2011: The Year The Right-Wing Media's Foreign Policy Argument Fell Apart
Since President Obama took office, right-wing media have argued that his foreign policy is making the United States less safe and is bent on attacking Israel. Those attacks have continued in 2011, even as the Obama administration has overseen the death of Al Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and Anwar Al-Awlaki, repeatedly supported Israel, and been praised by Israeli leaders.
RIGHT-WING MEDIA CLAIM: Obama Is Making The U.S. Less Safe
RIGHT-WING MEDIA CLAIM: Obama's Actions In Libya Were Incoherent And Dangerous For Israel
RIGHT-WING MEDIA CLAIM: Obama Is Anti-Israel And His Administration Is Anti-Semitic
RIGHT-WING MEDIA CLAIM: Obama Is Making The U.S. Less Safe
Since Obama Took Office, Right-Wing Media Have Repeatedly Suggested That He Is Weak On Terror And Not Serious About Defending America From Terrorism Threats.
- Fox News' Bill Sammon: In Not Using The Word "Terrorism" Or Any Of Its Variants, Obama Showed "He Has Taken Us Off A War Footing As A Nation." [Email from Bill Sammon, 6/4/09, via Media Matters]
- Tammy Bruce: Obama "Perhaps Secretly Wishes This Nation To Be Harmed ... His Mother Certainly Did." [Talk Radio Network, The Tammy Bruce Show, 6/18/09, via Media Matters]
- Michael Scheuer: Obama "Obviously Does Not Care" About "Protecting Americans." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 8/28/09, via Media Matters]
- Calling Obama "Post-American," John Bolton Blamed "Risk Of Continuing Global Terrorism" On "Obama Approach." [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 12/11/09, via Media Matters]
- Gretchen Carlson: "Let's Face It," "When It Comes To Terror" The White House's "Tone" Is "Not Quite That Serious." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 1/8/10, via Media Matters]
- Sarah Palin: Obama "Reflects A World View That Is Out Of Touch With The Enemy That We Face." [CNN Transcripts, 2/6/10]
- Sean Hannity: "Obama Is Weak. He's An Appeaser." [Fox News, Hannity, 3/3/10, via Media Matters]
- Brian Kilmeade Falsely Accused Obama Of Neglecting Fight Against Terrorism. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/4/10, via Media Matters]
- Scheuer On Obama: "When It Comes To Defending America ... He's Generally Pretty Quiet." [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 12/1/10, via Media Matters]
In 2011, The Right-Wing Media Continued To Claim That Obama Is Making The Country Less Safe.
- Glenn Beck: "We're On A Suicide Mission Here As A Nation." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Glenn Beck Program, 3/31/11, via Media Matters]
- Charles Krauthammer: Obama Has "Made War On The War On Terror." [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 4/12/11, via Media Matters]
- Fox & Friends Asked If "WH Policies" Will Make It "Tougher" To "Catch A Terrorist."
[Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/9/11, via Media Matters]
- Fox's Camerota: "Al-Qaeda's Number Two [Is] Now Dead, But Does That Mean That America Is Any Safer?" [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 8/30/11, via Media Matters]
REALITY: Obama Administration Oversaw The Killing Of Osama Bin Laden And Other Terrorist Leaders
[The New York Times, 5/2/11]
Obama Authorized The Operation That Resulted In The Death Of Osama Bin Laden. Following the killing of Osama bin Laden, The Washington Post reported that the "surgical" special forces operation that resulted in the terrorist leader's death was authorized by President Obama on Friday, April 29 after months of intelligence gathering, and was carried out early the following Monday morning (local time) as a small force of elite American troops descended on bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. According to the Post, the U.S. "did not share any intelligence with foreign governments, including Pakistan's." From a May 2 Post article:
Osama bin Laden, the long-hunted al-Qaeda leader and chief architect of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, was killed by U.S. forces Sunday in what officials described as a surgical raid on his luxury hideout in Pakistan.
In a rare Sunday night address from the East Room of the White House, President Obama said a small team of U.S. personnel attacked a compound Sunday in Pakistan's Abbottabad Valley, where bin Laden had been hiding since at least last summer. During a firefight, the U.S. team killed bin Laden, 54, and took custody of his body in what Obama called "the most significant achievement to date in our nation's effort to defeat al-Qaeda."
The killing of the terrorism mastermind who had eluded U.S. forces for nearly a decade drew a spontaneous, cheering crowd outside the White House gates and at New York's Ground Zero, the site of al-Qaeda's 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center.
"We will be relentless in defense of our citizens and our friends and allies," a somber Obama said in his nine-minute statement that aired live on television worldwide. "We will be true to the values that make us who we are. And on nights like this one, we can say to families who have lost loved ones to al-Qaeda's terror: Justice has been done."
Bin Laden's killing will provide a clear moment of victory for Obama at a time of deep political turmoil overseas that is upending long-standing U.S. policy in much of the Muslim world, particularly the Middle East.
It also comes nearly 10 years after bin Laden orchestrated the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil, when al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked three passenger jets and crashed them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and crashed a fourth jet in rural Shanksville, Pa.
"Today's achievement is a testament to the greatness of our country and the determination of the American people," Obama said. "The cause of securing our country is not complete, but tonight we are once again reminded that America can do whatever it is we set our mind to. That is the story of our history."
The discovery that bin Laden had been hiding in a well-populated part of Pakistan, rather than a remote location, raised new questions about the extent to which Pakistan is cooperating with the United States in combating terrorism.
U.S. forces flew to bin Laden's hideout in helicopters about 1 a.m. Monday (late Sunday afternoon in Washington). Bin Laden was shot in the head after he and his guards resisted the U.S. attackers, the Associated Press reported. U.S. personnel identified him by facial recognition.
[...]
National security adviser Thomas E. Donilon prepared the formal orders and convened senior national security officials that afternoon to plan for the operation. The United States did not share any intelligence with foreign governments, including Pakistan's, and only a "very small number" of people within the U.S. government knew about it, one official said.
