Media Matters looks at 100 days of ...
SUMMARY: Looking back at the media's coverage of a broad spectrum of issues since Inauguration Day, Media Matters identified numerous patterns of conservative misinformation.
With the first 100 days of the Obama administration coming to a close, Media Matters for America has looked back at the media's coverage of a broad spectrum of issues since Inauguration Day and identified numerous patterns of conservative misinformation.
For the media, the months since President Obama's inauguration have consisted of:
100 days of hoping Obama fails:
100 days of disappearing Bush:
100 days of Obama Derangement Syndrome:
100 days of toying with revolution:
100 days of calling progressives and others "anti-American":
100 days of social-fasc-commun-Nazi-McCarthy-Marxism:
- In CNBC host Cramer's "U.S.S.A.": "Comrade[]" Obama is a "Bolshevik" who is "taking cues from Lenin"
100 days of Glenn Beck's paranoia:
100 days of Fox as "the voice of opposition":
100 days of Rush Limbaugh's conservative leadership:
100 days of mocking, misleading on torture and detainees:
100 days of scapegoating ACORN:
100 days of scapegoating undocumented immigrants:
100 days of immigration misinformation:
100 days of dismissing the threat of global warming:
100 days of bad economic reporting:
100 days of earmark fixation:
100 days of misinformation and smears about unions:
100 days of misleading on health care reform:
100 days years of "socialized medicine" charge:
The first 100 days were entertaining.
They sure were.
In particular, the calm competent leadership exuded by the president in contrast to the Chicken Little freakjobs on the right who have offered nothing but run for your lives paranoia, has been a hoot. Very entertaining indeed.
Thanks for noticing, Dave.
Maybe we'll simply exhaust them (and MMFA, of course :o), because if that much volume came out of 100 days, Fox and cohorts will have a lot more to make up in the next 3 years and 265 days, sorry 7 years and 265 days.
Is that with or without the leap year added in?
Actually, Obama didn't do too bad. Although I'm conservative, I agree with his attacking Pakistan and stopping the pirates in their tracks. I'm worried about the increase of violence in Iraq while Obama is planning on removing key troops. But, they seem to be isolated incidences and the country should be fine without us. The economy is starting to recover (although it was Bush's plan that started that one) and we haven't become communist or socialist yet.
He's made a few gaffes, but you expect that of someone with his experience. It's not like he has had any training or experience to prepare himself for this job (kinda like Palin), so overall he's done a commendable job. Not perfect by a long shot but he's done ok.
"I'm worried about the increase of violence in Iraq while Obama is planning on removing key troops."
You can stop wasting the energy it takes to worry. It doesn't matter if we're there for another 30 days or another 300 years...when we leave they'll start fighting each other AGAIN. Just ask the French or the British, they know what happens when bring "stability" to the Middle-East then leave.
Please don't compare Obama to Palin. It's an affront to Obama and every other law school grad and U.S. senator and anyone else who can name what newpapers/magazines they read.
I agree. Lawyers and Obama go well together. Palin has more experience at the executive level, or any level for that matter, and should not be compared.
If Palin only had the triumphant chorus of the mainsteam media covering for her, she would have been the first woman vice-president. But alas, she believe is protecting life, energy independence, and actually adhereing to the Constitution. Completely opposite of Obama.
As for the magazine comment...if a reporter had asked you such a STUPID question, wouldn't you be startled? Palin even came out and said that asking something so ridiculous was odd. Who cares? Did anyone ask the worldly Obama about his reading habits? No. Its a stupid question!
Now...if Palin could have used her teleprompter, like the current president, all would have been good. God help us if the power goes out in an emergency...
If she only had the media on her side... Well done. Instead of blaming everyone and everything except yourselves, why don't you take some of that damned personal responsibility you guys are so quick to tout and accept that not enough voters wanted more radical rightwingers in charge of our government?
For the exact reason you call her a radical right-winger. Sheeple can be led by the media. The media that was tasked by our founding fathers to key watch on the government, not advocate it.
Name me one policy that is "radical". And it cannot be a quote from Tina Fey.
Making abortion illegal in the case of rape or incest is radical. I don't care who you are, that is extreme.
Take some responsibility. Your Party is so far out of the mainstream you barely resemble Americans anymore. In fact, certain members of your petulant Party, I mean besides Todd Palin, want to leave the union.
Radical to the core.
Sarah Palin did not EVER say she would make abortion illegal in the case of rape or incest. In 2006, she was asked if HER daughter was raped, would she condone an abortion, and she said NO.
From that, progressive media has extrapolated that she said she would make it illegal. Do you know how to use Google?
Almost every conservative I have talked to agrees that in cases of rape or incest, the victim should have the right to choose. That said, the attacker would have murder added to his list of crimes should the abortion take place. I'm OK with that.
I am responsible. Please, enlighten us poor conservatives as to why morals, values, respect for human life, religion...how does that differ from our Constitution? In fact, I would challenge you that it is the PROGRESSIVES who do not resemble the nation that was founded, as they firmly believe that we should EVOLVE, and CHANGE. It is Conservatives that want to adhere to the values that made this country great, and allowed us to become a world superpower in under 300 years.
The only reason people want to "leave the union", is that the Constitution was originally written to ensure that the STATES have power, not the feds. But, progressivism is endangering that, and some believe that the union will fail because of it.
Calm down. If you don't think that the spirit of the words, to form a more perfect union, is to change and evolve as a society than you obviously missed the progress of our great nation. You missed the freeing of slaves. You missed it when African Americans won the right to vote. You missed the women's suffrage movement.
Try again, kid. Change is the only constant
While mayor, Wasilla charged rape victims for rape kits
Sarah Palin’s hometown required women to pay for their own rape examinations while she was mayor, a practice her police chief fought to keep as late as 2000.
Former state Rep. Eric Croft, a Democrat, sponsored a state law requiring cities to provide th examinations free of charge to victims. He said the only ongoing resistance he met was from Wasilla, where Palin was mayor from 1996 to 2002. “It was one of those things everyone could agree on except Wasilla,” Croft said. “We couldn’t convince the chief of police to stop charging them.“
Alaska’s Legislature in 2000 banned the practice of charging women for rape exam kits -- which experts said could cost up to $1,000. Some supporters of Palin say they believe she had no knowledge of the practice. But critics call it ”outrageous“ and question Palin’s commitment to helping women who are the victims of violence.
Alaska has the worst record of any state in rape. The rape rate in Alaska is 2.5 times the national average.
