Fox News personalities continue to ignore Bush administration role to slam Obama DHS
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.
SUMMARY: Fox News personalities continued to advance the claim that DHS is targeting conservatives and others with the release of its report on right-wing extremism, while ignoring the Bush administration's role and a similar report on left-wing extremism.
During the April 16 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, while discussing an intelligence assessment from the Department of Homeland Security, titled, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," Fox News strategic analyst Ralph Peters stated, "I do believe that there are people within the Obama administration, on that bizarre Hollywood-Harvard access -- axis -- who really have a disdainful view of our troops." Referring to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, Peters said: "[F]or her, every soldier is a potential [Timothy] McVeigh." But neither host Bill O'Reilly nor Peters note that the DHS assessment cited a 2008 FBI report -- authored during the Bush administration -- as evidence that "some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups." In an April 15 article, Politico's Jen DiMascio reported that the FBI report had "similar findings" but "generated little controversy or coverage."
Referring to the DHS report on the Factor, O'Reilly asserted: "This is the bottom line on this: The federal government has changed from a conservative-oriented federal government under the Bush administration to a liberal-oriented federal government under Obama." He later added: "So, of course, these people, instead of saying, you know, we might have some Muslim problems, maybe there's a little cell somewhere talking to Pakistan and getting orders. No, it's the Glenn Beck guys, but we don't really have any evidence. But this is what's on their mind because that's the way they think." Similarly, during the April 16 edition of Fox News' Special Report, White House correspondent Wendell Goler uncritically quoted Rep. Lamar Smith's (R-TX) assertion that "it looks like, to me, they're engaging in some kind of political profiling when it comes to conservatives, and that's what really disturbs me as much as anything else."
However, neither O'Reilly nor Goler noted that, as national correspondent Catherine Herridge reported on April 15 on Fox News' Studio B, DHS recently issued "a bulletin that looks at the left-wing groups as well." Herridge also noted that the DHS report "does talk specifically about returning veterans as being sort of attractive targets for these groups, because they've got the weapons training and they may feel somewhat disenfranchised when they return for a variety of returns." Referring to the reports on left-wing and right-wing extremists, she later added: "I would point out that both of these assessments ... were commissioned under the Bush administration. It takes some time to do them. They only came out after he had left office." Interviewing former CIA covert operations officer Mike Baker, Studio B host Shepard Smith said of the reaction to the report: "[I]t sounds like just regular, old, everyday people who are conservative just got, you know, got their dander up over something that is not applied to that." Baker replied, "Yeah, it really is. It's a little bit -- unfortunately, it's a little bit what the Republicans on the conservative side have been doing."
Despite Herridge's report, several Fox News hosts and contributors, in addition to O'Reilly, Peters, and Goler, have attacked the report without noting the Bush administration's role or the DHS report on left-wing extremism.
From the April 16 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: You don't really believe, Colonel, that she wanted to insult American veterans, do you?
PETERS: Not openly. I think what's really troubling, Bill, is that -- I think this report is a snake that slipped out of the cage. I do believe that there are people within the Obama administration, on that bizarre Hollywood-Harvard access -- axis -- who really have a disdainful view of our troops. I mean, they don't know any of our troops, and so, they really do see them as -- in the Hollywood image, you know, the drunken, drug addict, violent vet waiting to explode. And there is some animosity, whether it's Freudian or whatever.
But you know, with Napolitano, I couldn't figure out why she keeps bringing up Timothy McVeigh, Timothy McVeigh, all the time, as the only example -- and I know she worked on that McVeigh case, the Murrah Building bombing. And then, this morning, when I was working out, the penny dropped: Timothy McVeigh is the only soldier Janet Napolitano ever really got to know. And so, for her, every soldier is a potential McVeigh.
And, look, I don't think they thought that this was going to make a big ruckus, 'cause it wasn't supposed to get out, but, clearly, some people in law enforcement put it online and thought it should get out. And it's -- I was furious, Bill. And now, I'm just sad.
O'REILLY: No, I -- listen, I understand the anger, because if you read the memo, it is unnecessary -- that's the word. This memo is unnecessary.
PETERS: Yeah.
O'REILLY: The memo itself says, in the first sentence, "We don't have any facts to back this up."
PETERS: Yeah.
O'REILLY: "This is just some theory we were kicking around in a bar someplace." I didn't -- they don't have "in a bar" but it's -- that's where it could have been.
[...]