Throughout the afternoon Sunday, Obama met with senior officials in the Situation Room for briefings on the operation. At 3:50 p.m., Obama learned that bin Laden was tentatively identified, and the president remained "actively involved in all facets of the operation, " a senior administration official said. [The Washington Post, 5/2/11]
- The Operation Was In Accordance With What Then-Candidate Obama Said He Would Do If Elected President. In an August 1, 2007 speech delivered at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., Obama, who was then seeking the Democratic nomination for president, said he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from that country's government. ABC News reported at the time:
On August 1, 2007, a young Democratic presidential candidate -- criticized by Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, for being "irresponsible and frankly naïve" on foreign policy matters -- surprised many of his supporters by pledging to conduct military operations in Pakistan with or without that country's permission.
"I understand that President (Pervez)Musharraf has his own challenges," Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said of the man who was then president of Pakistan, "but let me make this clear: There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
[...]
At the time, Obama's speech, delivered at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., seemed an attempt by the young senator to ramp up his campaign to the next phase, where he hoped to be seen as a president who would pursue a muscular foreign policy and protect the United States from terrorist attack. [ABCNews.com, 5/2/11]
Obama Ordered Drone Strike That Killed Anwar Al-Awlaki, An American-Born Al Qaeda Leader. Reuters reported on September 30:
The killing of Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen on Friday by a U.S. drone strike is the culmination of two years of extensive U.S. efforts to track down the American-born member of al Qaeda and put him out of action.
Awlaki, identified by U.S. intelligence as "chief of external operations" for al Qaeda's Yemen branch and a Web-savvy propagandist for the Islamist cause, was killed in an attack by missiles fired from multiple CIA drones in a remote Yemeni town, U.S. officials said.
Among three other people killed in the attack, a U.S. official said, was Samir Khan, another American who turned to militancy and served as editor of "Inspire," a glossy magazine used as a propaganda and recruitment vehicle by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). The Yemen-based group is deemed by U.S. officials to be one of al Qaeda's most dangerous offshoots.
A U.S. official described the other two people killed in the attack as "unidentified associates" of Awlaki and Khan.
President Barack Obama hailed the Awlaki strike as "another significant milestone" in efforts to defeat al Qaeda and proof that it and its allies will find no safe haven. "The death of Awlaki is a major blow to al Qaeda's most active operational affiliate," Obama said. [Reuters, 9/30/11]
Under Obama, FBI And DEA Agents Foiled Alleged Iranian Plot To Assassinate Saudi Ambassador To The U.S. ABC News reported on October 11:
FBI and DEA agents have disrupted a plot to commit a "significant terrorist act in the United States" tied to Iran, federal officials told ABC News today.
The officials said the plot included the assassination of the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States, Adel Al-Jubeir, with a bomb and subsequent bomb attacks on the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Washington, D.C. Bombings of the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Buenos Aires, Argentina, were also discussed, according to the U.S. officials.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in an announcement today that the plan was "conceived, sponsored and was directed from Iran" by a faction of the government and called it a "flagrant" violation of U.S. and international law.
"The U.S. is committed to holding Iran accountable for its actions," Holder said.
FBI Director Robert Mueller said the arrest of a suspect in the plot shows the U.S. will "bring the full weight of [the] law to bear on those responsible" and that "any attempts on American soil will not be tolerated." [ABCNews.com, 10/11/11]
Numerous Other Terrorist Leaders Have Been Killed During Obama's Presidency. In a September 30 blog post, ABC's Jake Tapper compiled a list of senior terrorist leaders killed during Obama's presidency. From Tapper's post:
Earlier this month officials confirmed that al Qaeda's chief of Pakistan operations, Abu Hafs al-Shahri, was killed in Waziristan, Pakistan.
In August, 'Atiyah 'Abd al-Rahman, the deputy leader of al Qaeda was killed.
In June, one of the group's most dangerous commanders, Ilyas Kashmiri, was killed in Pakistan. In Yemen that same month, AQAP senior operatives Ammar al-Wa'ili, Abu Ali al-Harithi, and Ali Saleh Farhan were killed. In Somalia, Al-Qa'ida in East Africa (AQEA) senior leader Harun Fazul was killed.
Administration officials also herald the recent U.S./Pakistani joint arrest of Younis al-Mauritani in Quetta.
Going back to August 2009, Tehrik e-Taliban Pakistan leader Baitullah Mahsud was killed in Pakistan.
In September of that month, Jemayah Islamiya operational planner Noordin Muhammad Top was killed in Indonesia, and AQEA planner Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan was killed in Somalia.
Then in December 2009 in Pakistan, al Qaeda operational commanders Saleh al-Somali and 'Abdallah Sa'id were killed.
In February 2010, in Pakistan, Taliban deputy and military commander Abdul Ghani Beradar was captured; Haqqani network commander Muhammad Haqqani was killed; and Lashkar-e Jhangvi leader Qari Zafar was killed.
In March 2010, al Qaeda operative Hussein al-Yemeni was killed in Pakistan, while senior Jemayah Islamiya operative Dulmatin -- accused of being the mastermind behind the 2002 Bali bombings -- was killed during a raid in Indonesia.
In April 2010, al Qaeda in Iraq leaders Abu Ayyub al-Masri and Abu Omar al-Baghdadi were killed.
In May, al Qaeda's number three commander, Sheik Saeed al-Masri was killed.