Source: Jessica Yellin on CNN.com Sep 22, 2008Q: If a 15-year-old is raped by her father, you believe it should be illegal for her to get an abortion. Why? A: I am pro-life and I am unapologetic about my position there on pro-life, and I understand good people on both sides of the abortion debate...I'm saying I would counsel this person to choose life despite the horrific circumstances they were in. If you are asking though, kind of foundationally here, should anybody end up in jail for having an abortion, absolutely not, that's nothing I would ever support.
Q: John McCain would allow for abortion in the case of rape and incest. You believe only in the case where the life of the mother is endangered. A: That is my personal opinion. Q: Would you change in the case of rape and incest? A: My opinion is abortion is allowed if the life of the mother is at risk.
Eagle Forum 2006 Gubernatorial Candidate Questionnaire Jul 31, 2006
I have read this material. It is full of speculation and attempts to link Palin indirectly to things that are irrelevant. None of that says she would make illegal abortions for rape and incest victims. That is because it is FALSE.
And, rape statistics for Alaska...what's that got to do with it? Is that her fault as well? Did supporters of her friends dog groomer say they thought she might be inclined to maybe be against it?
Geez...why do people keep berating those who believe in life. Its a simple question: Would you kill an unborn child?
"Name me one policy that is "radical"."
"Almost every conservative I have talked to agrees that in cases of rape or incest, the victim should have the right to choose."
"My opinion is abortion is allowed if the life of the mother is at risk."
Radical:marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional...
Brab - That is her opinion, not her policy. She has stated that she would not make that a policy, as it is a very controversial component.
Oh, so in order to be considered radical, a person's views don't mean anything. And it was obviously her policy that rape victims shouldn't get emergency contraception without paying for it.
By what standard does that not qualify her as "radical"?
No, that was an existing policy. Liberals and Progressives attempted to link it to her, but found that it was actually the police chief. Notice, the quoted article from Mary says, "ongoing resistance he met was from Wasilla, where Palin was mayor from 1996 to 2002." It DOES NOT state Palins stance.
That aside...it has NOTHING to do with your original statement of radicals (implying Palin) want abortion illegal for rape and incest. Does it? If so, give me your thought process, don't just say "Yeah"...
I'm familiar with the story. So let me get this straight...
In a town of 5,000 people, the mayor doesn't know what the policies of the police chief are. Or, she knew about it, but her failure to address this atrocious policy doesn't say anything about her policy views, even though she's also on record opposing abortion for victims of rape or incest.
Incidentally, I believe you're referring to a post by roundhouse, not me. That aside, do you really think that opposition to abortion for rape or incest isn't radical, as an opinion? And if she holds radical opinions, doesn't that make her a radical?
Let me amend and add. I forgot a couple of very important details here, since it's getting very late in the day.
"No, that was an existing policy. Liberals and Progressives attempted to link it to her, but found that it was actually the police chief."
You would be referring to Chief Fallon. That wouldn't be an "existing" policy, because Palin fired Chief Stambaugh and hired Fallon. And she signed off on the budget changes that shifted the burden from the government to the individual.
Full of speculation???! That's her direct answer to the question!
The top part is pure speculation. Find me one specific thing that documents Palin's belief.
As for her response...did you read it. The last line specifically says "should anybody end up in jail for having an abortion, absolutely not, that's nothing I would ever support.", VERIFYING my original position that she would not make it illegal.
That's fallacious. Abortion could still be illegal without any penalties for the person having the abortion, because it could still bear penalties for a doctor performing an abortion.
Also, remember this exchange:
Q: John McCain would allow for abortion in the case of rape and incest. You believe only in the case where the life of the mother is endangered. A: That is my personal opinion. Q: Would you change in the case of rape and incest? A: My opinion is abortion is allowed if the life of the mother is at risk.
John McCain would allow...that is a key phrase. In response to that, Palin doesn't say "I would allow it, but..." or anything of the sort. That's pretty clear. If she really thought it should be legal, she should say so instead of agreeing with the premise of the question which contradicts that notion.
That makes the line "Do you know how to use Google?" especially hilarious.
Yep. He's got the right-wing google filter on.
Torture is radical. Torture is radical and antithetical to the moral foundation of America that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson laid down for generations of Americans to come.
Yes, the Bill of Rights does say no cruel or unusual punishment may be given to a..wait for it... a US CITIZEN!! Not TERRORISTS.
Progressives are up-in-arms because 3 KNOW terrorists, whose intent was to kill you, me and our families, were waterboarded. THREE! These people are not covered by the Geneva Conventions...they are not an army under a unified flag. They are TERRORISTS, trying to bomb women and children. Heck, the strap bombs on women and children to kill other women and children.
You are DARN right that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have done the same. Have you read any of their works? A great book, written 35 years ago, called "The 5000 year leap" goes into great detail on their writings, not limited to the constitution, but including the Federalist papers, letters to newspapers, and memoirs.
Anti-ethical is killing US citizens by flying a plane into a civilan business. Or, beheading a member of the press and posting to YouTube. They did not have their fingernails pulled out, arms broken, or ANY LASTING PHYSICAL OR MENTAL HARM. NONE. Liberals have tried to prove otherwise, but NOTHING!
Would I waterboard a terrorist to save your life? Darn right!
Blah, blah, blah. Then why did Washington insist on treating the British POW's with respect and dignity? Why did he forbid torture?
I understand that you have a deep seated need to condone physical violence as proper punishment. However, if it isn't torture then would you submit your seven year old son to being placed in a box with a stinging insect, of which your child is deathly afraid, and listen to his screams? Why don't you submit to water boarding? Would you allow your mother or father to be dog collared and swung by a four foot leash into a wall? For what? To fabricate a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda?
Please, dude. That is un-American. It is plain criminal.
Because they were soldiers, under a unified flag. Hence the Geneva Convention to formalize such restrictions. I think we covered that...
If my mother was a known terrorist, caught on a battlefield trying to kill Americans or nationals of another nation...then yes. I wouldn't want other peoples families to die because I did not want to make her uncomfortable.
As for your vague reference to "walling", I would need to see evidence that they were "swung by a four foot leash into a wall". I googled that, and nothing came back. Seems you fabricated yet another fact to help your failing argument.
And, NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON was tortured to establish a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. None. That is another fabricated fact. Three, COUNT 'EM, 3, terrorists were waterboarded to gain intelligence that resulted in saving American lives...yours possibly.
Again, you fabricate that it is criminal.
I'm sorry. Was the Geneva Convention in effect when we were capturing British soldiers during the Revolutionary War? You might want to consult a time line.