O'REILLY: This is the bottom line on this: The federal government has changed from a conservative-oriented federal government --
GLENN BECK (Fox News host): Yeah.
O'REILLY: -- under the Bush administration --
BECK: Right.
O'REILLY: -- to a liberal-oriented federal government under Obama.
BECK: Right.
O'REILLY: That is beyond dispute. When a woman like Rosa Brooks -- did you see our reporting on this woman, Rosa Brooks? She's a crazy far left LA Times person, now inside the Pentagon, appointed to advise an undersecretary of defense. When that happens, you know the sea change is enormous.
So, of course, these people, instead of saying, you know, we might have some Muslim problems, maybe there's a little cell somewhere talking to Pakistan and getting orders. No, it's the Glenn Beck guys, but we don't really have any evidence. But this is what's on their mind --
BECK: Right.
O'REILLY: -- because that's the way they think.
From the April 16 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
GOLER: The report contained a warning to local law enforcement agencies that returning vets with weapons skills and difficulty reintegrating into their communities, quote, "could lead to the potential emergence of terrorists groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks." Texas Republican Congressman Lamar Smith objects.
SMITH [video clip]: The administration is way, way off base. And it looks like, to me, they're engaging in some kind of political profiling when it comes to conservatives, and that's what really disturbs me as much as anything else.
GOLER: The criticism crossed the political aisle. Mississippi Democrat Benny Thompson, who chairs the Homeland Security Committee, said in a statement, quote, "This report appears to have blurred the line between violent belief, which is constitutionally protected, and violent action, which is not."
Ah yes, the old 1-2 boogeyman of Harvard AND Hollywood. How soon that they forget. Bush was a Yale/Harvard grad as well.
Anyway, this whole business is stupid Nobody is impugning the troops, so a report comes out and says that they are targets for recruitment by these extremist groups. It has happened, not a lot, but it has happened. It's not as if our soldiers are above reproach, mostly because, they are human as well, and just like the rest of this country, the VAST majority of soldiers are good and decent people who are either serving their country, or have served their country. There are, simply, some bad eggs in there. I have seen several things in the past as well, that showed that there are gangs in the US that specifically send their members INTO the military to learn weapons, tactics, and how to fight better and more efficiently. They serve their time, and then come back, and spread that information throughout their gang, and therefore make the gangs more ruthless. But again, these are but a few of our troops.
It's funny to see these guys hyperventilating over this report. Considering Bush was the one that commissioned it in the first place.
It's not as if our soldiers are above reproach, mostly because, they are human as well...
BLASPHEMER...!!! ;>)
USA...! USA...! USA...! USA...! USA...! ...
Only a fool would believe that any collection of people as large as our military would NOT have a few less-than-perfect citizens in its midst.
I believe in honoring and thanking our troops; they've earned it, and deserve our support. However, Republicans have cynically exploited this Warrior Fetish to an unhealthy degree. This is the United States, not Sparta.
Especially since they lowered their standards to allow convicted felons to join when the recruiting numbers started going in the tank.
Remember, it was Bush and Rumsfeld who chartered the "moral waiver" policy that allowed that to happen.
The very idea of having Cheney and moral in the same sentence in ANY way makes me chuckle then think about hurling
Well when people like BIll Clinton were dodging the draft, something had to be done. And what branch did Obama serve in?
Why single out Clinton, FL? What about Cheney, Bush, Ashcroft, etc? Obama didn't serve, but did he dodge a draft?
What about your heroes who sat out their generations war yet felt compelled to sell this one?
Let them explain to the country their reasoning for not serving in Vietnam, a war that each and every one of the scumbags supported by the way. And maybe then their reasoning for these wars will be more clear.
Many MMFA readers have served. I haven't, so I'll let them set you straight.
More propaganda from the right-wing smear merchant.
Bush was a Yale/Harvard grad as well.
...And Reagan was an ACTOR!
Well, this is all playing out pretty much as several of us predicted. This is 1993 all over again. The difference is, Obama is not a womanizer, so the Troglodytes are forced to manufacture other controversies with which to galvanize the dimwitted droolers who make up the dwindling Republican base.
These GOP Propagandists have learned that they can tell their audience the most obvious lie... and the Troglodytes will swallow it without even breaking stride.
Luckily though, in this case, most of the rest of the country isn't believing them.