In June 2010 in Pakistan, al Qaeda commander Hamza al-Jawfi was killed. [Political Punch, 9/30/11, via ABCNews.com]
RIGHT-WING MEDIA CLAIM: Obama's Actions In Libya Were Incoherent And Dangerous For Israel
Right-Wing Media Criticize Obama's Actions In Libya
- The Weekly Standard On Obama's Decision To Seek A UN Security Council Resolution On Libya: "This Is Not So Much A Feeble Response As A Non-Response." [The Weekly Standard, 2/23/11]
- The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol: Obama Administration Is "Dithering" On Libya. [The Weekly Standard, 2/25/11]
- Karl Rove: Obama Is "Dithering" On Libya And "As A Result America Has Looked Weak." [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 2/28/11, via Media Matters]
- Fox News Anchor Jon Scott: "If I Were President Obama, I Would Unilaterally" Enforce Libya No-Fly Zone. [Fox News, Happening Now, 2/28/11, via Media Matters]
- AEI's Steven Hayward: "I'm Not Sure I Ever Thought I'd See the Day That The United Nations ... Would Look Tougher Than The President Of The United States." [National Review Online, 3/17/11]
- NRO's James Carafano: "If U.S. Officials Had Moved To Stop The Fighting" Before The U.N. Resolution Passed "They Would Have Done So When Tripoli Was On The Ropes." [National Review Online, 3/18/11]
- Dick Morris And Eileen McGann: "Does [Obama] Understand That He Could Have Stopped The Bloodshed In Libya By Declaring A No Fly Zone Three Weeks Ago?" [DickMorris.com, 3/18/11]
- Beck: "If I Would Have Told You A Year Ago That France Would Lead" On Libya Intervention, "Would You Have Believed That?" [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 3/18/11, via Media Matters]
- Beck Predicted That Action In Libya "Would Sweep, Destabilize, And Drag Us All Down." [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 3/18/11, via Media Matters]
- Big Peace: Obama Is "Wasting Precious Time, Costing Civilian Lives, And Complicating The Task." [Big Peace, 3/21/11]
- Ralph Peters: "You Really Can't Do War Part Way, Just Like You Can't Get A Little Bit Pregnant." [Fox Business, America's Nightly Scoreboard, 3/21/11, via Media Matters]
- David Asman: "There's No Respect For An Administration That Fears Taking The Lead." [Fox Business, America's Nightly Scoreboard, 3/21/11, via Media Matters]
- Hannity: "There Was A Great Reluctance By The President To Even Get On Board." [Fox News, Hannity, 3/21/11, via Nexis]
- Oliver North: Obama "Does Not Really Know What He Wants To Do." [Fox News, Hannity, 3/21/11, via Nexis]
- American Spectator: "Obama's Doctrine Of Multilateralism Is A Profession Of Weakness To All The Terror-Sponsoring Nations" And "Is Provoking Our Enemies To Action." [American Spectator, 3/21/11]
- Big Peace: Obama "Waited Far Too Long," Allowing "The French, The French, To Become The Boosters Of Liberty In Our Place." [Big Peace, 3/21/11]
- Peter Johnson, Jr.: "We Have To See Whether This Becomes President Obama's Iraq." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 3/21/11, via Media Matters; CNN.com, 3/21/11]
Right-Wing Media Suggest Obama's Libya Policy May Set The Stage For Military Attack On Israel
- Frank Gaffney: "The Gadhafi Precedent: Could Attack On Libya Set The Stage For Action Against Israel?" [The Washington Times, 3/21/11]
- Fox Nation: "Op-Ed: Could Attack On Libya Set State For Action Against Israel?" Fox Nation highlighted and linked to Gaffney's column under the headline: "Op-Ed: Could Attack on Libya Set Stage for Action Against Israel?." From Fox Nation:
[Fox Nation, 3/22/11]
- WorldNetDaily: "American Military Targeting Israel?" [WorldNetDaily, 3/22/11]
- Beck: Obama Administration's "Responsibility To Protect" Doctrine Invoked With Regard To Libya Could Be Used Against Israel. [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 3/29/11, via Media Matters]
REALITY: With U.S., NATO Support, Libyans Overthrew Gadhafi
Wash. Post: Libyan Rebels Captured, Killed Gadhafi Following "Unprecedented NATO Air Campaign." The Washington Post reported on October 20:
Former Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi was killed Thursday after being seized in a sewage tunnel in his home town -- the final triumph for pro-democracy fighters who have struggled for eight months to take control of the country.
Gaddafi's death came on a day of intense military activity in Sirte, the last loyalist holdout in Libya, where his supporters had fended off better-armed revolutionaries for weeks. Before his capture, a U.S. drone and French fighter jets fired on a large, disorganized convoy leaving the city that he appears to have been in. It was not clear whether the airstrikes hit Gaddafi's vehicles, NATO officials said.
Gaddafi was shot in the head during an exchange of gunfire between his supporters and revolutionaries as he was being whisked away from the tunnel in a truck, according to Mahmoud Jibril, the interim prime minister. But cellphone videos played on Arab-language TV stations showed an already bloodied and dazed Gaddafi being escorted to the truck, raising questions about exactly when he was hit. One of Gaddafi's sons, Mutassim, and his army chief of staff were also killed, officials said.
The taking of Sirte and Gaddafi's death marked the climax of a war that was backed by an unprecedented NATO air campaign aimed at protecting civilians. Thursday's events clear the way for the appointment of a temporary government that is to steer the country toward elections.
[...]
Fighters on the ground told Reuters that Gaddafi and a handful of his men appeared to run from their convoy after the NATO bombing and take shelter in two drainage pipes.
"At first we fired at them with antiaircraft guns, but it was no use," Salem Bakeer said while being feted by his comrades near the road. "Then we went in on foot."
The prime minister said Gaddafi was discovered with a group of supporters in a sewage pipe in Sirte, armed with a pistol and wearing pants and a long-underwear shirt -- a far cry from his famously flamboyant outfits. He did not resist arrest.
As Gaddafi was being walked to a truck, however, he was shot in the right arm in an exchange of gunfire between his supporters and revolutionaries, Jibril said.
The truck then got caught in crossfire as it headed toward a hospital, and Gaddafi was shot in the head, Jibril said.
"That was the deadly shot," he said in an interview. The former leader died shortly thereafter, he said.
But cellphone videos showed Gaddafi being loaded on a truck, blood spattered on his face and chest, suggesting he was wounded before boarding the truck.
"We got you!" revolutionaries in camouflage yelled as they crowded around the wounded former leader. [The Washington Post, 10/20/11]
NY Times: The U.S. "Remained The Backbone Of ... NATO Offensive[s]" In Libya. The New York Times reported on October 21:
Even as Washington put a European mask of command on the operation -- an effort described as "leading from behind" -- shortages in allied intelligence-gathering aircraft, aerial refueling tankers and precision-guidance kits for bombs proved the United States remained the backbone of any NATO offensive.
To be fair, while the fighting has dragged on longer than anticipated, the death on Thursday of the Libyan leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, gave senior Obama administration officials an opportunity to trumpet the new American way of war to a nation weary of ground combat in Afghanistan and Iraq.
[...]