This is about being a moral and just society vs. being a barbaric fascist society. It has little to do with legal technicalities.
Besides, psychology shows us that inflicting violent painful torture is the best way to coerce people into saying what you want them to say, while building relationships and confidences with prisoners is the best way to extract useful information. But if you insist that torture is effective, I'm sure you can show us how it saved lives. Oh wait, not even Cheney can do that.
Read my comment again...I said it was FORMALIZED in the Geneva convention. Not active. I'm quite aware of the timeline.
The head of the CIA admitted that the techniques employed resulted in the information that prevented the attacks on LA. What more do you need? Obama admitted today, in a town hall meeting, that he has read those memos, but has not released them. Why?
Waterboarding 3 terrorists to potentially save the lives of thousands of innocent American citizens is not barbaric. That is a strawman that helps progressives feel good. The terrorists have no lasting physical or mental harm. Was that worth the thousands of people working and living around Liberty tower in LA. Answer that.
Waterboarding 3 terrorists to potentially save the lives of thousands of innocent American citizens is not barbaric
So you have a time machine too? Can I use it? Haven't you heard that the L.A. plot was exposed BEFORE they tortured KSM?
Please, take you Jack Bauer garbage somewhere else. Torture doesn't work. It results in bad intel. And it's also higly ILLEGAL, no matter if they're wearing a uniform or a turban.
Foggy....You are wrong. The Bush administration misspoke when it gave the date the LA plot was exposed. That was the mistake part. Not the date of the intel.
http://d-day.blogspot.com/2009/04/sasc-report-designed-to-elicit-false.html
Oh nice. You point me to a self-proclaimed "liberal" blog? That's not a news source. Heck, its barely a comedy source.
I have said before, I will not provide you references to right-wing sites, and would appreciate you not leading me to left-wing sites.
Why certainly, you wouldn't want to find yourself learning anything. Just because in their opinion piece they actually quote the report to back up what they're saying, this might cause education to happen, and we can't have that.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html
There was constant pressure on the intelligence agencies and the interrogators to do whatever it took to get that information out of the detainees, especially the few high-value ones we had, and when people kept coming up empty, they were told by Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people to push harder," he continued.
"Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people were told repeatedly, by CIA . . . and by others, that there wasn't any reliable intelligence that pointed to operational ties between bin Laden and Saddam, and that no such ties were likely because the two were fundamentally enemies, not allies."
Senior administration officials, however, "blew that off and kept insisting that we'd overlooked something, that the interrogators weren't pushing hard enough, that there had to be something more we could do to get that information," he said.
Continuing our addiction to oil is radical. Oil is the way of the old empire and took us to Iraq in order to control the supply. But, like the Republican Party, oil is a fading energy source. It is extreme, as well as short sighted, to plunder the globe for oil.
The conservative view is not to "continue an additction to oil", as you so eloquently posed. In fact, it is to modernize and build nuclear plants, reduce restrictions on energy companies and allow them to explore, and stop subsidizing low yield sources for the sake of politics.
Yes, we would like to explore the arctic area for oil. Yes, we would like to drill offshore. But that is not the extent. The primary use of coal is electricty for our homes. Nuclear reators could serve the same function, as they do in most European countries (all without exploding!!).
It is a progressive myth that the conservative position is to "plunder the globe for oil"...
So when the Republicans were torturing people to make them say Iraq had a hand in 9/11, it wasn't about fabricating a justification to go in and control the oil supply? Really?
And if you really believe in finding alternative sources of energy, I'm guessing we agree that a green economy makes more sense. You can spout all that, you can't get there from here dogma you want, but at the end of the day you merely argue for complacency. It's a good thing guys like you weren't in charge in the sixties when we had to invent our way to the moon.
But it's really funny that you, out of one side of your mouth, say you want to reduce restrictions on energy companies so they can explore, while out of the other side, you say you do not condone plundering the globe for oil.
And for God's sake, you contradict yourself again. You want to emulate European models of energy production, while your party is on the tv talking about how Obama wants to turn us into a socialist European country. Too much, man. Too funny.
You guys have no cohesion of message, just a big poop sandwich that you would like all of us to buy.
Roundhouse - you are a pitiful excuse of a blogger. Republicans did not torture anyone to say the had a hand in 9/11. That is crap, and you should be ashamed. And if we were going in for their "oil supply", where is it? Was $125 barrels of oil part of that plan? Our economy tanking because of high energy prices?
How old are you...?
For the energy thing, you leave me speechless. How you equate the use of nuclear energy to Socialism is beyond me. For that matter, I didn't even mention Socialism. You completely made that up.
I have been consistent in my message, and answered every question intelligently, and politely (as possible).
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, my friend.
I'm off to bed. I'm bored of toying with you.
You've been polite and intelligent? You are really funny.
Good night.
Alright 'm not off to bed yet.
I never said that controlling the oil supply was for the good of the country. Did you ever wonder why oil company profits soared beyond the limits of human recorded history?
Just fess up. You know I didn't claim you said anything about socialism, I used it as an example of your Party's messaging discomfiture. You guys have lost your message discipline, you're all over the place and it's embarrassing.
I know why oil profits are high. They have the highest volume of product in recorded history. They have the highest taxes in history. Its all about the scale. When you look at the profit margin, its 9.7%. The average S&P company profit margin is 8.5%. Google had profit margins of over 25%...should we wonder about them?
You are getting a consistent message from me. I represent the largest portion of the conservative movement. Please do not lump me in with radicals and crazies. I just apply logic, read history, and want the best for our country, and its citizens.
Republicans did not torture anyone to say the had a hand in 9/11.
So you're admitting that it was torture?
did not torture
That is the line from my statement. How does that imply torture. Just because the progressives want to defend the COMFORT of terrorists rather than protecting American citizens does not mean Republicans tortured anyone.
And why is it just Republicans? Are there no Democrats or Independents in the CIA? I'm sure you have facts to back that up.
Oh, come on. Are you really arguing that asking someone where they get their information is a stupid question? And that it's so stupid that it would cause an intelligent person to become discombobulated? It seems an appropriate question considering that Palin didn't actually seem to know anything.
You really should know that you come off as a petty jackass with the teleprompter nonsense. Neither that nor defending the likes of Palin is going to gain you any credibility.
You keep whining about not being able to have a "quality" discussion on this board and then you post that crap?
...Palin has more experience at the executive level, or any level for that matter, and should not be compared.
Who represents the most people?