I saw something interesting this morning. Apparently, average tax rate in the US is 20% (this includes everything that comes out of your check on a weekly, or bi-weekly basis). When taxpayers were polled recently, 52% said that they thought that their taxes were just fine, no complaints. 3-4% said that they paid too little. 44% said that they paid too much. Seems as though the majority of Americans are a-OK with where their tax rate is, not to mention, under Obama, it's going to go down for most of us.
That's a good point. After hearing all this hand wringing about our tax burden, I'm usually pleasantly surprised on April 15. But then, I don't make anywhere near $250,000. Maybe I should walk a few years in their shoes before I judge them too harshly. Yeah, I'd be willing to try that little experiment...
Yeah. Start me off with several mil, I'll invest, pay taxes, and still have several mil. No problem!
Not after 2008 you wouldn't! LOL.
Well, there is that...
Depending on where they were invested they MIGHT be lucky to have cabfare
There was an MMFA item a few days ago showing wexactly what you're talking about. Apparently a recent GALLUP POLL showed that Amercians are happier about taxes then they've been in all but one of the past 60 years.
We're taking on a lot of debt and doing an awful lot of spending. How are we going to pay for it if 95% of us are going to pay less taxes?
I guess the same way we paid for Bush's Iraq Fiasco after giving the top 5% a huge tax cut.
I'm looking for a real answer. Just like it should have been addressed when Bush was in office, if we are going to have increased spending, we are going to have to increase revenue for it. That's the way you and I have to do it, and that's the way the government should, too.
The key is in making the spending PRODUCTIVE. We spent an incredibly amount for the time on rural electrification and infrastructure during the 30's and 40's. THIS spurred an incredible economic BOOM in the 50's. Put people to productive work that has a magnifying effect that puts even MORE people to work then the returns on investing in America come later. In short, it WONT in the shortterm. It CAN in the longterm we can grow our taxbase if we have MORE higher paid citizens paying into it. We WILL have to invest in something (hopefully better cars and green technology) that we can export for this to be longlasting and I understand your concern but it CAN happen IF it is done right and we dont have some really bad luck for just a few years.
Gee, did Bush only give the tax break to the wealthy? I was under the impression he gave it to all Americans. I think the way Obama will pay for all of his proposals is to raise taxes on corporations, and of course those companies will just absorb the loss, they wouldn't dream of passing it along to consumers. We will save a few dollars in our paychecks every week and spend hundreds more for the goods we must buy. Great plan.
I was under the impression he gave it to all Americans
You're impression would be wrong.
I think the way Obama will pay for all of his proposals...
Nothing like a little unsubstantiated "thought" to back up your assertion. Nice.
Foghorn, Geez don't you remember if we outsource jobs out of the country, the Corporations will save money and lower their prices. Still waiting.
A local radio guy here, TheHonz on KDKA uses the fairliberal line daily. How about this from the Honz: If we enact the Fairtax, Corporations will not have to add tax into their cost of business and lower their prices. Can anyone be that stoopid?
Yes Prince, sadly a whole lot of people apparantly CAN be and ARE that stupid
apparently, you are!
Think about it. If every corporation DID leave their prices exactly the same under the fair tax, then prices would STAY the SAME as they are NOW. You , however, will no longer have any witholding taken from you r check eveyr week. So prices are the same, but you have more money AND corporations are returning more profit to their shareholders. In case you haven't noticed, you and I are shareholders in a lot of banks, an insurance company, and soon, a couple of car companies.
Is that a PLAN? Did Obama SAY that was what he was going to do? Is it anything but pure conjecture on your part that what you CLAIM will happen is the only thing that CAN happen? Why the answer to all of those questions is NO. So then you arent talking about a PLAN. You are speculating on nothing but your delusional fantasies. Thanks for sharing them but really they have no connection to reality whatsoever. Did you think they did?
That is because you operate on impressions and not facts. That is how you get caught up in your constant state of propaganda.
1. no surprise, according to the IRS, 49% of Americans pay NO federal income tax. They receive a full refund of all witholding tax, plus many receive EXTRA money through Earned Income Credit. Feel free to go look that up @ IRS.gov
2. no surprise, a great number of people HAVE NO CLUE how much they paid in taxes. If you ask the average person how much they paid in taxes they will respond "I didn't pay anything, I got a refund." Most people cannot tell you how much is witheld from their pay, not can they tell you their total gross pay. They only know how much they "take home".
No surprise, I've never heard anyone demand more taxes for themselves, just for other people.
