear a uniform; they hide behind children and women. They shoot rockets on top of hospitals knowing we will not fire back at such a location. Progressive, you are an example of a misguided individual that will throw out an argument without knowing the facts. You are an example of a person that thinks our founding fathers were nothing more then uneducated farmers. I am sure you also failed in History or had a teacher that was a lefty and did not teach you history in a true context, but put in a liberal bias.
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by Brabantio (February 17, 2009 11:54 pm ET)
                       

                    I don't remember anyone complaining about the duration of the war on terror.  Since you understand that the invasion of Iraq and the war on terror are two totally different things, then you should understand why people wanted the war in Iraq to end, as it was promised to last only a few months.

                    Are you sure you're making your point clearly?

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Cheney2012 (February 18, 2009 12:06 am ET)
                         

                      Never said they were two totally different things. That is the view of people on the left.

                      In fact, I explicitly said in a post below that Iraq is an ELEMENT OF the War on Terror. And the whole point is -- and I will agree with progressiveright above -- that you can't really win the "war on terror."    It requires constant vigilance.  That was Bush's whole point on Sept. 20, 2001.  This is not like other "wars"

                      The problem I see is the left doesn't really want to fight.

                      Furthermore I was comparing Bush's comments to Obama's on the stimulus and the economy because MMFA is whining about "the clock" being started on when it will work and if Obama will pay a political price.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Brabantio (February 18, 2009 12:16 am ET)
                           

                        The "war on terror" is not like other "wars".  Exactly.  So why are you talking about it like people were impatient for it to end, when what people wanted to see end was the war in Iraq?  You know, the war that's supposed to be like other wars, with an exit strategy, clear objectives, all that good stuff?

                        See, the "war on terror" is like the "war on drugs".  Theoretically it doesn't require any actual war.  Intelligence, infiltration, cooperation with foreign governments would be another way of going about it.  So when you say "the left doesn't really want to fight", you're full of it.  The left wants to fight terrorism.  The issue has always been how.

                        Also you have to be kidding to claim that the left was opposing Bush on September 20th, 2001.  Who, exactly?  After 9/11 he had bipartisan support.  Nobody started a "clock" on the "war on terror", so your comparison is unfounded.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Cheney2012 (February 18, 2009 12:33 am ET)
                             

                          Tell me HOW does the left want to fight terrorism? 

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by Brabantio (February 18, 2009 12:39 am ET)
                               

                            Responsibly, while keeping our honor and our Constitution intact.

                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Cheney2012 (February 18, 2009 1:03 am ET)
                                 

                              Specificis??

                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by Cheney2012 (February 18, 2009 1:03 am ET)
                                   

                                Er...SPECIFICS??

                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by Brabantio (February 18, 2009 1:10 am ET)
                                     

                                  Intelligence and infiltration, as I said earlier.  Reach out to governments and moderate elements in order to marginalize the extremist elements.  Help push for progress from inside systems, fund local communities and educational institutions.  Act as a moderator between hostile interests.  Grant concessions within reason.  Try to earn respect instead of instilling fear.

                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by Brabantio (February 18, 2009 1:26 am ET)
                                       

                                    And adding on to that:pursuing those that do commit terrorist acts as long and as far as it takes.  Launching military strikes when necessary and as a last resort, and making all efforts to prevent collateral damage.

                                    Report Abuse
                          • Author by funnymanpants (February 18, 2009 12:40 am ET)
                               

                            >>Tell me HOW does the left want to fight terrorism?

                            How about *not* attacking countries that had nothing to do with the attack on 9/11. Maybe that would be a good start?

                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by markbfoot199 (February 18, 2009 11:26 am ET)
                               

                            Same way they want to fight the war on poverity, take from the rich and give to the poor.  In this case, get the terrorist our land and say we are sorry.

                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Brabantio (February 18, 2009 11:34 am ET)
                                 

                              That's one of the craziest posts I've ever seen.  Give the terrorists what land?

                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by markbfoot199 (February 18, 2009 11:53 am ET)
                                   

                                Well, lets look at what Obama is doing with Palenstinians.  Read and Learn.  Again Barbantio, you will not find this information in the main stream media or here.  Not a crazy post, just as always days ahead of you all. 

                                Report Abuse
              • Author by progressiveright (February 17, 2009 11:58 pm ET)
                   

                Your side lost because all they do is creat problems dating back to your Sainted Regan.

                Report Abuse
            • Author by progressiveright (February 17, 2009 11:47 pm ET)
                 

              The problem here is you and the others on the right ignore the facts of history that deregulation and taking government of of finacial matters only causes the problems in the first place.  Please Pointofview and Cheney2012 learn from history and get a reality and fact check.

              Report Abuse
          • Author by steeve (February 17, 2009 11:33 pm ET)
               

            Looks like I'm the only adult here.  Pull up your chairs, children.