Wasilla: Estimated 2007 population - 9,780
Alaska: Population 683,476
Illinois: Population 12,901,463
she believe is...energy independence...,
She can believe that because Alaska has the energy to be "independent". And she supports socialist pay-offs to Alaska residents from the oil companies.
As for the magazine comment...if a reporter had asked you such a STUPID question, wouldn't you be startled?
No. I'd answer it and move on to the next question.
Now...if Palin could have used her teleprompter, like the current president, all would have been good.
Ho-hum. Another teleprompter talking point.
Do you honestly not know what "executive experience" means? Being a member of congress, state or federal, does NOT count as executive experience. That is because they do not make decisions by themselves, but as a collective.
Palin, as mayor and governor, DID make executive decisions. Obama ZERO. Palin, 2 poisitions, 5+ years.
On the pay-offs...I agree. I wasn't that impressed with them, and did see it as a socialist tactic. As did many conservatives. How does that detract from her belief in energy independence? That would include nuclear technology, offshore drilling, and opening ANWR. Possibly the shale deposits in CO. Two separate topics.
You, as a blogger, yes. But not if you had been drilled for 2 weeks on international topics, leading the free world, etc...you would have been put off by such a comment. In fact, Sarah Palin said that in a followup interview. Are you calling her a liar?
And yes, Obama relies on a teleprompter. Dismiss it as much as you want, it does not diminish the fact. It is made into a big deal BECAUSE of the media touting how great he is at speaking.
Palin is an idiot. The woman who thought the founding fathers agreed that under God should be in the Pledge of Allegiance wouldnt have passed my 8th grade civics class she should ONLY be compared to Bozo the Clown. Have fun with the idiotic Rush Limbaugh talking point about the teleprompter. The one pretty much ALL top level politicians use. Even though Obama WROTE his acceptance speech at the Dem convention which was perhaps the finest speech I have heard in 20 years. It makes you look foolish but if Rush told you to think it then I guess you gotta regurgitage it like a good little hiveminder
Solon - I have lost a little respect for you.
The founding fathers referred often to God throughout the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and the US Constitution. In fact, Thomas Jefferson said that the belief in God was fundamental to our countries survival.
Not that it matters, but I have not listened to Rush Limbaugh in years. It only takes common sense to see how un-eloquent Obama is without a prepared speech to read. Answer this: Have you seen him answer questions from a crowd? If so, do you honestly believe that he is the great orater being portrayed in the media?
Speaking of "hiveminder" tactics, don't you see how hypocritical it is for you to repeat the same crap as everyone else? You don't offer any value to the discussion, yet attempt to paint me as foolish?
"The founding fathers referred often to God throughout the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and the US Constitution."
Really? I know there were references to "Nature's God" and "their creator" in the Declaration of Independence. That's not "God" as perceived by Christians. Where is it in the Articles of Confederation. Most importantly, where is there any reference to God in the Constitution?
"In fact, Thomas Jefferson said that the belief in God was fundamental to our countries survival."
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
The highlighted portion is quite direct. It's hard to argue that the same person who believed that religion is solely a personal matter would want the government to endorse a specific deity. The idea that personal faith is important is a completely different matter.
Besides, Palin suggested that the Founding Fathers approved of the "one nation under God" portion of the Pledge of Allegiance. The problem with that is that the Pledge wasn't written until 1892. The "under God" clause was added even later. In other words, the Founding Fathers did not agree with that wording, and only partly because they never had the chance to do so.
Brab - I did not say a Christian God. Again, you spun the argument to fit your need. And you are correct, the Constitution does not mention a higher power. Only the reference to religion in the Bill of Rights.
Thomas Jefferson's quote you refer to is spot on. He, along with Madison, were VERY adamant about keeping the federal government from selecting a national religion. That is the reason he wrote that letter in 1802. It was to emphasize that the FEDERAL government has no place in selecting the religion of the people. Remember the place they came from, the King DID decide the religion of all people.
Regardless of how you want to believe, just read any book on Thomas Jefferson. Don't take my word for it...Read. In 1787, Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance. Article 3 says, "Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind..."
In Washingtons farewell address, he says, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports..."
As for Palin, that one sound bite you reference does nothing more than what I said originally...refer to the founding fathers approving of the reference to God. Everyone knows the pledge was written over 100 years after the Constitution. It's sickening to see progressives tear down someone they are afraid of through personal attacks, such as calling her stupid.
When you capitalize "God", that's the Christian God. That's not spin. Are you claiming that "under God" doesn't refer to the Christian God, that it's some unnamed deity?
That claim about your expertise on the Constitution is looking shakier and shakier. And we've gone from talking about the documents that serve as the foundation of our country to an act of Congress and the personal views of Washington. If you moved the goalposts any farther, they would be in the parking lot.
Let me cite what Palin said, because you seem a little confused.
Question: Are you offended by the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?
Palin: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance. (emphasis mine)
If "everyone knows" when the pledge was written, why the hell does she think it was good enough for the Founding Fathers? How else do you interpret that? She's speaking specifically about that phrase, not some vague recognition of a higher power. Let's also note that this was a questionnaire. It wasn't some off-the-cuff verbal response. She wrote it down and then sent it in. The idea that she doesn't see the obvious interpretation doesn't do a whole lot for your defense of her intellectual abilities, now does it?
Again, the Founding Fathers did not want an endorsement of a specific god, and so there's no way to claim that they would approve of the citation of "God" in a pledge. Even in the most generous framework, Palin's response was flat-out stupid, and you really aren't coming off as much brighter with this lame defense.
I suppose I should make that "Let me cite what Palin wrote".
He taught Constitutional Law for 12 years. That proves he is infinitely more qualified for the job than any of the GOP Constitution shredders of the past 30 years. So please stop the concern trolling and learn something.
If you read the facts, he only taught classes for 8 of the 12 years, not full time. Regardless, teaching in academia is in NO WAY comparable to actual experience.
I happen to be quite versed in the Constitution. I can name multiple things that the progressive movement is doing to detract from that great document. Obama is definitely leading the charge.
First and foremost, redistribution of wealth. I do not understand how progressives can sit back and allow segments of the society to be taxed more than others, and say that is fair. That is crap.
I'm calling you on that. Explain how a progressive tax system is unconstitutional, please.
Aw, don't encourage him, Brab. He's probably got some more dittopoints all lined up about wealth distribution.
I do like his History of the Thermometer theme he's using to argue against Global Warming. I imagine he also believes no cosmological events took place before the invention of the telescope. Har!.
Nice humor. I'll give you that.