Thanks for that $400 Pres. Obama, it has made such a huge difference in my life. I didn't realize how much 1/3 of 1 month of my mortgage would help me out. That $8 a week covers a 12-pack nicely, coincidentally.
That's mighty strong language, accusing the righties of making stuff up. You need to keep in mind what we learned from the righties during the reign of Bush: that if you're not doing anything wrong, wire-tapping doesn't affect you. I think they're merely maintaining that consistent philosophy with this subject because they... uh... if you're... er.... well, this political profiling is... it's... eh... uh...
Technical Difficulties:
Please Stand By...
You're expecting logic out of Fox News? You're quite the optimist.
I'm only just now reading the bio of Janet Napolitano.
The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security is not only the head of a defense and security arm of our Federal Government, but of an important one, that includes the Secret Service and the Border Patrol, and the Coast Guard too (who provide a high level of security at our ports).
She has little in her background that makes me think she's qualified for the job. I see that she's a former Governor, but so what, so is Sarah Palin too, and she's not qualified for anything based solely on that. She's a former U.S. Attorney and a former State's Attorney General, and that applies well here I guess. But she's mostly a former lawyer (did you realize she was Anita Hill's lawyer during that painful and embarrassing national episode).
The stakes are too high in these kinds of matters, and normally I wouldn't have noticed much about who the Secreatary of the DHS, but in light of the real and true defense and security obligations of that Department, and in light of the writing and clearing (or "leaking") of this dangerously ignorant and insulting report, I wonder if the right person is in this job.
I mean, being Anita Hill's former Attorney is more a disqualification to many things, than a qualification, I think. Especially when we are speaking of something as important as being responsible for the Secret Service and the Border Patrol and the Coast Guard too.
The stakes are high: screw political appointments meant to make the worst segment of the Democratic Party feel wanted and appreciated, and powerful.
dem2020, I had the same feeling about Tom Ridge. He was a governer, attorney and war vet. He was also a relative to the a very wealthy and powerful Republican family, the Hillman clan, who for a long time controlled the Republican party around Pittsburgh and the state, Elsie H. to be correct. It has also been reported that the Hillmans were related somehow to the Bush clan..ergo, Tom Ridge DHS.
What has Napolitano done to be critized? Is she sleeping on the job? Is she shrugging her duties? No, a report was released which should have been released under the watch of George Bush..he hid it because of the election. Remember, as I posted yesterday, when it was opportune near an election or to distract from a Bush mess, a sneeze from an Imam would cause us to raise our color code and scare the country.. But letting law enforcement know the Extremists groups recruit disgruntled ex-military is bashing the military. Sorry, but the Rigth can't have it both ways.
O'REILLY: The memo itself says, in the first sentence, "We don't have any facts to back this up."
PETERS: Yeah.
O'REILLY: "This is just some theory we were kicking around in a bar someplace." I didn't -- they don't have "in a bar" but it's -- that's where it could have been.
I love this bit. Weren't all these guys wetting their pants about the possibility of some Guantanimo detainees against whom there is no evidence of terrorist activities possibly being released? Can't have it both ways boys.
You can when you operate in propaganda and not in facts. Right, "fair" liberal?
Anyone else feel like Media Matters is playing a worse-than-usual game of wackamole lately? It's like one idiotic lie from the right-wingers can't be debunked before another one takes its place.
I guess they're just throwing out everything they have, knowing that not everything can be debunked thoroughly enough.
A sad state of affairs for American political discourse.
Yeah whackamole is the perfect metaphor
The Obama administration is going to bury itself politically, and squander away all the trust and faith and political capital they presently enjoy, if they make the disasterous misstep of placing unqualified Democratic darlings in positions that require defense and security credentials.
Above, this Fox clown o'reilly cites Rosa Brooks, and claims she is "now inside the Pentagon, appointed to advise an undersecretary of defense."
Rosa Brooks' Wikipedia bio states only that "she is rumored to be taking a post in the Obama administration."
Regardless of whether this particular person finds their way into the Pentagon or not, it remains true, that to appoint or otherwise hire people for responsibilities that involve the defense and security of the American People, yet to appoint them for political reasons or otherwise for reasons that have nothing to do with defense and security, is to not only gamble with this extraordinary amount of political capital presently enjoyed by the Obama administration, but to maybe gamble also with the defense and security of the American People, whose faith and trust is what comprises that great political capital.