            First, Rumsfeld said the war would be over in 6 months.  Bush thought it was over at "mission accomplished".  No such easy-breezy opinions are forthcoming from any democrat over this economy.

            Second, snoopy does not think that criticizing the president during wartime is treason.  But he knows that conservatives used to think so, and he wants to show them what that tastes like.

            Sorry to all you irony-lovers who were having fun seeing the wingnuts get played, but I believe that all children can learn.  You just have to take them gently by the hand.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Cheney2012 (February 17, 2009 11:45 pm ET)
                 

              Hey moron (i.e. steeve): 

              I'll stand since this won't take long.

              Which war was Rumsfeld referring to?

              Does it really need to be pointed out to you that there was no Iraq War on Sept, 20, 2001.  Bush was referring to the War on Terror of which Iraq is/was but one element.  Of course you left-wing lunatics don't believe there is or should be a war on terror, the absence of the Twin Towers notwithstanding.

              Seems to me your hero and savior does not agree since he just committed another 17,000 troops to Afghanistan.  Oh, that was the 'good war' I guess the left has said for years that we lost focus on.

              I also fully grasp the irony of Charlie Brown's Beagle, but he makes little sense (not uncommon) since we're talking about the economy.

              Next time bring some game..or at least an IQ above 80.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by progressiveright (February 17, 2009 11:49 pm ET)
                   

                There were no terrorists in Iraq untill after we invaided and occupied Iraq.  We created the problem because of your lies.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by Cheney2012 (February 17, 2009 11:52 pm ET)
                     

                  Your handle should be "progressivewrong" because you really have no clue.

                  I was not talking about the War in Iraq. 

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by funnymanpants (February 18, 2009 12:38 am ET)
                       

                    >>Your handle should be "progressivewrong" because you really have no clue.

                    But that is not an argument. Progressiveright is right: there were no anti-US terrorists in Iraq before the invasion.

                    Report Abuse
                • Author by markbfoot199 (February 18, 2009 11:30 am ET)
                     

                  Progressive, so when Saddam sent in the gas to kill the indiviudals to the north, that was not terrorism?  Not following the 12 demands from the U.N. was not a act to take him out?  Raping and Killing is ok in your eyes?  He also had a training camp in Iraq and he funded terrorism around the world, but I guess that was ok also?

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Brabantio (February 18, 2009 11:37 am ET)
                       

                    That wouldn't be classified as terrorism, I don't believe.  The outrage would be a lot more credible if we had wanted to do something when it happened, while Reagan was in office.

                    Report Abuse
              • Author by progressiveright (February 17, 2009 11:54 pm ET)
                   

                Please do not insult yourself by continuing to disrespect those you do not agree with it only makes you look like your IQ is even lower than you are saying we have.  Respect will help with your arguements as well.

                Report Abuse
                  • Author by princeofwheels (February 18, 2009 12:23 am ET)
                       

                    Another dumb post...please continue...the counter has started on you  2/18/2009.

                    Report Abuse
              • Author by Brabantio (February 17, 2009 11:58 pm ET)
                   

                In one breath the left doesn't think we should do anything about terrorism, in the next breath we recognized the need for invading Afghanistan.  Bizarre.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by Cheney2012 (February 18, 2009 12:09 am ET)
                     

                  It is indeed bizarre to this observer.  Afghanistan was only a club to use against Bush when Iraq was not going well.  That we 'lost focus' was a false and cynical argument -- and since this term is thrown around a lot -- a typical strawman from the loons. 

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Brabantio (February 18, 2009 12:21 am ET)
                       

                    So Afghanistan was only a club, yet Obama is trying to fix it.  How does that work?  You have nothing to show that it's a false argument except for your charicatures of liberals.  We had a purpose there, and obviously shifting resources to Iraq hurt our efforts in that theatre.

                    You don't know what "strawman" means, apparently.  The argument that we should have concentrated on Afghanistan doesn't attribute any beliefs or arguments to the right.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Cheney2012 (February 18, 2009 12:27 am ET)
                         

                      I agree we should have kept it going harder in Afghanistan, but I don't think the left-wing politicians are/were serious in their criticisms of it absent the mistakes and lengthy slog in Iraq. Just my opinion and as valid as yours about Bush's motives.

                      By the way I know what a strawman is on this forum -- an argument that shuts up liberals

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Brabantio (February 18, 2009 12:36 am ET)
                           

                        What do you base your opinion on?  Opinions are not equal by default.  If you have nothing more than your biased view of liberals, then that doesn't mean anything.

                        I guess the pattern is that you spit out a logical fallacy, then when it's explained to you that you've done so, you declare victory because you've shut someone up.  That's not a particularly reasonable way to discuss things.