But, even a novice must conceed that without scientific data, such as TEMPERATURES, it would be nearly impossible to create a model that would predict global TEMPERATURES. I did not say that TEMPERATURES did not exist before thermometers, but that accurate temperature readings did not.
Or did they? Maybe Obama did them? Hmmm... :)
Why don't you quit avoiding brab's question and thrill us all with your intergalactic knowledge of the constitution?
Maybe he can come up with something in the morning. I'm not betting on it, though.
And other forgotten items:
'Tax cheats R Us', the new name for the Cabinet.
Who cares if 1/2 million $$ used to take campaign photos and panic a city?
Apologize to every leftist dictator possible. Now if only I could met Kim Jong Il in person too!
Making science real, let's use socialism and the human caused global warming farce to take us back to the stone age.
Where was Madame Pelosi's head during those 27 CIA briefing on interrogation techniques that she says nothing was discussed?
And...
Is there anything more evil than hundreds of thousands of a country's citizens, coming together to voice their displeasure with the leftist tilt of their government and defy our messianic triumph?
Nice list of right wing talking ponits. I don't remember Obama apologizing to any leader. Perhaps you can give a direct quote? Oh, by the way, Chevez was democratically elected.
>>Making science real, let's use socialism and the human caused global warming farce to take us back to the stone age
I'm not sure what this incoherent sentence even means. But yes, science is real, and all the peer reviewed science supports global warming.
In reality, all of that Commie environmental stuff will create new technology and jobs.
I'll help out my fellow conservative.
Obama went to Europe, and said the US has been arrogant and dismissive. That is crap. The US has been expected to help every other nation in the world, and have. We have spilled more blood than any other country defending our allies. Why would any president go and apologize?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5101244/President-Barack-Obama-America-has-been-arrogant-and-dismissive-towards-Europe.html
And NO, not all science supports global warming. I have covered this many times on multiple threads on this liberal site. For your perusal, here is a link with over 31,000 AMERICAN scientists that disagree with man-made global warming.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Here's why. Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth attempt.
Also, how does global warming explain the documented medieval warming period, which lasted between 900 and 1300 AD. There was zero carbon emissions...
How do we explain that temperatures have been steadily increasing since the end of the last ice age in 1850. Then, when man first pushed large quantities of CO2 (1940), the temps started dropping...
The thermometer was first thought of in 1593, with the first mercury thermometer in 1714. That means that scientists would have 300 years of accurate temperature measurements. Remember, the variations are less than 1 degree...so we would need some accuracy to have a model, correct? Now, the planet is...approx...4.5 BILLION years old. So, these scientists have created a model of planetary warming based on 0.000006% of the data. And, extrapolated to NY going underwater!
Obama went to Europe, and said the US has been arrogant and dismissive. That is crap.
Really? You don't remember Rumsfeld calling Germany/France "old Europe"? How about "Freedom Fries" and "Freedom toast". Or Ari's famous "you're either for us or against us" line?
Nope, You've conveniently forgotten.
I stand behind every freedom fry ever served. He did not apologize for me.
Are all the progressives on this thread still in school?
Yep. WE're all in school. Planet earth is the school. You either learn, or leave. If you can't see how arrogant and ridiculous the bushies were to other countries, you have my sympathy. More karma to work off.
I admit that the Obama Administration doesn't get an A for their first 100 days. A few embarrassments on the record. However, two of your items are based solely on the conservative perception--I didn't see Obama apologizing to dictators, and I don't see socialism/global warning promising to reverse technology. If anything, the lame economy is forcing us to revert to more simplistic measures for solving everyday problems.
The photo-op panic was a horrible mistake, and the person in charge should resign. Horrible decision, but not something authorized by the President.
And as far as the tea parties are concerned, you're totally projecting here. You are envisioning that WE are envisioning them to be evil. Paranoia on your behalf. These parties were a combination of grassroots volunteerism and astroturf funding, with a bit of fearmongering sprinkled in. I think we all would have been more impressed by this if the tea party had occurred in one place like the "Million-Man March". 300,000+ over 350 cities is decent, but would have been more impressive if it was 300,000+ in major hubs.
I understand there will be more tea parties. I have no problems with that, as I will be celebrating my country in my own way and enjoying fireworks.
Is this a satirical piece? I've had my wrist slapped recently (and rightfully) for not getting the context of the post right, so seriously: Is this sarcasm or stupidity?
DJNate is "ProudConservative". He's not joking.
I'll add him to the LIB/CON list that I told you I needed in that other thread. LOL. Thanks for the tip! :)
No problem :)
Is there anything more evil than hundreds of thousands of a country's citizens, coming together to voice their displeasure with the leftist tilt of their government and defy our messianic triumph?
Yes, when the complainers wanted to imprison, deport or execute anyone who dared voice opposition to Herr Bush, it's certainly evil now that the shoe is on the other foot.
Please link me to the proof that real conservatives, not right-wing nut jobs, wanted to execute someone for opposing Bush.
On top of that, you demean yourself when you say "Herr Bush". Are you comparing an American president to one of the most evil people that ever lived? That's low.
>>Apologize to every leftist dictator possible. Now if only I could met Kim Jong Il in person too!
And Bush apologized to the Chinese who stole our plane.
And he closed the Saudi air base. That's what OBL wanted all along. Talk about caving in to the terrorists!
Yeah, what kind of nut wants to believe in science? We can read all the science we need as a country in the Bible!
Do you actually believe that Chavez is a dictator? If so, stop listening to radio and pick up some reading material immediately.
MMFA seems to be very jealous of Beck, Fox and Limbaugh. I have never seen one website devote so much attention to these three. MMFA just proves every single day that freedom of speech is under attack. MMFA proves they are a left wing media suck up. MMFA proves everyday that they will never attach the big 3 network newscasters because like MMFA they are in the bag for this President. I have seen the Big 3 make comments that MMFA would attack if they were not so left wing. I remember MMFA make fun of the Big 3 automakers flying into DC for a meeting, but yet have not seen the story of Air Force One and 2-fighter jets carbon footprint. Or how this President just used his plane to scare the NY people and use his plan for a photo op. IF this had been a Republican President we would have had story after story about his photo op.
"MMFA seems to be very jealous of Beck, Fox and Limbaugh. I have never seen one website devote so much attention to these three."
How do right-wing sites criticize people like Keith Olbermann without appearing to be "jealous" of him? Tell us how that magic works, please.
"MMFA just proves every single day that freedom of speech is under attack."
You prove every single day that you don't understand freedom of speech. By your logic, you're attacking MMfA's freedom of speech.