I'm sure there are Departments and Agencies within the Federal Government (and the Obama administration of it) that perhaps Rosa Brooks is qualified for, and also that Janet Napolitano is also qualified for: but to think these people are qualified for positions of defense and security and the protection of the American People, simply because they are Democratic darlings, is to risk too much... it risks too much, because the stakes are high... the stakes are the political capital and faith and trust the American People have for the Obama administration presently, and that's a lot, almost all that administration needs and almost all it has... but to even be simply perceived as risking the security and protection of the American People, is to be perceived as risking all that those People need or have, namely their lives.
And were the loss of even a single American life ever be perceived as being caused by incompetence or unquailified persons in positions of defense and security, would lose all at once the faith and trust the American People have at present, in the Obama administration.
Democrats need to get over this incredible stupidity they routinely demonstrate, regarding matters of defense and security to the American People.
The stakes are high.
You make some valid points, but I'm not necessarily convinced that these people are not qualified just because they're liberals. Is Napolitano any less qualified than Chertoff or Ridge? If so, why?
On the political front, it really makes no difference. Obama could appoint Dick Cheney as head of Homeland Security, and the Republicans would still blame him completely if we had another terrorist attack on our soil. You know it's true.
If the question is a serious one, and meant to be answered, then I'll answer it (but I don't know how much thought went into asking it):
Yes, I believe that Janet Napolitano is as unqualified as Chertoff or Ridge.
Prior incompetence in others, is no excuse or reason for incompetence in us.
Yeah. Like bush didn't appoint any unqualified political appointees. Give me a break. This is just more right wing projection. Bush fired Federal Attornys and replaced them with people like karl rove's aide. "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job". Before FEMA he raised horses. Go away with your whining about appointees.
Yes, it was a serious question. I'm still not convinced that she's incompetent. On what do you base that assessment?
Hold on!
There is a difference between 'unqualified' and 'incompetant'.
Which word are you going to use?
I probably shouldn't have used the word incompetent, but then again I didn't actually use it to describe Janet Napolitano (if you look closely).
I doubt that. She was out Governor. She is a smart lady and a VERY competent administrator. THAT alone puts her miles beyond Chertoff and Ridge
Funny those qualifications were not acceptable for Palin. Oh thats right you're a liberal, 2 sets of rules.
He mentioned she was smart and a competent administrator. Is Palin?
No, we used the same measuring stick. Palin was 2 quarts low.
If that was a joke it was a good one. If you meant it. Well you have my condolences on your lack of access to reality. Bimbostien is to smart what the bubonic plague was to the European party scene. Oh thats right you are a conservative reality is a foriegn concept to you
" to appoint or otherwise hire people for responsibilities that involve the defense and security of the American People, yet to appoint them for political reasons or otherwise for reasons that have nothing to do with defense and security, is to not only gamble with this extraordinary amount of political capital presently enjoyed by the Obama administration, but to maybe gamble also with the defense and security of the American People, whose faith and trust is what comprises that great political capital."
No arguement there, but it remains to be seen whether or not this hypothetical is a fact.
You must have been in a state of perpetual outrage for during the eight years when the only qualifications for a job in the Justice Department, Iraq "reconstruction," etc., were opposition to abortion and loyalty to W.
Not a state of "perpetual outrage", but more like indignation and disgust and just plain anger.
I'm not involved in an "us versus them" game... I'm no more tolerant of the idiocies of Democrats, than I am of the corruption of Republicans.
I'm sick and tired of seeing the both of these parties just take turns at making and administering U.S. Law, the one side indulging in corrupt excesses until the American People turn them out of power (as they did in 2006), and then the other side stepping up to the plate, completely undeserving and having not opposed Republicans in any effective way, but inheriting the next turn of government anyway, merely by default... and they high-five one another (Democrats do) as if they caused any turn in government (like in 2006, which was not because of Democrats, but in spite of them), and then they fill Offices and positions of authority with a long train of idiots who think it's their time to celebrate (like now), and this has happened back and forth and back and forth for years now, and results in the same pizzing away of political capital every time...
Well enough of that, I already wrote it anyway, above.
I said I don't play "us versus them"... maybe I do.
Maybe it's us the American People, versus them the variously corrupt and stupid Republicans and Democrats in our nation's capitol.
As a final note: I spoke of Democrats as though their routine sin was one of stupidity, and reserved the sin of corruption for Republicans... let's be clear: Democrats take every bit as much money, and have their hand out for money, and are influenced by money, as are Republicans...