                        Report Abuse
                • Author by princeofwheels (February 18, 2009 12:13 am ET)
                     

                  Brabantio, who is tougher to follow, philib or DickieBoy?  You need a scorecard to stay with either of them. Of course, our boy Dickie is still worried about Scooter squealing on him. Don't worry Dickie, we know you are not truthful.

                  P.S. Dickie, Bush had the whole world in his hand on 9/20/2001 but then he became a failure. Too bad for Mr. Bush and America.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Cheney2012 (February 18, 2009 12:22 am ET)
                       

                    Prince:

                    Did he have you in his hand on 9.20.01 or are you one of those liberal hacks who fought Bush from Day 1?

                    By the way have we lost in Iraq?  Afghanistan?  Were we attacked again?  Leaders make the right decisions whether popular or not.  I'm not expecting that from Obama

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Brabantio (February 18, 2009 12:27 am ET)
                         

                      Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

                      There is nothing that connects an invasion of Iraq to whether a handful of people launch an attack against us or not.  Therefore it can't be declared to be the cause or any contributing factor whatsoever.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Cheney2012 (February 18, 2009 12:28 am ET)
                           

                        In other words you have nothing to say in response.  And perhaps you are a liberal hack. 

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Brabantio (February 18, 2009 12:31 am ET)
                             

                          In response to your logical fallacy?  I pointed out the logical fallacy.  That would qualify as "something to say".

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by Cheney2012 (February 18, 2009 12:41 am ET)
                               

                            The fallacy is that you and people who 'think' like you can not see a connection between Iraq and terror and defending this country and keeping our children safe.

                            Why is it so difficult for you to understand that?  Is it just your politics obstructing your view?

                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by funnymanpants (February 18, 2009 12:43 am ET)
                                 

                              >>The fallacy is that you and people who 'think' like you can not see a connection between Iraq and terror and defending this country and keeping our children safe.

                              There was no connection. The own Bush admin admitted there was no operational ties between Al Quaida and Hussein. There were clearly no WMDs. So logically speaking, attacking Iraq had nothing to do with keeping us safe.

                              Report Abuse
                            • Author by Brabantio (February 18, 2009 12:44 am ET)
                                 

                              By all means, prove me wrong.  Tell me how invading a country that had nothing to do with al qaeda or 9/11 prevents people from launching another attack.  Is it magic?

                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by Cheney2012 (February 18, 2009 12:51 am ET)
                                   

                                Did al-qaeda and other terrorists come into Iraq?  Were thousands killed, captured and the group as a whole otherwise degraded?

                                Are you naive to think that al-qaeda was/is the ONLY threat and that Hussein was not a threat himself?

                                Was deciding to overrun an easy target part of a larger strategy?  That is not a pleasant way of looking at it and alone is not a justification for the war, but may be a reality.

                                No it's not magic, but holding hands and signing kumbaya isn't magic either.

                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by funnymanpants (February 18, 2009 12:55 am ET)
                                     

                                  >>Are you naive to think that al-qaeda was/is the ONLY threat and that Hussein was not a threat himself?

                                  If Brabanito is "naive" so is the Bush administration and all the intelligence that has come out since. There were no Al Quaida in Iraq before we invaded.

                                  >>Was deciding to overrun an easy target part of a larger strategy?  That is not a pleasant way of looking at it and alone is not a justification for the war, but may be a reality.

                                  That makes no sense. So by that logic, we should attack Canada, who also had nothing to do with the attacks, and then keep saying that "it is part of a larger strategy." The strategy has obviously failed, because we created terrorists in Iraq, we killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, thousands of US soldiers, and we strengthed Iran.

                                  Report Abuse
                                • Author by Brabantio (February 18, 2009 12:58 am ET)
                                     

                                  "

                                  "Did al-qaeda and other terrorists come into Iraq?  Were thousands killed, captured and the group as a whole otherwise degraded?"

                                  And how many people pulled off 9/11?  20, 50, 100 maybe when you consider logistics?  What's stopping another 100 from doing something besides going to Iraq?

                                  "Are you naive to think that al-qaeda was/is the ONLY threat and that Hussein was not a threat himself?"

                                  No, I'm not naive.  He was contained, and had no WMDs.

                                  "Was deciding to overrun an easy target part of a larger strategy?  That is not a pleasant way of looking at it and alone is not a justification for the war, but may be a reality."

                                  How does that strategy prevent terrorists from entering the U.S., especially considering that unjustified overthrow of a sovereign nation only underlines the impression of America as a great evil in the eyes of many in the Middle East and therefore boosts terrorist recruitment?

                                  "No it's not magic, but holding hands and signing kumbaya isn't magic either."

                                  And nobody but your strawman suggests singing kumbaya.

                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by captfoster2 (February 18, 2009 1:03 am ET)
                                       

                                    Um Brab.... I love you man!