"MMFA proves they are a left wing media suck up. MMFA proves everyday that they will never attach the big 3 network newscasters because like MMFA they are in the bag for this President."
It is a liberal site. So what? When those on the networks promote conservative misinformation, they get called on it.
"I have seen the Big 3 make comments that MMFA would attack if they were not so left wing. I remember MMFA make fun of the Big 3 automakers flying into DC for a meeting, but yet have not seen the story of Air Force One and 2-fighter jets carbon footprint."
Do you really think that auto executives and the president of the United States are the same thing? As if Obama is supposed to fly Northwest Airlines or what?
"Or how this President just used his plane to scare the NY people and use his plan for a photo op. IF this had been a Republican President we would have had story after story about his photo op."
I've seen plenty of stories on it. How did Obama do it? He's launching an investigation into it. You do know that "Air Force One" isn't a single specific plane, right? If Obama was in a Cessna, it would be referred to as "Air Force One".
Brabantio, good try, see we know Olbermann is a moron, there is not a website that has dedicated it's own op-ed. No, I am not attacking MMFA freedom of speech, they have every right also, but MMFA gets on here and tells you to call the networks to complain, that is freedom of speech under attack. MMFA does not like the speech, so pick up the phone and tell the network to take them off the air. (next) Hey, if you are going to criticize the Big 3 Automakers CEO’s for flying to DC, seems you should set the example and not have your Plane out joyriding taking pictures costing the taxpayer 328K. I was under the impression we were in a recession. Is a 328K bill really good use of the taxpayer dollars. Since he goes over the bill line by line, shouldn't he have frowned on that joy ride? What you are seeing is the networks try and cover for Obama by blaming someone else; he is the Commander and Chief, the buck stops with him. I love how they say he is mad, really, you are that out of touch with your staff you have no idea your plane is gone. I promise you, he was briefed that Air Force One would be gone. (FYI, the Presidents only flies in Air Force One (747), or Marine One never a Cessna but good try) Please keep making excuses for him like the Big 3 Networks are doing. Did the big 3 networks show the footage of people running and freaking out, or did I only see that on Fox? Did they show you the price tag of the joy ride or was that only on Bloomberg? Did any of the Big 3 Networks ask the Press Sect about the plane or was that a reporter from another network? Brabantio, just keep covering for this empty suit who can not make a speech or have a clue where his plane has gone.
"Brabantio, good try, see we know Olbermann is a moron, there is not a website that has dedicated it's own op-ed."
There's no website devoted to criticizing Olbermann? Are you sure?
"No, I am not attacking MMFA freedom of speech, they have every right also, but MMFA gets on here and tells you to call the networks to complain, that is freedom of speech under attack. MMFA does not like the speech, so pick up the phone and tell the network to take them off the air."
Free speech doesn't mean you get a platform on a network or radio station. If someone lowers the discourse, they should not be part of that discourse. That's about maintaining standards, not suppressing "free speech".
"Hey, if you are going to criticize the Big 3 Automakers CEO’s for flying to DC, seems you should set the example and not have your Plane out joyriding taking pictures costing the taxpayer 328K. I was under the impression we were in a recession. Is a 328K bill really good use of the taxpayer dollars. Since he goes over the bill line by line, shouldn't he have frowned on that joy ride?"
I haven't seen anything to suggest that Obama approved of that 328K. Are you making assumptions?
"What you are seeing is the networks try and cover for Obama by blaming someone else; he is the Commander and Chief, the buck stops with him. I love how they say he is mad, really, you are that out of touch with your staff you have no idea your plane is gone. I promise you, he was briefed that Air Force One would be gone. (FYI, the Presidents only flies in Air Force One (747), or Marine One never a Cessna but good try)"
Marine One would be a helicopter that the president happens to be travelling in. I'm not saying he does fly in a Cessna, I'm saying that if he did, it would be called Air Force One. It is not a single specific plane. There's more than one 747 used for presidential travel. Is Obama psychic? Is he supposed to feel some disturbance in the force if one of the planes he uses is somewhere it shouldn't be? For the last eight years conservatives have been making arguments like "Bush didn't personally torture anyone", but when someone under Obama makes an isolated decision about something, then Obama must have known about it.
"Please keep making excuses for him like the Big 3 Networks are doing. Did the big 3 networks show the footage of people running and freaking out, or did I only see that on Fox? Did they show you the price tag of the joy ride or was that only on Bloomberg? Did any of the Big 3 Networks ask the Press Sect about the plane or was that a reporter from another network? Brabantio, just keep covering for this empty suit who can not make a speech or have a clue where his plane has gone."
I thought CNN was supposed to be liberal, but I saw the story covered there several times, including footage of people scared out of their wits.
Excercising someone's own freedom of speech is attacking freedom of speech? Are you really that ignorant? Or just that desperate to find something to attack?
Jealousy and envy mean that the jealous party wants to be more like person being discussed. MMfA does not want anyone to be like Beck, Limbaugh or FoxNews, so you need to get a clue about what is going on here.
Freedom of speech is a proscription against the government, not against private organizations, in the first place, and like Brabantio says, criticizing someone is not an infringement of their speech.
MMfA is a progressive organization, and I am proud that they are. You tried to use it as a criticism of them - why? MMfA attacks any conservative misinformation in the MSM, so it's not true that they don't attack the big 3 networks!
And last but not least, President Obama didn't know anything about the photo-op with Air Force One the other day. AF1 has a history of flying over national landmarks to get pictures to use as promo photos. This is nothing that Obama did wrong, and if it were have to happened during Bush's term, and those on the left had complained about it, I would have pointed out that these kinds of events are typically not scheduled by the President.
MMfa holds with its mission statement. They say what they do and (surprise!) do it. Showing the missinformation is somehow an attack on freedom of speach? How so? With all the threads which highlight the big three participation in conservative missinformation you feel their in the bag for our president? Obama is a centerist, this does not always aline with current liberal feelings. I could direct you to some folks with liberal complaints against Obama. They do a better job than you do.
You can back up your coment about MMfa making fun of the automakers? Something about them being a little out of touch with the rest of the population perhaps?
What does the carbon footprint of a 747 and two F-16's have to do with any relivent item?
Last heard Obama was not pleased with the flyover. He was not onboard waving out a window to any telephoto lens which happenned to be pointing towards the airplane. A personal photo op without any announcement that one would occur?
He was not onboard waving out a window
Correct. The president that did that was Bush over NO after the hurricane.
And Bush cravenly running away from Washington to Nebraska on 9/11.