For command bunkers in Tripoli as well as Colonel Qaddafi's final hide-out in Surt, NATO increasingly relied on American Predator drones that fly high overhead for hundreds of hours, chronicling the "pattern of life" below until allied commanders feel confident the site is a legitimate target. On Thursday, for instance, a Predator helped to guide a French warplane to attack Colonel Qaddafi's convoy as it tried to flee Surt. (NATO said Thursday it did not know Colonel Qaddafi was in the convoy then.)
Ditto with refueling tankers: The United States had to provide most refueling aircraft.
Likewise with the GPS packages, which turn gravity bombs into precision-guided weapons to hit their targets while minimizing civilian casualties. While alliance officers say no missions were delayed or canceled due to shortages of precision-guided munitions, there was a scramble to borrow from American and other stockpiles for NATO aircraft.
For the record, non-American alliance and partner aircraft flew 75 percent of all sorties of the war. And non-American alliance warships carried out 100 percent of the missions to enforce the arms embargo at sea.
[...]
For all the talk that no American combat troops were deployed in Libya, ground forces were required to topple the government. But they were Libyan rebel forces, and they required ample assistance and advising from outside powers. [The New York Times, 10/21/11]
There Have Been No UN Security Council Resolutions Authorizing Force In Israel. [UN.org, accessed 12/12/11]
RIGHT-WING MEDIA CLAIM: Obama Is Anti-Israel And His Administration Is Anti-Semitic
- Beck: Members Of The Obama Administration Are "Openly Deliver[ing]" "Out-Of-Line Anti-Semitic Comments." [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 3/31/11, via Media Matters]
- Rush Limbaugh: Obama Has A "Real Problem With Israel, But He Can't Say It." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 5/5/11, via Media Matters]
- Limbaugh: Obama Urged Israel To "Destroy Itself" And "Submit Its People To Potential Genocide." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 5/19/11, via Media Matters]
- WND's Larry Klayman: Religious Freedom Is "Under Attack By Our 'Muslim' President And His Fellow Anti-Semites." [WorldNetDaily, 5/21/11]
- WSJ's Bret Stephens Called Obama "An Anti-Israel President." [The Wall Street Journal, 5/24/11]
- Beck: Obama Administration "Embraces" Anti-Israeli, Anti-Semitic, And Anti-American "Bigotry." [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 6/6/11, via Media Matters]
- Bolton: Obama's Policies Are "The Most Anti-Israel Of Any President Since The Creation Of The State Of Israel." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 9/22/11, via Media Matters]
- Fox's Linda Chavez: The Obama Administration "Is The Most Anti-Israel Administration" In Israel's History. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 11/9/11, via Media Matters]
- Pamela Geller Blamed Obama For "Jew-Haters" In His Administration And Claimed He Has "Judeophobia." [Atlas Shrugs, 12/3/11]
- Kristol: Obama Is "Acting To Weaken The Security Of The State Of Israel." [The Weekly Standard, 12/3/11]
- American Thinker: "You Can't Be Pro-Obama And Pro-Israel." [American Thinker, 12/4/11]
REALITY: Obama Has Stood By Israel And Lobbied Against Palestinian Statehood At The UN
[WhiteHouse.gov, 9/21/11]
Obama Declared His Opposition To Palestinian Statehood Bid At The UN
Obama: "Peace Will Not Come Through Statements And Resolutions At The U.N." The New York Times reported on September 21:
President Obama declared his opposition to the Palestinian Authority's bid for statehood through the Security Council on Wednesday, throwing the weight of the United States directly in the path of the Arab democracy movement even as he hailed what he called the democratic aspirations that have taken hold throughout the Middle East and North Africa.
"Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the U.N.," Mr. Obama said, in an address before world leaders at the General Assembly. "If it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now."
Instead, Mr. Obama said, the international community should keep pushing Israelis and Palestinians toward talks on the four intractable issues that have vexed peace negotiations since 1979: borders of a Palestinian state, security for Israel, the status of Palestinian refugees and the fate of Jerusalem, which both sides claim for their capital.
[...]
But, he said, Palestinians must make peace with Israel before gaining statehood themselves. Israelis and Palestinians, he said, have grievances and the United Nations must be an arbiter.
"This body, founded, as it was, out of the ashes of war and genocide; dedicated, as it is, to the dignity of every person, must recognize the reality that is lived by both the Palestinians and the Israelis," he said. "We will only succeed in that effort if we can encourage the parties to sit down together, to listen to each other and to understand each other's hopes and fears. That is the project to which America is committed, and that is what the United Nations should be focused on in the weeks and months to come."
Several times as Mr. Obama spoke, the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, in the audience, put his forehead in his hand. But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel called the speech a "badge of honor." [The New York Times, 9/21/11]
- The UN Did Not Hold A Vote On Palestinian Statehood Due To A Lack Of Support. [The Guardian, 11/11/11]
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu Has Repeatedly Praised Obama
Netanyahu On Obama's Opposition To A Unilaterally-Declared Palestinian State: "I Think This Is A Badge Of Honor And I Want To Thank You For Wearing That Badge Of Honor." From a statement by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:
I want to thank you, Mr. President, for standing with Israel and supporting peace through direct negotiations. We both agree this is the only way to achieve peace. We both agree that Palestinians and the Israelis should sit down together and negotiate an agreement of mutual recognition and security. I think this is the only way to get to a stable and durable peace. You've also made it clear that the Palestinians deserve a state, but it's a state that has to make that peace with Israel, and therefore their attempt to shortcut this process, not negotiate peace -- that attempt to get state membership in the United Nations will not succeed. I think the Palestinians want to achieve a state in the international community, but they're not prepared yet to give peace to Israel in return.
[...]
I think that standing your ground, taking this position of principle, which is also, I think, the right position to achieve peace -- I think this is a badge of honor and I want to thank you for wearing that badge of honor, and also to express my hope that others will follow your example, Mr. President. So I want to thank you. [Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 9/21/11]
Netanyahu "Offered A Special Thank You" To Obama For Helping To Free Israelis Detained In Cairo. From a Jerusalem Post article:
Israel will continue to adhere to the peace treaty with Egypt, which serves the interest of both countries, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said on Saturday night, at the end of a dramatic 24-hours during which an Egyptian mob laid siege to Israel's embassy in Cairo.