                                    I could not have said it any better!

                                    Its to bad that you are wasting your energy on Cheney2012...but... eh... what the hell... right?

                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by Cheney2012 (February 18, 2009 1:07 am ET)
                                         

                                      He said nothing and has no answer on how he would fight terrorism.  Do you have anything real to offer??

                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by funnymanpants (February 18, 2009 1:11 am ET)
                                           

                                        >>He said nothing and has no answer on how he would fight terrorism. 

                                        He completey disproved your point about the connections between Al Quaida and Iraq! That is hardly saying "nothing." Why don't you just admit you are wrong.

                                        Report Abuse
                                    • Author by Brabantio (February 18, 2009 1:29 am ET)
                                         

                                      Thanks!  Don't worry, no energy was required, really.

                                      Report Abuse
                                  • Author by Cheney2012 (February 18, 2009 1:05 am ET)
                                       

                                    Again...HOW would you specifically fight terrorism or prevent it?

                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by funnymanpants (February 18, 2009 1:09 am ET)
                                         

                                      >>Again...HOW would you specifically fight terrorism or prevent it?

                                      In other words, you were absolutely wrong about Iraq, just like the real Cheney. Is there a reason to take you seriously when you are wrong so often, and instead of admitting it, just resort to name calling and then switch your argument?

                                      Oh, one thing you don't want to do in fighting terrorism: attack a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, thereby creating more terrorists and strengthening Iran.

                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by Cheney2012 (February 18, 2009 1:12 am ET)
                                           

                                        I think it was Brab who said the left wants to fight terror, just diffrently so I was askig him how terrro should be fought.  I never switched the argument.  Nice try at a diversion, however.

                                        Report Abuse
                                        • Author by funnymanpants (February 18, 2009 1:15 am ET)
                                             

                                          And he answered you. You claimed that Brab said "nothing." He completely destroyed your argument.

                                          You are just acting like a troll (or rather, have been for this whole thread), throwing out nonsense, and then when it gets refuted, reverting to name calling and pretending you have not been proven wrong.

                                          You said that Hussein was a threat. He was not, by the admission of the Bush administration.

                                          Report Abuse
                                  • Author by Cheney2012 (February 18, 2009 1:10 am ET)
                                       

                                    Did the 20 plan 9/11 on their own or were there leaders who orchestrated it.  It seems it could not have been done without that organization.

                                    If not kumbaya what exactly do you suggest?

                                    Again LEADERS have to act and be held accountable.  It's easy to be a naysayer and Monday Morning QB

                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by funnymanpants (February 18, 2009 1:13 am ET)
                                         

                                      >>Did the 20 plan 9/11 on their own or were there leaders who orchestrated it.  It seems it could not have been done without that organization.

                                      But none of these leaders came from Iraq. So why would you attack Iraq and create more terrorists and strengthen Iran, who is supposed to be our enemy?

                                      Report Abuse
                                    • Author by funnymanpants (February 18, 2009 1:20 am ET)
                                         

                                      >>Again LEADERS have to act and be held accountable.  It's easy to be a naysayer and Monday Morning QB

                                      By the way, the left aren't Monday Morning QBs. We were f**ing Saturday afternoon QBs. We said Iraq was a mistake in the exact way it was a mistake. Who was right? We said there was no connection between Al Quaida and Hussen, that Hussein had no serious WMDs, that the war would be long and costly, that it would cost tens of thousands of lives, and that it would strengthen Iran.

                                      Who was right? We were.

                                      Who was wrong? Cheney, your namesake! Distrously wrong, for that matter.

                                      Report Abuse
                                    • Author by Brabantio (February 18, 2009 1:21 am ET)
                                         

                                      Did the leaders of al qaeda all go to Iraq?  And why can't they plot and snipe at soldiers at the same time?

                                      I opposed Iraq from the start.  I made the right call before the coach made the wrong one.

                                      Report Abuse
                                • Author by funnymanpants (February 18, 2009 12:58 am ET)
                                     

                                  The U.S. military's first and only study looking into ties between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda showed no connection between the two, according to a military report released by the Pentagon.

                                  link

                                  Report Abuse
                            • Author by worrierking (February 18, 2009 7:42 am ET)
                                 

                              "...defending this country..."

                              So, you've already served in the military I guess. Or are you talking about the kind of service performed by your namesake?

                              Report Abuse
                    • Author by princeofwheels (February 18, 2009 12:27 am ET)
                         

                      Read other posts concerning 9/20/2001....I thought going after the criminals/terrorists/madmen, whatever name you give them was the right thing to do. After that, President Bush lost his way. Why was that? Because of terrorists in Iraq?

                      P.S. Check out Bushs' approval rating in Sept 2001....if it was higher than 50% which it was, doesn't that prove to you that liberals were behind him also? That is a question for you!!!