The primary difference is that Democrats are as often paid to speak softly (w/o a stick) and act lame and stupid (as they did in their ineffective opposition to the Bush administration)... but paid they are, and they take the money and run.
Paid to act and be stupid, which they are so good at and seem to do so well, they'd probably still do it free of charge, were no one greasing them for it.
Demo2020:
"And were the loss of even a single American life ever be perceived as being caused by incompetence or unquailified persons in positions of defense and security, would lose all at once the faith and trust the American People have at present, in the Obama administration.
Democrats need to get over this incredible stupidity they routinely demonstrate, regarding matters of defense and security to the American People.
The stakes are high. "
WTF?!?!?!?!??!
Here are two words for you:
Condi Rice.
Here are two more:
Michael Chertoff
And two more:
Michael Brown
I now know where the term "Angry Left" comes from. You sat through EIGHT YEARS of some of the most inept, incompetent, unqualified people put in charge of important departments dealing with defence and security in America not to mention the idiots who managed to lose $8 billion in Iraq in less than 18 months!!
You're coming out with the 2004 republican talking points bro. The thing you and so many hard core conservatives are missing is the fact that people no longer take what you say about democrats for granted. You have a democratic president who's approval numbers are growing, you have less people registering as either christians or conservatives and Iowa has become more progressive than California. All you and the others in the party of boss limbaugh are doing is hoping for some sort of tragedy or failure for which you can attack a popular president with, just like this week with the epic fail with the pirates.
Sad. Sad. Sad.
Anita Hill was correct in her statements about Clarence Thomas so if you think that pointing out that Janet Napolitano was her attorney is supposed to be a bad thing then you need to post this stuff on red state not here. If you are scoffing about the Anita Hill thing you may want to read David Brock's book Blinded By The Right. You may find it enlightening.
That was meant for Demo2020
I don't even understand why you cited all those Bush hacks, as my comment never once even in the tiniest leap of the imagination, defended or promoted or endorsed any hack in the Bush administration.
You must have me confused with someone else.
As far as the spectacularly embarrassing Anita Hill fiasco, I have a serious question:
Do you think that Clarence Thomas was unqualified to be a Supreme Court Justice?
I will give you my answer to that question as yes, I thought then and still think now, that Clarence Thomas is unqualified to be on that Court.
Now I'd ask rhetorically (whether you agree or not with what I just wrote), if Clarence Thomas was unqualified to be on that Court, then why did Senate Democrats on the Judiacy Committee oppose him on on the grounds of this embarrassing Anita Hill business?
I mean, was that all there was that disqualified Clarence Thomas? No, not by any means. Then why did the idiots on the Judiciary Committee oppose him so foolishly and ineffectively as they did?
It's a good question, and it's answer is likely to make you angry at lame and ineffective Democrats in the Senate (where lameness and an ineffective stupidity seem almost to be the qualifications of a Democratic Senator).
One last note, but very important, about the Anita Hill fiasco:
Are you aware that Democrats actually held a majority in the U.S. Senate at that time? They did: by a 57 to 43 margin, Democrats led the U.S. Senate at that time... but not only were they unable to stop a disqualified man from being seated on the SCOTUS, they couldn't even make for a majority in the Judiciary Committee: the Committee was deadlocked 7 to 7, despite having a Democratic majority.
It was an infuriating display of idiocy and ineffectives by Democrats in the Senate (57 to 43, and they couldn't stop the man)... it resulted in a disqualified man being on the SCOTUS, and it will forever be remembered best by me, in the single name of Anita Hill.
And I'm glad I was able to recall all that here, as it just goes to show what it is I hate most: ineffective idiots in power.
Demo2020:
Why are you going back as far as Anita Hill and Thomas?
All you have to do is look back as far as the so called "blue dogs" who helped pass all those bills that bush wanted ignoring the fact that they were put in to change the agenda citing "fear" of their supposed weak majority in their states and the fact that they, not their constituants were falling for the "if you don't america will be less safe" horse apples that the rightwing , aided by their media arm was shoving down their throats.
You ask why l mention all those bush appointees? Well it's probably because of this:
"The Obama administration is going to bury itself politically, and squander away all the trust and faith and political capital they presently enjoy, if they make the disasterous misstep of placing unqualified Democratic darlings in positions that require defense and security credentials."