All of Israel's emissaries to Cairo -- including six security guards who were holed up behind a metal door in the embassy and extracted by Egyptian commandos -- returned to Israel on Saturday, with the exception of one diplomat who will remain to represent Israel in the Egyptian capital.
Netanyahu, in a televised announcement on Saturday night, offered a special thank you to US President Barack Obama who "said he would do everything he could" to extricate the six security guards, "and did."
"He used all the means and influence of the US, which are significant, and I think we owe him a special thank you. This testifies to the strong alliance between Israel and the US. This alliance is critical, especially during these days of great storms buffeting the Middle East," the prime minister said. [Jerusalem Post, 9/11/11]
Netanyahu "Expressed His Deep Appreciation" For U.S. Funding For Missile Defense System For Israel. From an April 18 Agence France-Presse article:
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on April 18 thanked U.S. President Barack Obama for helping fund a missile defense system protecting the Jewish state from Palestinian rockets, the White House said.
Netanyahu "expressed his deep appreciation for U.S. funding for the 'Iron Dome' rocket and mortar defense system, which he noted has successfully intercepted several rockets aimed at Israeli communities," the White House said in a readout of the phone call. [Agence France-Presse, 4/18/11, via DefenseNews.com]
Former Israeli Prime Minister And Current Defense Minister Ehud Barak: "I Can Hardly Remember A Better Period Of ... American Support" For Israel Than "Right Now." From the August 3 edition of Fox News' On the Record with Greta Van Susteren:
VAN SUSTEREN: What's sort of the general opinion now of the Obama administration, especially in light of the fact that the president has said that they'd like to see it go back to the pre-1967 borders and with the two states? And I know that that was not well-received among many people, but as the sort of -- I know that we're good friends, our countries are good friends, but are Israelis disenchanted a little bit with the Obama administration?
BARAK: No, our countries are good friends, and I'm the minister of defense, I can tell you that I can hardly remember -- I was in uniform for decades -- I can hardly remember a better period of both support -- American support and backing and Israel cooperation and similar strategic understanding of events around us than what we have right now. And it's true that not all the Israelis are living happily with the positions of the administration, but I should tell you honestly that the president didn't say that Israel should go back to the borders of '67. He made it very clear that he thinks the Palestinians deserve a state of their own. We also believe in two states, Israel side by side, secure Israel side by side with a demilitarized Palestinian state that will basically have the same area that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip had before '67 with certain swaps, with understanding of the changes, transformation on the ground. [Fox News, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, 8/3/11, via Media Matters]
A Majority Of Jewish Israelis Have A Favorable View Of Obama
Brookings: "A Majority (54%) Of Israeli Jews Polled In 2011 Expressed A Favorable View Of [Obama]." A "2011 Public Opinion Poll of Jewish and Arab Citizens of Israel" by the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy found that a "majority" of Israeli Jews support Obama:
Key Findings: Poll Results Among Jewish Israelis
Attitudes toward the United States
- In contrast with 2010, when majorities of Israeli Jews expressed unfavorable views of President Obama, a majority (54%) of Israeli Jews polled in 2011 expressed a favorable view of the U.S. President while 39% expressed negative views. [Brookings, 12/1/11]
For more information about the relentless, baseless right-wing claims that Obama does not support Israel, please click here.
RIGHT-WING MEDIA CLAIM: Obama's Speech On Israeli-Palestinian Peace Based On '67 Borders With Agreed Swaps Condoned "Potential Genocide"
Obama: "We Believe The Borders Of Israel And Palestine Should Be Based On The 1967 Lines With Mutually Agreed Swaps." From Obama's May 19 speech on the Middle East and North Africa:
Now, ultimately, it is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them -- not by the United States; not by anybody else. But endless delay won't make the problem go away. What America and the international community can do is to state frankly what everyone knows -- a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.
So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.
As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself -- by itself -- against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated [WhiteHouse.gov, 5/19/11]
CNN's Dana Loesch On Obama's Citation Of 1967 Borders: Obama "Sided With Terrorists." [KFTK, The Dana Show, 5/19/11, via Media Matters]
Limbaugh: Obama Urged Israel To "Destroy Itself" And "Submit Its People To Potential Genocide." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 5/19/11, via Media Matters]
Gateway Pundit: Obama "Proposed Giving Half Of Jerusalem ... To Hamas-Fatah Terrorist Alliance." [Gateway Pundit, 5/19/11]
Ace of Spades: Obama Is "'Endorsing The Terrorists' Key Demand." [Ace of Spades, 5/19/11]
Beck: Obama's Policy On Israel Ends With "The Destruction Of Israel" And "The Western Way Of Life." [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 5/19/11, via Media Matters]
Beck: Obama Wants To "Destabilize Israel Even More." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Glenn Beck Program, 5/23/11, via Media Matters]
Geller: Obama's Middle East Policy Is "Obama's Final Solution." [Atlas Shrugs, 5/19/11]
Krauthammer: Obama Is "Tearing Up Bush-Era Agreements." [Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier, 5/19/11, via Media Matters]
Hannity: Obama Has Thrown Israel Under "A Bus Full Of Suicide Bombers." [Fox News, Hannity, 5/19/11, via Media Matters]
Morris: If Israel's Security "Is An Important Factor In Your Life, You Have No Business Supporting Barack Obama." [Fox News, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, 5/19/11, via Media Matters]
Morris: Obama Is Asking Israel "To Commit Suicide." Later on the same program, Morris claimed that Obama is "literally" asking Israel "to commit suicide." [Fox News, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, 5/19/11, via Media Matters]
REALITY: Obama's Statement On 1967 Borders Is In Line With Views Of Former U.S. And Israeli Leaders
Former Israeli PM Olmert: Israelis Must "Return To The Core Of The Territory That Is The State of Israel Prior To 1967." In November 2008, on the 13th anniversary of the death of former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin -- who was assassinated in 1995 by an Orthodox Jew reportedly opposed to the Mideast peace process Rabin was intent on brokering -- then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stated: "We must give up Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem and return to the core of the territory that is the State of Israel prior to 1967, with minor corrections dictated by the reality created since then." From Haaretz:
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert took advantage of yesterday's special Knesset marking the 13th anniversary of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin to call for territorial withdrawals in all disputed areas and to denounce violence on the part of Jewish settlers.