                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by Brabantio (February 18, 2009 12:30 am ET)
                       

                    They're about even.  There is some difference, because Cheney engages in dishonest spin, while philib seems to be genuinely out of his mind.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Cheney2012 (February 18, 2009 12:31 am ET)
                         

                      And all you do is whine

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Brabantio (February 18, 2009 12:37 am ET)
                           

                        And "whining" is just what the right calls a point they can't counter.

                        That was easy.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Cheney2012 (February 18, 2009 12:42 am ET)
                             

                          I really don't need to counter a claim that I engage in dishonest spin.  But since you demand it, give me an example of 'dishonest spin.'

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by Brabantio (February 18, 2009 12:48 am ET)
                               

                            Saying the left doesn't want to fight terrorism, that there was some clock started on the "war on terror" after 9/11, that invading Iraq kept Americans safe, that Democrats didn't really care about Afghanistan, and especially that people who opposed Bush's war are guilty of treason, just from this thread.

                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Cheney2012 (February 18, 2009 12:56 am ET)
                                 

                              OK...I'll use a preferred tactic from the posters on here: prove me wrong.

                              The clock is ticking.

                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by Brabantio (February 18, 2009 1:01 am ET)
                                   

                                Everything I listed has been addressed elsewhere.  Feel free to pursue your arguments in their respective places.

                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by Cheney2012 (February 18, 2009 1:16 am ET)
                                     

                                  OK take your ball and go home.  I'm going home too!!!

                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by Brabantio (February 18, 2009 1:22 am ET)
                                       

                                    I said pursue your arguments.  Is that ambiguous in some way?

                                    Report Abuse
                                  • Author by worrierking (February 18, 2009 7:43 am ET)
                                       

                                    If you believed your own bullsh_t you'd stop off at an Armed Forces Recruitment Station and bring the papers home for your parents to sign.

                                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by princeofwheels (February 18, 2009 12:34 am ET)
                         

                      Let me get this straight, Philib is out of his mind while Dickie lives inside his mind.

                      I'll buy that.....with my STIMULUS MONEY..

                      Report Abuse
              • Author by funnymanpants (February 18, 2009 12:36 am ET)
                   

                >>Which war was Rumsfeld referring to?

                Iraq. There is no doubt about that. I have seen the clip multiple times. Rumsfield was asked about the war in Iraq, not the war on terror.

                By the way, have we won in Iraq?

                Report Abuse
                • Author by funnymanpants (February 18, 2009 12:48 am ET)
                     

                  By the way, here is the proof:

                  link

                  But the theme of that speech and other addresses the president delivered was not the war's likely costs but the need to act against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Other top officials, including Cheney and Rumsfeld, said the war would last "weeks, not months."

                  Report Abuse
          • Author by progressiveright (February 17, 2009 11:44 pm ET)
               

            These people wer called UNAMERICAN and told they were committing treason by the neo-cons and right wing nuts on there raido talk shows right and left.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by princeofwheels (February 18, 2009 12:09 am ET)
               

            Hey Dickie, Finally you are right about something. All Americans were together in hunting down and killing the people who struck the towers. The media and Congress agreed. I don't think anyone was saying in Sept. 2001 that Bush had 3 months to succeed. You use your typical ConLogic, lies, to make a point.

            The questioning of Bushs' war began when he decided to attack a copuntry that did nothing to us. And please, none of the Saddam was harboring terrorists B.S....So was Pakistan over the past few years..why didn't Bush attack them(maybe because THEY DID have WMD's).

            You connecting 9/20/01 as a timing point for Bush as opposed to DA Limbaughs' 3 months is just plain idiotic. Have you dolts ever thought about what might happen when the stimulus bills turn things around...I forgot, the leader of the RepubliCons DA Limbaugh has already stated that even if this stimulus package succeeds, it is still a failure. How convienent to protect yourself with a dumb statement like that....In response to the dittoheads of the world, listen closely.......BAA BAA BAA.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Cheney2012 (February 18, 2009 12:12 am ET)
                 

              There were plenty of hand-wringers and naysayers prior to our invasion of Afghanistan.

              I hope the economy does turn around as I have children to feed. 

              The difference is the left never wanted success in Iraq and does not believe we should be fighting a "War on Terror"

              Report Abuse
              • Author by princeofwheels (February 18, 2009 12:18 am ET)
                   

                Now you are just repeating DA Limbaugh and Hannity. "Never wanted success in Iraq"...how about those soldiers that were Democrats that died so your children would be safe. You talk about intelligence and IQs' of 80. You just said one of the dumbest things anyone can say.