Hey look! There you are using a 2002 republican tactic of questioning the calibre of democratic picks as if the last bunch of moron were actually better or if the actually did a good job. It's your opinion l know, and like rear ends everybody has one.
Again on the Anita Hill "fiasco" you say :
"Are you aware that Democrats actually held a majority in the U.S. Senate at that time? They did: by a 57 to 43 margin, Democrats led the U.S. Senate at that time... but not only were they unable to stop a disqualified man from being seated on the SCOTUS, they couldn't even make for a majority in the Judiciary Committee: the Committee was deadlocked 7 to 7, despite having a Democratic majority.
It was an infuriating display of idiocy and ineffectives by Democrats in the Senate (57 to 43, and they couldn't stop the man)... it resulted in a disqualified man being on the SCOTUS, and it will forever be remembered best by me, in the single name of Anita Hill."
I invite you again to look up any quotes from, or read David Brock's book where he goes through how he lead a very sucessful smear campaign against Hill in the days before the vote to confirm Thomas which undoubtedly helped sway votes in his favour, one he grew to regret and one of the reasons why he not only stopped working for the republicans but also set up this site to expose the tactics he had himself used.
Why do you think he is so hated by the right? This man has turned from poacher to gamekeeper. The simple fact that you want to blame Anita Hill, who came forward and told the truth about the disgusting sexual harrassment she had faced, only to be smeared and have her reputation destroyed by odious tactics of proven liars says more about you than anything else you will probably post, even in reply to this.
Demo is not a conservative UK, nor a wingnut. He's brought up things which can be uncomfortable. He has credibility on the site. I've found myself disagreeing with him on occasion, but usually I've found him perceptive, spot on, and comprehensive.
On the current bit, he got concerns, if there's evidence to back it down the road..we'll see. If the buying off of democrats to argue soft were to be true, this would be a call to identify them, and replace them.
If like me and many millions of other Americans, you're mad and want answers as to how could Wall Street lose more than a trillion dollars of the American People's private capital, how could this happen without any bells and whistles going off, and without either the Bush administration's SEC or Congress's oversight powers ever being alerted or brought into play... well you know what I'm talking about.
Look at this web page from OpenSecrets. org, which has an extensive database of everybody that makes any kind of contribution to Republicans and Democrats in Congress and in the administration, and details all of this by industry and recipient etc., look at this:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/lobbying.php?cycle=2008&ind=F2600
It shows a graph that lists contributions to members of Congress (the graph includes all members and all contributions collectively, although the information is also available broken down not only by dollar amounts per party, but per individual Congressperson also), contributions from those givers who are categorized as "PRIVATE EQUITY AND INVESTMENT FIRMS" (that's Wall Street), in millions of dollars per year, for the last ten years.
As you will see from the graph, there was an extraordinary increase in donations from Wall Street to Congress in the calendar years 2007 and 2008: those are not only the first two calendar years following Congressional Democrats being catapulted into Congressional power by the American People (in the 2006 election, which seated the new majority in January 2007), but they are also the exact calendar years in which that more than trillion dollars was stolen from the American People (and coincidentally made up for or back-filled, out of the U.S. Treasury, by act of that same Congress).
Look at the graph: prior to 2007, there was never more than three million dollars in any single year, given to Congresspersons collectively by Wall Street...
but that dollar amount went up by a magnitude of more than five times in 2007!
And continued upward, to almost six times as much money as in any previous year, in the year of 2008 alone!
Now I ask any sane and concerned person: exactly what was being purchased with those many millions of dollars, many sudden and extraordinarily more millions of dollars than in any previous year?
Why does all that money given to Congress in 2007 and 2008, happen to exactly coincide with both the theft of more than a trillion dollars from PRIVATE EQUITY AND INVESTMENT FUNDS on Wall Street (look at the graph) and with Congress's failure to do anything about that theft, or to even sound the alarm or speak loudly about it?
That same Congress then hurriedly and insanely backfilled almost a trillion dollars of taxpayer money, into those same PRIVATE EQUITY AND INVESTMENT FUNDS on Wall Street, in a mad dash of just several days, before the election recess last fall 2008.
I've typed enough. It makes me sick.
I can only add, that of course Democrats inherited all this Congressional power in January 2007, and of course all this money was stolen beginning in January of 2007, and of course the extraordinary increase in donations to Congress from PRIVATE EQUITY AND INVESTMENT FUNDS began in 2007 (look at the graph), and of course Democrats futzed around and did nothing about all this money being lost, beginning in January 2007...