"We must give up Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem and return to the core of the territory that is the State of Israel prior to 1967, with minor corrections dictated by the reality created since then," he said.
[...]
Olmert also said that, "Every government will need to tell the truth, which unfortunately will require us to tear out many parts of the homeland in Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and the Golan Heights." Addressing the settlers, he said: "You, too, will have do carry out a moral reckoning and reach a decision." [Haaretz, 11/11/08]
George W. Bush: "Any Peace Agreement ... Will Require Mutually Agreed Adjustments To The Armistice Lines Of 1949 To Reflect Current Realities." From a 2008 statement by Bush while visiting Jerusalem:
Achieving an agreement will require painful political concessions by both sides. While territory is an issue for both parties to decide, I believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous. I believe we need to look to the establishment of a Palestinian state and new international mechanisms, including compensation, to resolve the refugee issue. [Bush White House archives, 1/10/08]
- "1949 Armistice Line" Is Another Way Of Referring To Pre-1967 Borders. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs refers to the pre-1967 borders between Israel and Palestine as the "1949-1967 Armistice Lines." [Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, accessed 5/19/11]
For more information about how Obama's statement on the 1967 borders is in line with past U.S. remarks on Israel, click here.
RIGHT-WING MEDIA CLAIM: Obama Is Supporting "Intifada" Against Israel By Restating U.S. Policy Regarding Settlements
Obama Administration Repeatedly Calls On Israel To Halt New Settlement Construction. The Obama administration has repeatedly called on Israel to halt construction of new settlements in the West Bank. The Obama administration has argued that the continued construction is antithetical to peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestine. [ABC News, 3/10/10; Associated Press, 3/15/11, via SFGate.com]
Fox Nation On Obama Administration's Criticism Of Settlement Construction: Obama "Slaps Israel Again." From the Fox Nation:
[Fox Nation, 3/14/11]
Geller On Obama Administration's Opposition To Settlement Construction: "Call to End Obama's Intifada." [Atlas Shrugs, 3/16/10]
Jawa Report Headline On Obama Administration Opposition To Settlement Building: "The Obama Intifada." [Jawa Report, 3/16/10]
CNS News Column On Criticism Of Settlement Construction: "This Is The Obama Intifada." [CNS News, 3/17/10, via Media Matters]
REALITY: The U.S. Has A Long-Standing Policy Of Opposing New Israeli Settlements
In 2005, Condoleezza Rice Stated That Israeli Settlement Plan Was "At Odds With American Policy." In a March 2005 interview with the Los Angeles Times, then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated that Israel's plan to expand its settlements in the West Bank at the time was "at odds with American policy." From the Times:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice criticized Israel in unusually sharp terms Thursday, warning that its plans to expand an Israeli West Bank settlement was "at odds with American policy" and could threaten progress toward peace with the Palestinians at a critical moment.
In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Rice said Israeli explanations of plans to add 3,500 housing units to the Maale Adumim settlement east of Jerusalem were "not really a satisfactory response." [Los Angeles Times, 3/25/05]
President Bush: Israel Must "Get Rid Of Unauthorized Settlements." Before a three-day visit to Israel in January 2008, then-President Bush stated that he expected Israel to "get rid of unauthorized settlements":
Q Unauthorized settlement, it is something which -- an issue which is between the United States and Israel for a long time.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we expect them to honor their commitments. The Israeli government has said that they're going to get rid of unauthorized settlements, and that's what we expect. That's what we've been told.
Q Not before you come, you know.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that will be on the -- that will, of course, be an agenda item. But Prime Minister -- both Prime Ministers with whom I have worked understand our position. Both have agreed, by the way, of unauthorized settlements. [Bush White House archives,1/2/08]
Bush's Ambassador To Israel: "Every U.S. Administration Since 1967 Has Argued Strongly Against Israeli Settlement Activity." In an essay published in Middle East Policy, Princeton Middle Eastern Policy Studies professor Daniel Kurtzer, the former U.S. ambassador to Israel under President Bush, wrote: "Every U.S. administration since 1967 has argued strongly against Israeli settlement activity." [Middle East Policy, accessed on 12/8/11]
I actually wish that the right-wing was correct on that particular issue.
Sometimes I wish we had the president that Fox News talks about.
I'm not to fond of Obama's increase in the number of deportations, but even that doesn't help his reputation with these pseudo-Conservatives. We need serious immigration reform.
I don't oppose his killing of Al Qaeda terrorists, but ordering the strike against that American, without a trial does bother me. Ironically, some of the Beckbots are very upset at the National Defense Acquisition Act of 2012 (NDAA) that has language in it that allows the indefinite detention of Americans without a trial. Obama has threatened to veto the legislation, or to issue a signing statement not to enforce what was put in by Conservatives, but they are railing against him for being a tyrant. The Administration has said the power exists already, put in place by the Bush Administration, so there is no need to further codify it, but the Right says it is proof he's a dicator.
i will give it and even steven. btw, unless you're an app, you used to capitalize words. there's proof right here at mmfa.
fab post otherwise ;-)
YOUR stupid is noted
_______________________________________________________
Happy New Year to all you fine people. I've loved doing bidness with you all in 2011!
Happy New Year everyone!
The movie 'The 400 Blows' is a great movie. I've imagined several great endings (or conclusions - extensions? Do you know what I mean? It sort of leaves you hanging.) to it..... Thanks for telling me about it last X-Mas.
Happy New Year to you WK!
There were four full length movies about Antoine and one short.
Some are terrific, some, not so much. But all are worth seeing.
Have a great New Year.
Really? Can Kab sing Unchained Melody?
And he's a Capricorn, Sweet!
Happy New Year - almost- Telling you all now because lately I can't always get the Internet or when I do, I can only surf and can't always log on or into my accounts or check mail, tis pity......SO
HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE!!
I sure enjoy you all here. Thanks for another year of laughs and edumacaschioning. I've learned a lot from you smarty pants.
As my greats would have said, Athbhliain Shona, gach duine. (Happy New Year, everyone.)