                Prior to Afganistan there were anti-war people on both sides. There will always be anti-war people on both sides. But the majority of Americans left or right wanted to get the killers. If you want to argue that point, be my guest.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by Cheney2012 (February 18, 2009 12:30 am ET)
                     

                  Was I talking about the soldiers?  That was an idiotic comment.  I support them all AND their mission.  Unlike you

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by princeofwheels (February 18, 2009 12:39 am ET)
                       

                    Pardon me for reading what you wrote but didn't you write..the left. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the left the Democrats/libruls...I must assume that some of those soldiers were against the war but fought and died for you and your children anyway. You may think it is idiotic to bring dead soldiers into the discussion, but they died protecting you and you children and some were from the left. Or are you just talking about some of the people on the left but not all of them.

                    When talking of the dead, now we can talk about WAR..that is what happens people die. Right or left, either side can be for or against war. That I believe we can agree on.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Cheney2012 (February 18, 2009 12:45 am ET)
                         

                      OK..the left meaning the opinion leaders and top politicians in THIS country.  That is what I meant.  You may be that stupid to not know who I was referring to, but my guess is you were being deliberately obtuse.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by funnymanpants (February 18, 2009 12:49 am ET)
                           

                        >>OK..the left meaning the opinion leaders and top politicians in THIS country.  That is what I meant.  You may be that stupid to not know who I was referring to, but my guess is you were being deliberately obtuse.

                        No, he wasn't too stupid. He read the quote exactly as you posted it. The left doesn't just refer to politicians.

                        You are being dishonest.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Cheney2012 (February 18, 2009 12:54 am ET)
                             

                          I also said Opinion Leaders.  He may not be stupid, but you appear to be

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by funnymanpants (February 18, 2009 12:56 am ET)
                               

                            >>I also said Opinion Leaders.  He may not be stupid, but you appear to be

                            That doesn't change your argument. The left doesn't just pertain to opinion leaders and politicians. And name calling is not an argument.

                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Cheney2012 (February 18, 2009 12:58 am ET)
                                 

                              yes but you said that I only said politicians:   "The left doesn't just refer to politicians."

                              I also said "Opinion Leaders"  so you were being DISHONEST about what I said.  Two can play your silly game

                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by funnymanpants (February 18, 2009 1:01 am ET)
                                   

                                >>I also said "Opinion Leaders"  so you were being DISHONEST about what I said.  Two can play your silly gam

                                But again, that doesn't change your argument. I am still right, despite your rheotirc. Let me repeat: The left doesn't just pertain to opinion leaders and politicians.

                                Report Abuse
                      • Author by princeofwheels (February 18, 2009 12:54 am ET)
                           

                        you said "unlike you". Cut the crap, you just want to argue over what..the left being against Bush on9/20/01..I already told you to check his popularity numbers. He was the leader of the country and the world rallied behing him. What more can I say.

                        Dickie, thanx for being around, got to get some shuteye. Take your heart medicine, which sounds really strange for a man with no heart, and back at you another time. You will always be welcomed here. Wrong or more wrong.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Cheney2012 (February 18, 2009 1:01 am ET)
                             

                          Prince:  NOBODY but you is arguing Bush's numbers in Sept. 2001!!!!

                          What were the popularity numbers 6 or 9 months later as the clock was winding down??

                          The whole point of this argument.  That somehow we need to give Obama all the time he needs on the economy because he has warned us how this is just a the start and it will be ahrd.

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by funnymanpants (February 18, 2009 1:03 am ET)
                               

                            >>What were the popularity numbers 6 or 9 months later as the clock was winding down??

                            What were they? They were still pretty high, I believe. If you don't think so, give us a link that shows we are wrong.

                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by Brabantio (February 18, 2009 1:05 am ET)
                               

                            Approval on June 16-17, 2002:74%

                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Cheney2012 (February 18, 2009 1:14 am ET)
                                 

                              They were about 90 on Sept. 20, 2001.  That's down about 15-20 percent.

                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by funnymanpants (February 18, 2009 1:17 am ET)
                                   

                                >>They were about 90 on Sept. 20, 2001.  That's down about 15-20 percent.

                                No kidding. But that shows that Liberals were still behind him, doesn't it?

                                Report Abuse
                              • Author by Brabantio (February 18, 2009 1:19 am ET)
                                   

                                Because of a clock, or because Bush's rhetoric started to turn people off a bit?  You seem to be making quite an assumption.

                                Report Abuse
                          • Author by thejbomb65 (February 18, 2009 8:37 am ET)
                               

                            he needs time cause his predecessor screwed things up that badly

                            Report Abuse
              • Author by thejbomb65 (February 18, 2009 8:33 am ET)
                   

                the war on terror should have never led us to iraq, afghanistahn should have been the only place we were fighting in

                Report Abuse
          • Author by thejbomb65 (February 18, 2009 8:31 am ET)
               

            and yet donald rumsfeld was saying things would  be over in a couple of months. and so was paul wolfowitz, who said the invasion and occupation would pay for itself, itsead wwe sunk a few billion dollars that Haliburton snapped up happily.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by NiceguyEddie (February 18, 2009 8:57 am ET)
               

            What "leftists in the media"? 