He just ran away to the Cornhusker state to get away from all them east coast librul values, 'til he could get his head glued back on straight. ;-)
Strategic Air Command rammed a rod up his spine and sent him cruising right back into Dick Cheney's arms for a little cooked-up intelligence.
HOw many hours of unchallenged message in the national media do Beck and Limbaugh have? Hannity says, "three hours a day is all I ask". Three hours a day!!!! Well I trust in three hours he would never be wrong about anything... Certainly in his three hours he would place finding the truth above scoring ideological points...
Well I was taught in grade school that checks and balances were a good thing and Media Matters is a check and balance to hours and hours of unchallenged dribble comming from these media clowns.
The alternative to Media Matters was the days back in the 90's when I would listen to Limbaugh for 2 hours spout out his views without any readily available way to see them challenged for what they were: slanted analysis based on ideological insecurity. Beck and Lindbaugh thrive on the echo chamber. How dare anywone deny them the final word. Heck, these guys seem incapable of comprehending they could be wrong about anything. Play me that clip from before the Iraq invasion... Roll the tape...
As for fox news. Yea fair and balanced wink wink. What a joke!
"Hannity says, 'three hours a day is all I ask" You are getting sleepy, VERY SLEEPY:
If I knew of people who were telling us half-truths amongst rants, I would not want to stop them due to jealousy. I would want to counter them because they would be extolling drivel.
If a news source was getting big ratings by telling the truth, and the fact checkers agreed with them, I would not stop that news source out of jealousy. I would be proud there was a news source that got things RIGHT. However, Fox and Limbaugh are continuing to fuel falsehoods and opinions based on conjecture and not truth.
Who would want to be jealous of someone who is WRONG?
Speaking of WRONG, get your facts straight about the airplane scare. It sickens me that you assume Obama did this to scare citizens.
>>MMFA seems to be very jealous of Beck, Fox and Limbaugh. I have never seen one website devote so much attention to these three.
You would almost think it's their mission statement or something.
>>MMFA just proves every single day that freedom of speech is under attack.
Yeah, but you don't stop them from making their points.
Does anyone know how big Obama's Carbon Footprint has been since he has been in office for 100 days? I mean this guy never really seems to be at the office, he seems to always jetting around making apologies and photo ops. Do you think at some point he will put down the teleprompter and actually speak to the public instead of just reading a speech? I mean how embarrassing when you have your teleprompter fails and you have no clue what comes next. Really, you’re telling me this so call great communicator can not just give a speech with out a teleprompter? Does he even take the time to read the speech before it is on the teleprompter, so if the tele were to mess up, he would just keep talking? I am sure if was a Republican in the office doing the same, sure you all would be asking the same questions. Can we get some of the misinformation that the Big 3 is putting out about this so call plane photo op? The President had to know his plane was gone; he would have to have been told if there were an emergency during that time he would not have access to his plane. So your plane is gone and your White House Press Sec says call the White House, hey buddy, you are the White House Press Sec, you should know. FYI, you’re the commander of the Air Force, sounds like you do not know what your staff is doing.
Your mind tends to wander, doesn't it? You're going from carbon footprints to teleprompters to planes. As for "great communicator", I remember Reagan needing help from Nancy to finish a sentence. That doesn't seem to hinder conservatives from worshipping him.
"The President had to know his plane was gone; he would have to have been told if there were an emergency during that time he would not have access to his plane."
Air Force One is the designation given to the plane that the president happens to be travelling on. It's not a single specific plane. If he had to travel, he would have taken another plane, which would at that point be known as "Air Force One".
"FYI, you’re the commander of the Air Force, sounds like you do not know what your staff is doing."
Which is consistent with Obama being angry over the incident and calling for investigation into it. He should have been told.
I don't think markbfoot is listening to all the thoughtful responses. He's just gearing up for another round of ridiculous republican rhetoric. Pity.
What is YOUR carbon footprint? Do you use notes when you speek in public?
I am sure the president's carbon footprint is awfull. What is the point. He is speaking out that we need a policy to address the problem. Does he have to live like a monk to speak out? He is not forcing you to live like a monk. I am sorry but if this is the worse Obama has done, it sounds pretty lame. At least the deficit is a real issue.
Does anyone know how big Obama's Carbon Footprint has been since he has been in office for 100 days? Undoutedly similar to his predecessors at 1600. Your point?
I mean this guy never really seems to be at the office, he seems to always jetting around making apologies and photo ops. International engagement by the POTUS to repair the tarnish GWB left - I'm good with that.
Your teleprompter rant? Bush never met a sentence he couldn't mangle till it was unintelligble but again what's your point? What does this have to do with governance?
Your Air Force One rant. He's already acknowledged the flyover was a mistake and the responsible party will likely be fired. By the way, a little Googling and you'd find out that there are two VC-25As that can serve as Air Force One, so his "plane" wasn't gone.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Tbone - I agree. Who cares about the carbon footprint. That is a distraction.
I also agree with the AFO piece. Actually, I believe that wasn't even a real AFO, but a cargo plane painted to look like AFO. And, I believe Obama when he says he didn't know. Another distraction.
As for the repairing our image...I strongly disagree. The US should not go around apologizing for its actions. For what? Defending ourselves? Liberating the people of Iraq from a brutal dictator that gassed his own people? Not siding with France. Who cares about France. Seriously. I have two sons in the military, and am darn proud of this country, and the Constitution they defend.
On a funny note...Yes, Obama is teleprompter bound. Bush did not speak eloquently...but neither does Obama. He READS well, but does not do well on his own. In fact, he uses the word, "uh" about every other word. Studders. messes up facts. Shoot, how many gaffes has he made due to teleprompters in 100 days? Pitiful.
The problem is that there's no case for "defending ourselves" as a justification for invading Iraq. We also can't just invade a country fifteen years after mass murders on that rationale. See, we don't run the world. I know this is a shock to some people, but there are actually other countries that have a say in whether the government of sovereign nations get overthrown or not. We have a lot of military power and influence, but we also have agreements to play by certain rules. And in case it eluded you, saying that America doesn't have to apologize for its actions comes off as a little bit arrogant. Someone who makes a mistake gains respect by admitting it and showing humility. It's exactly the same for countries.
"Studders. messes up facts. Shoot, how many gaffes has he made due to teleprompters in 100 days? Pitiful."
I guess conservatives have to abandon their worship of Ronald Reagan. Do you have any concept of how many gaffes he made? How many facts he made up off the top of his head? And what gaffes have been "due to teleprompters", anyway?
The invasion of Iraq was justifed by UN Resolution 1441, issued Nov 8, 2002.