As in I love me some Kabniel. You and Mary too. Okay, Andy and all of ya righteous bastards!
I can imagine Kabniel reaching those high notes in some of his posts to the trolls. ;>)
If he can sing like that and is a Capricorn, well, that's just double trouble delicious!! Like ELVIS!
I too, love our righteous, lefty, dudes on here.
I thought we were on topic. Isn't this the Dick Clark American Band Stand thread? We started it on New Years Eve and the party isn't over yet! Just a few of passed out is all!
Well, when they have had their fill of him you can play 'Caladonia' for them and make them cry, heehee.
yesterday I left you a msg. under your J. Joplin link, on 'The Washington Times....' 12/29 thread.
They had already started to brace their supporters for the eventuality that Obama would use his accomplishments for reelection by saying he would take credit for killing Obama which is why they started to criticize his actions or lay credit elsewhere. Democrats need to push back and capitalize off their accomplishments otherwise the Republicans will reap the rewards.
---------------------------------
Gingrich Claims Republican Voter Fraud!
I can't wait until election night. Even some of the most ardent Obama-haters I know are beginning to say Obama is set to win a second term. If he were to win I would love to see what the talking heads over at Fox would have to say.
You should really attempt to explain your bold conclusions.
I am just trying to figure out how you reached your drastic assumption up above.
It was the FEDERAL government that stopped black people from being second class citizens expanding their rights. It was the Federal government that ENDED corporate feudalism in the form of company towns and paying wages with company scrip which again expanded OUR freedom by reigning in corporate predation. ONLY the Federal government has the power to stand against corporations this way. If the naive Randinistas had THEIR way. The gov would be too limited and too weak to do things like that.
The Randinistas would never have built Hoover dam, the highway system, produced the internet, gone to the moon, or done rural electrification and we would have a third world economy in the US.
So by subsidizing corporations the Government is standing up to them? The Government depends on corporations. They work together. Just imagine how many Corporations would be bankrupt without the Federal Government bailing them out.
Again with the assumptions.
And really the "states rights & free market" crowd wouldn't have actually done any of those things. If they did, they would happen decades after the fact if ever at all. We would be closer to a developing country or the gilded age than to what we are now. Cutting away the government middle man would only benefit the corporations since now they wouldn't have to spending so much money buying politicians. They would focus it all on making monopolies and essentially being the government.
Which is completely counter to the creation of the Constitution. What Paul wants and other fantasy chasing libertarians want is what is contained in the ABOLISHED Articles of Confederation which created a weak central government and strong state governments. It almost destroyed the country before it began. It was divisive and created chaos. The Founders quickly saw the need for a stronger central government and weaker state governments. That's why the AOC was abolished and replaced with the Constitution.
I'd suggest you do some research into the history of this country. It appears that you, like most Paul supporters, don't have a clue.
Yeah, I think the crux of it is, libertarians and anti-Federalists are just too unimaginative and unintelligent to realize just how large our country is, how complex an undertaking of the management of its resources, diverse cultures, common defense, and general welfare presents to any system of government. Add in the HUGE spread of our geographical footprint, and one hardly needs to cite the winning points raised by the Federalists who won this debate 220 years ago.
And, you can add to that the resentment many of them still hold toward the Federal Courts for making them desegregate public schools.
"Libertarians apparently think State "
Governments are less corrupt and incompetent Yet that is the mantra of so many ultra conservatives. They never explain or demonstrate how local and state governments are more fair and equitable in regards to governance or protecting liberty. The entire concept of trustworthy and reliable local government is accepted at face value, but if one looks around and thinks about it, state and local government imposes many more restrictions that limit one's day to day freedoms and activities, even on your own private property. The obsession with shifting powers to the States is hollow and substantially meaningless.
Fixed!
Those like you who look at the world through Ron Paul's looking glass are always saying that the federal government is getting in the way of business. If the gov't simply got out of the way, businesses would thrive and EVERYONE would have a job. Right? Isn't that the whole premise? But then you say: "Just imagine how many Corporations would be bankrupt without the Federal Government bailing them out."
So which is it? Is the government getting in the way or are they keeping unworthy corporations afloat?
While I in no way agree with bailing out a corporation that makes a mess of itself with shady dealings and robbing their customers, I realize that the world is full of grey areas. Libertarian policy is all about black and white ... and that my fine Caped Crusader is what is truly naive.
It's not an assumption if it's based on facts and historical precedent. You may not really understand everything you're buying when you buy into Ron Paul.
Libertarians like Paul have declared openly and with conviction that they would do away with almost every agency operated by the government. Projects like those listed by Kabniel are all PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS, funded and developed all or in part by the federal government.
It's not an assumption to take someone at their word, especially when they proudly and repeatedly claim such positions.
Ron Paul and the Libertarians are "for freedom", but then again everyone claims that. Republicans, libertarians, liberals, conservatives, democrats, progressives, socialists, and everyone else with a political ideology claim they are "for freedom and liberty". Libertarians like Paul simply offer a simplistic and naive(perfect word, Kabniel) world-view that appeals to those who are born into more fortunate circumstance.
Not any leap. Libertarians are totally against the kind of federal government investment ALL those were examples of.
Sure give it to the state government with so much less resources to stand up to those huge corporations. Giving that power to the states would allow the corporations to play one state against another. We would certainly still have Jim Crow, company towns and the other corporate predation if it were left up to the states. As I have said all along you are very niave and dont really understand how this all works.
Your take on government subsidy is simplistic. Virtually all industrail countries subsidize their huge corporations. I am not even against that were it done OPENLY so society could demand public return from those investments. The internet, Rural electrification, Hoover Dam, Death of a Salesman, Railroads all came about due to government investment and subsidy. All gave back huge investments on those public investments. The kind you Randinistas would eliminate.
As I said you would give us a third world economy
Oh I dunno...how about this?
BTW, what's wrong with libertarianism? It cannot exist. It is barred from existence by basic human frailties such as greed, selfishness, self-preservation. In order to work, these things have to be suppressed. Doesn't work and cannot work. It's a Utopian fantasy, just like free market economies, communism and any other philosophy which requires human beings to not act like human beings.
Find a better hero. Paul's NUTS and always has been.