            And who is the media criticized Bush?  No one until LONG after it was too late to do any good.  The problem with Iraq was not the timetable to victory either.  You righties always miss the point.   Iraq was bad policy for 100's of reasons other than "it would take a long time." 

            And no one was giving "aid and comfort to the enemy".  That right-wing bul!s#it.  The liberls against Iraq only, ever, wanted to prevent Bush from doing something really stupid. 

            Report Abuse
          • Author by wookie (February 18, 2009 9:26 am ET)
               

            It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

            And where we got the bad guy and wrapped it up quickly. Nope, won't look like that one.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by nerzog (February 18, 2009 9:29 am ET)
               

            "However, the leftists in the media and elsewhere expected it to be over in a matter of months"

            That's a load of crap, and you know it.  It was Troglodytes like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz who said it would be over in a matter of months.  If the media "expected" it to be over, it's because the Numbnuts administration lied to them.

            Now, return your head to its rectal holster.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (February 18, 2009 11:45 am ET)
                 

              nerzog, you're completely correct. Rumsfeld famously stated that the war would be over in 6 weeks, and that he couldn't see it lasting more than 6 months.

              Why is it that everyone who has been wrong about everything get airtime to continue to be wrong?

              And the trog-trolls here haven't learned a thing, either about rhetoric, logical fallacies, or facts on the ground. They still appeal to authority, argue effect proves cause, and post verbatim from the talking right-wing fools who have been continuously wrong for over a decade.

              Stupid isn't entertaining, and they're no fun to read.

              Report Abuse
        • Author by frankq2722 (February 18, 2009 7:26 am ET)
             

          snoop I replied to your comment, but they stuck it further down the thread

          Report Abuse
      • Author by markbfoot199 (February 18, 2009 10:56 am ET)
           
        Hey Mag, All I heard for 8 years is how much Bush was a failure, or he is a bad President. So now you’re saying we cannot do the same to this President? I remember hearing from day one of Bush’s Administration that he was not the real President. My point is simple, we all have the right to be critical, and we all get to decided in 4 yrs if he is successful or not.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Brabantio (February 18, 2009 11:04 am ET)
             

          Was there some controversy regarding who really won the 2008 election?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by markbfoot199 (February 18, 2009 2:50 pm ET)
               

            Was there one for 2004?

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Brabantio (February 18, 2009 2:54 pm ET)
                 

              "I remember hearing from day one of Bush’s Administration that he was not the real President."

              "Day one" would be after the 2000 election.  2004 isn't relevant to what you said, nor is it relevant to my response.

              Report Abuse
    • Author by Cut Throater (February 17, 2009 9:23 pm ET)
         

      The media has a blatant conservative bias rather than a liberal one. It's just disgusting how they're holding Obama to a completely different standard than Bush whenever he made economic choices.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by carlileb5935 (February 17, 2009 10:43 pm ET)
         

      The other night on FOX, they couldn't decide whether it was going to be six months or three months before the stimulus would be considered a failure or not.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mk3872 (February 17, 2009 11:26 pm ET)
         
      Did the FNC anchor really ask if 1 week is enough time to judge the stimulus bill? LOL! They sure do know lots about economic at FNC, don't they?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by oscar the grouch (February 18, 2009 12:27 am ET)
           

        What do you expect from people hooked on the 20 sec soundbite, a generation (or more) that expect instant gratification???  Any more than a month until a turnaround will be a failure to them.  These guys remind me of the first time gardener that plants corn on Monday and expects corn on the cob by Friday. While I'm not pleased with all the parts of this stimulus package, I sincerely hope it works, knowing that it is going to take some time to see progress.  Sure, I would like to see some shovel ready projects take off in the near future, just to see how this is all going to work, but patience will work best.  In the meantime, find some good in each day and spend time dwelling on that rather than the doom and gloom being peddled in the media.  Each of us still has the majority say in how we react to the circumstances around us. 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by princeofwheels (February 18, 2009 12:32 am ET)
             

          Oscar, you are so correct. This package is aimed to help Americans that need it and the Republicans decided to make it a political game. What many of the dissenters don't realize is that this package was in development for 6 months. My question is...What would the Repubs have done had McCain won the election? I believe the same as usual when they have power..Whatever they wanted to do. And now they are CRYING A RIVER.  The package will have positive effects on many Americans and they won't even be asked to vote for the Socialist Party.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by habodabi (February 18, 2009 12:02 am ET)
         

      Rush: The fix is in folks!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by chuck prentiss (February 18, 2009 5:23 am ET)
         

      Rush LImbaugh is predicting that Obama's plan will fail, and hoping that it will fail.  If America is wiped out, Limbaugh couldn't care less. He's made his millions and he'll be crying all the way to the bank.  However, the fact is that Obama's package -- with its all of its stimulus spending -- will succeed.  When it does, Limbaugh and all the Conservative Obstructionists will have lost their credibility.  The success of Obama's program could very well spell the doom of the entire Republican Party.