The legal authority to use force to address Iraq's material breaches is clear. Nothing in UNSCR 1441 requires a further resolution, or other form of Security Council approval, to authorize the use of force. A 'material breach' of the cease-fire conditions is the predicate for use of force against Iraq. And there can be no doubt that Iraq is in 'material breach' of its obligations, as the Council reaffirmed in UNSCR 1441.
That would indicate that other countries, members of the United Nations, were in absolute agreement with the decision. In fact, Res 1441 was actually the fourth said resolution that Iraq was not complying with, including 686, 687, and 1284. So, how many resolutions does it take to have a country comply? If breaking the resolutions have no consequence, why have the UN? The US played by the rules. Plain and simple.
And, what mistake did America make? I will not apologize because France did not want to enforce a resolution that it agreed to.
As for the gaffes...google "Obama gaffe teleprompter". I can list them, but what fun is that. The internet has video! Including the one from 2 days ago at the National Academy of Science. Or the one during the campaign where he stopped talking (Sept 2008).
Reagan is not worshipped. He is a man. He is highly regarded. Obama is worshipped. And, the press, nor the conservative base, rambled on at how great an orator Reagan was. No one described in great detail how eloquent Reagan was.
Sorry, no. 1441 did not justify invasion. Further violation would require a decision on the course of action according to the very resolution you cite.
“12.Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;
“13.Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
Even in your wildest dreams, that does not authorize unilateral action of any sort, much less the overthrow of the government.
"Reagan is not worshipped. He is a man. He is highly regarded. Obama is worshipped. And, the press, nor the conservative base, rambled on at how great an orator Reagan was. No one described in great detail how eloquent Reagan was."
Give me a break. I wish I had a nickel for every conservative I've heard claim he's the greatest president in our history. And I guess you've forgotten the "great communicator" tag that was bizarrely bestowed upon him.
Brab - Actually, section 3 of said resolution does in fact specify that Iraq has 30 days from the date of the resolution to comply or face the consequences. They failed to comply. America worked with England and Australia in the action.
Reagan was "one of" the greatest president in our history. But, that has nothing to do with Obama and his teleprompter dependence.
So why didn't it go through the security council? Again, it wasn't up to us to determine the course of action, whether we recruited allies or not. The "consequences" were not set.
"Reagan was "one of" the greatest president in our history. But, that has nothing to do with Obama and his teleprompter dependence."
Of course it does. If Reagan used a teleprompter, relied on his wife to complete his sentences, and made hundreds of misstatements, and is supposed to be a great president, then anything remotely similar on Obama's part is utterly irrelevant to anything. Did you really not figure that out?
Because it had gone through the Security Council 16 previous times! That is in the resolution itself. I asked originally...how many resolutions does it take? Each violation indicated consequences. The reason the language is left vague is to allow nations like ours to do what we did. Otherwise, it would have been strictly documented as to what the exact consequences were. Agree?
I'm not sure where you're going with the Reagan thing. He was a great president. I did not say he was a magical orator. But, the press DOES say that about Obama. Reagan was not a great president because he could speak well, nor was Bush a bad president because he could not. That is ridiculous.
What the...? It says that in case of a violation that the security council would convene to discuss the situation. How the hell do you figure that allows us to do anything? The exact consequences weren't listed because it said that the security council would make that determination if necessary. Your personal opinion may be that we should have had the right to do it because there had been enough resolutions, but that doesn't alter reality.
My point is that if it doesn't have any bearing on the judgment of the president, it's completely irrelevant to anything. That makes it petty partisan garbage for you to bring it up. Is that clear now?
jstephens also conveniently forgets that the inspectors, finding no WMDs, were removed from Iraq so Bush & Co. could invade and occupy.
Are you actually defending Saddam Hussein? He hampered the inspectors at EVERY turn. He denied them access to facilities almost every day. And, they were not "removed from Iraq so Bush" could invade. More speculation, without any fact.
You know, your fellow progressive bloggers chided me on a different thread for offering baseless speculation as an argument. And, don't point me to crap liberal blog sites. Hard news only.
You are obviously naive to the politics of the Middle East. Saddam had to maintain the cloak of believability of his "weapons" to protect himself from his neighbors (Iran, Israel).
And you are experienced? Saddam DID have WMD, as proven by the fact that he USED them. And no one, not you, or any progressive in this country, knew 100% that he was bluffing. Do not call me naive.
The teleprompter thing. Really? Is that all you guys have? And you're nothing but parrots. Rove and his minions put these redundancies into the Fox/Limbo/Drudge marketplace and then all of your parrots repeat, rinse, later, repeat. You must be damn boring at cocktail parties.
I was merely replying to another bloggers comment.
The only reason it is an issue is because the "parrots" on the left continue to rave about how eloquent Obama is. That is an apparent lie. Without the prompter, he is no more eloquent and capable speaker than Bush.
Now that one is hysterical! Watch the press conferences of the two men and if you can't see a difference between the two, your blinders are far thicker than I would have guessed.
Did someone challenge you to see how many bogus talking points you could jam together into a series of almost indecipherable blobs of text? If so, you won that challenge.
Obama has spoken in public without a teleprompter many, many times and done very well. I've seen town halls where he answered questions off the cuff and we all remember how he beat McCain in the debates. It's true that he initially had too many "uh"s and "um"s as he framed his response in his mind, but even those have become very rare. The man is smart and quick on his feet while being deliberative in his delivery.
He also doesn't have to be reminded by his wife that words have meaning. Like:
"Bring it on!"
Thank you MMFA for putting the big three side-by-side on the homepage. It crystallized the connection in my subconsciousness: Larry, Moe, and Curly.
With my profound apologies to the comedic genius of the originals.
It has to be so frustrating to be Limbaugh, Hannity, or one of the other wingnuts right now. They're tying themselves into knots trying to get at President Obama, and nothing works. I almost feel pity for them.
I agree but I do not pity them. They have views that are off the mark in my view and I believe that Rush, Hannity and all of those guys do not believe a black man can do anything. I think the whole thing is racially motivated. I may get flack for it, but Bush made errors that have put our country in hell and they don't say anything, but Obama does something as petty as a small laugh in an interview and they are all over him??!! It just does not make sense to me unless I think that they are racists. I think that even if Obama improves the economy, improves the way other countries think about him, catches Bin-Laden and ends the war, they will find something wrong with him because they think a black man can't do anything but pick up after they eat at McDonald's!!
You are disgraceful. Why has no one on this blog called you out. My only hope is that you are not an American citizen.