And Congressional Democrats led the way by far, in taking that money from Wall Street...
What did they do, or not do, for all that money?
What insider information did they have, and how much money did they make on the side, as more than a trillion dollars of our private capital was lost in those two years?
Good questions, with easy answers, and it will make you mad, and make you hate Democrats, if you take the time to find those easy answers.
Again, I hate corruption and idiocy in power, which means I hate Congressional Democrats (or more specifically their leadership, most of all Pelosi and Hoyer), just as much as Republicans.
Demo2020:
I stand corrected on your political viewpoint. I still cannot for the life of me understand how you think that Anita Hill was the person who should carry most of the blame for inflicting Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court.
I can maybe see where you could have thought I was blaming Anita Hill for something... I wasn't, no such thing was ever in my mind (and not in my words either I think).
It was Senate Democrats, and their use of Anita Hill, that I was writing and thinking of. That's why I referred to it as the Anita Hill fiasco and episode etc., I'm referring to how someone used her to oppose Clarence Thomas, when in fact they should have opposed him themselves, and on the grounds that he had not the experience to be on the SCOTUS... and years of experience as a Judge, even many years, should always be a requisite for that Court, as giving us the length and substance of a record to judge the nominee on: a record we didn't have in Clarence Thomas's case... but did Senate Democrats oppose him on that important and substantial point? No, the idiots hid behind and used Anita Hill, in an extraordinarily embarrassing lame and ineffective spectacle, that ushered in an unqualified man on the SCOTUS, and left Anita Hill standing there, as a private citizen, used by idiotic Senate Democrats...
Idiot Democrats: that's where I started in this my commentary, and so that's where I'll finish.
And I invoked Anita Hill in the first place, merely in pointing out that the Democrat ultimately responsible for this idiotic and insulting (and lame and ineffective too) DHS report, happened to be Anita Hill's attorney back then... who knows, maybe her "sponsor" or "promoter" or even her "wrangler" fits as well as saying attorney: the woman was put forward and used by Democrats then, and maybe her lawyer was one of those idiots too, I don't know for sure.
And it is unfortunate I guess, that I and millions like me will forever remember that embarrassing and lame spectacle, as the Anita Hill fiasco: but that's just the way it is... she would have done better I'm sure, when approached by those Senate Democrats to be used in the manner they used her, if she had told them to screw, put your own names and reputations up front, in opposing Clarence Thomas... oppose him for being truly unqualified, instead of using a private citizen, a woman, to do their (those idiotic Senate Democrats) dirty work.
Did you happen to catch Clarence Thomas's recent comments at a public appearance? That is one angry, cynical, whiney old bastard who apparently hates his cushy job. We should have listened to Anita Hill.
Oops.....let me try again
Yeah.......let's make sure that people are qualified so we don't repeat this
Report Says FAA Got 52 Warnings Before 9/11
Associated Press
Friday, February 11, 2005; Page A02
The Federal Aviation Administration received repeated warnings in the months before Sept. 11, 2001, that al Qaeda hoped to attack airlines, according to a previously undisclosed report by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks.
The report detailed 52 such warnings to FAA leaders between April 1 and Sept. 10, 2001, about the terrorist organization and its leader, Osama bin Laden.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13203-2005Feb10.html
The book's opening anecdote tells of an unnamed CIA briefer who flew to Bush's Texas ranch during the scary summer of 2001, amid a flurry of reports of a pending al-Qaeda attack, to call the president's attention personally to the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001, memo titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US." Bush reportedly heard the briefer out and replied: "All right. You've covered your a$$, now."
C.I.A. Was Tracking Hijacker Months Earlier Than It Had Said
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F06EFDC133AF930A35755C0A9649C8B63
Bush before September 11: the awful truth
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/29/1080412286089.html
Fox News is stepping into dangerous territory. They are stoking right-wing, conservative anarchy. If they continue to lie and smear Obama, they are going to have to be held responsible when some wingnut wacko commits an act of domestic terrorism because he heard on Fox that Obama wants his guns, or is a socialist, or is a tyrant, etc. That "news" station is behaving irresponsibly and so are all the other Kool Aid dispensing idiots on conservative talk radio. I'm just glad that it's a pathetic, yet vocal minority and not mainstream American thinking. Although, it only takes on nutjob. The right is FULL of NUTJOBS!