      Please visit my Blog: "Conservatives Are America's Real Terrorists"

      http://conservativesarecommunistss.blogspot.com/

      Report Abuse
    • Author by frankq2722 (February 18, 2009 7:24 am ET)
         
      kieth olbermann, who still finishes each show telling us how many days we have been in iraq since "mission accomplished". Although he should have started a second date for how many days we have been in iraq since the dems took over the house in 2006, but that would be of course "fair" which won't make it on olbermanns show.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (February 18, 2009 8:43 am ET)
           

        Another strawman argument perhaps? Someone didn't pay attention to what happened when dems took control of Congress and wanted to bring the troops home. We were once again, called traitors, terrorist sympathizers, and every military spending bill we sent to Bush was vetoed if he didn't like the timelines attached. Also, the obstructionist republicans in the Senate, most of the time, would not even give cloture on a vote to many of the bills with attached timelines.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (February 18, 2009 9:04 am ET)
           

        So... you favor a precipitous withdrawl then? Cut-n-run?  Pull everyone out overnight?  Well... Obama never said we'd do that, you nimrod.  Those were words that right-wing liars put in his mouth to makle him look foolish.  Once again, YOU LOSE.  Obama's stated foreign policy for teh middle east were about reducing (not eliminating, ty to keep up) the troop levels in Irag within 16 months, and INCREASING the troop presence in Afganistan - which we're already seeing.  He been in office for 28 days, dude.  Granted Bush had already managed to turn a record surplus into a record deficit in that time, but Obama actually wants to do things correctly.  So why don't you just sit back, relax, drink a hot steaming cup of STFU and wait until at least the 2010 mid terms to pass judgement.  To do otherwise is just BS propagandizing - which is not surprising, because your lot already FAILED, and has NOTHING to offer the country at this point.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (February 18, 2009 9:31 am ET)
           

        But, didn't the "surge" fix everything?  Iraq is a George Bush democratic paradise now, right?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (February 18, 2009 8:53 am ET)
         

      See?  The Stimulus is creating new jobs already.  The Right Wing Propaganda Machine has hired more Troglodyte Screechmonkeys to harass and bog down liberal websites.

      Well, maybe they aren't being paid, but it keeps them off the streets.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mercado (February 18, 2009 10:29 am ET)
         

      Why would anyone believe a single thing that Trace Gallgher says? He claims to have graduated from University of San Diego!

      Checking with the Registrars Office I was told he had never graduated and only had taken half the courses required, and dropping out. This was in late 2007.

      His real "Claim to Fame" is that he was a water skier at a Six Flags in NJ, and at African World, I believe in Southern California! Somehow he got hurt so he tried to step up in life and became another in a long line of wannabe faux journalists at Americans Number 1 Faux News Station, Fox.

      He's in good company of being only a high school graduate with the likes of Boortz, Hannity and El Rush-bo!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by markbfoot199 (February 18, 2009 10:50 am ET)
         
      So, if it is going to take years, why was it so important that this bill be passed within a weeks time. IF it is going to take two years, why could this bill not been debated more, we were told it had to be done today, or we are going into a no return recovery. HMMM?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mercado (February 18, 2009 10:57 am ET)
           

        markbfoot199,

        The Dems are using the Republican Way of running the House and Senate. It was highly successful from '01-'08, so why change horses in mid stream, right!

        Report Abuse
      • Author by princeofwheels (February 18, 2009 11:47 am ET)
           

        Markb, Why wait? so the Rpeubs can just continue their sissy crying spells. Grown-ups are trying to get things done in this country. The children can stay on recess. They are not needed.  They already screwed things up. If we wait two months, then we'd be two months further behind and maybe the financial downturn would affect you. We are just trying to help you.  And you are not even required to become a socialist.  the Unrepentent Drug Addict  RushLimbaugh and the SissyBoy Seannie will like that.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by markbfoot199 (February 18, 2009 11:49 am ET)
             

          Prince your line "Grown Up are working" getting old.  Does not matter how many times you use it, it still is a lie. 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by princeofwheels (February 18, 2009 3:32 pm ET)
               

            Have to keep it repeating so you childlike people understand. You are no longer important in the shaping of America. You came. You ruined. You got tossed out. How is that to understand.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by kevinpa (February 18, 2009 11:07 am ET)
         

      Rush Limbaugh...Sean Hannity say a lot..and yet are clueless,,all i  have to say.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.