This is just a question. Please don't be like Kabniel and get all defensive.
Get a better hero. Paul isn't a hero. He's a raving lunatic with a couple of decent ideas.
I.e:
Simplified Libertarian: no/few government regulations would benefit all as people would be able to choose from businesses/companies which are honest/provide best product.
Reality: Stronger companies would either buy out the weaker ones or force them to shut down leading to an oligopoly at best. As there is no real punishment for companies that do not stick to safety and/or sanitary standards, quality of service will go down as well as economic division and all social ails that come with it.
I sympathize with libertarian views to a point, since I believe everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want up to the point of harming others. But to suggest that people should simply end segregation and discrimination at their own pace is psychotic. Discrimination is a form of harm, so you can't put that on the honor code any more than you can allow people to steal from or rape others because you don't want to tell people what they can't do. That's what all laws are, telling people what is not allowed, generally because the action causes some form of harm or injustice.
It would almost be better if Paul admitted to being a racist. To say that you support the principles of the Civil Rights Act but would have voted against it because it violates "liberty" is blind ideology, a complete lack of any sense of judgment whatsoever.
Somewhere along the way most adolescents get past their fascination with their new discovery that they are more than a mere appendage of their parents and realise that they exist along with other people and that there are certain rules about how we interact.
Margaret Thatcher was sooo bloody wrong. Homo Sapiens is a social animal and part of what makes us human beings is how we organise ourselves as a society - something that has got more and more complex through the ages.
For those who are so obsessed with rugged bloody individualism I pose these questions:
1) Who was the individual who brought down the Iron curtain (anyone who answers "Ronald Reagan should be prevented from going outside alone and kept away from sharp objects)?
2) Who was the individual who single handedly brought down the old regimes in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya recently?
3) Who is the individual standing up to Assad in Syria?
4) Who was the individual who invented the "atom bomb"?
All progress is based on the knowledge of those that went before us and the assistance of those around us - sometimes in the most oblique ways but still it's part of the mix.
Ron Paul and his idiot son exemplify the arrested social development inherent in libertarianism.
I am not defensive. You are hilarious and predictable
They are not evil, just misguided. It is the effects of too limited a government that are evil.
Humans ARE naturally evil and selfish.
By the way, I have often written that politics is the art of balancing the interests of the individual with the interests of society. My personal formula works around the proposition that the primary role of government (the formal representation of community) is the protection of the primary interests of the individual. These interests I define as full access (in no particular order) to Healthcare, Education and the Law. These three are to be construed in their broadest sense and as such cover all our essential needs.
I really need a fresh set of eyes to pick up my literals
I like the native American metaphor. That human nature is the fight between two dogs that live inside everyone fighting for control of the soul. One is afraid, selfish, aggressive, and violent the other is kind, gentle, compassionate and giving. The question of which wins is answered by the one you feed.
In fact, I would suggest that the least significant part of a healthcare system is the curing of disease. If I had to prioritise I would put the elimination of situations/environments conducive to disease first, closely followed by management of chronic disease. The actual curing of disease tacks on behind these two. Concomitant with that hierarchy is the need for research into the actual nature of disease. the two by-products of this research are the feasibility of discovering how to prevent, manage or cure disease.
Q: How many Libertarians does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. The invisible hand of the markets will take care of it. What are you, a Socialist?
Knock, knock: Who'e there?..Ron Paul.
Paul is an eternal punch line
Make a seizure salad.
I know! Groan worthy, ha!
Does that make me a bad girl? ;>)
Hi gorgeous, missed ya.
I say mixing it up with an Italian and a Scotsman does the trick for me, especially if he's wearing a kilt!
I don't know of any Scottish dressings but they do eat a lot of Spotted Dick not sure if kilts are involved. Hee hee!
Thanks! We really are good girls and when we are bad we are really, really good! Or something like that. LOL! ;>)
I wish you a wonderful New Year JJ. Hope your Gentle Giant gets more time off, you continue to get healthy and those changes continue to work for you. BTW, they call my second son a gentle giant.
Those individuals essentially amount to an entire cabinet of useless policies.
I am missing the brainwashed part. Can you point it out?
That is why Kabniel isn't bothering to explain to you once again, because you either didn't bother to read it, or you just ignored it because it went against what you believe.
Th-th-th-that's All Folks
...black pursesnatchers are fleet of foot....
...if someone tries to rob you, you should shoot them with an unregistered firearm and dump the gun....
...disaster victims should be left to their own devices....
...we should burn all our paper money and go back to the gold standard....
...the Constitution expressly forbids a whole lot of things that aren't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution....
I could do this all day.
I now remember being served a Raspberry dressing in Scotland. That's the one I'm giving the Mick for being so, so....um...threatening. Raspberry...Thhphhthph....(you get the idea LOl!)
Besides that "Headline" was really, really old! hee hee! Long before all this PCness. Okay, now I'm running away really fast, hope you aren't wearing your skates..........
However, if I ever hear anyone else call you that I will stomp on their foot and punch them in the snout!!! Unless it's another Mick (like me) of course.
I noticed you didn't even wish me a Happy New Year, you Old Goat. :>) Still I wish you one.
Parle moi.
Sorry about that; translator froze up. Blwyddyn Newydd Dda (And I thought the Irish was hard to say.)
Thanks, but you still forgot one other "happy" (how quickly they forget) gees, it's like pulling teeth. Happy New Year, Con. I hope it to be a wonderful one for you!
Yep, that's all.
He doesn't stumble and stammer, like the terminally stupid Perry, and he doesn't resort to repeating what the voices in his head tell him, like Bachmann, but his Faith in Ayn Rand's sociopathic nightmares is every bit as nuts.
Then, when anyone says anything critical of Israel they are called anti-Semitic. Then, they whine whenever anyone points out the main reason Obama is being opposed is because he's black. What hypocrites!
Captain Crunch: "If Israel's security is important in your life, you should not be taking foreign policy advise from a man who hires cheap and sleazy prostitutes with whom to have sex."
Shedding bellicose brain-dead unilateralism in favor of intelligent coalition building and...oh...I don't know committing our forces to where the bad guys are can't be seen as anything other than success.
The media's problem with Ron Paul is he is lacking in racism. He does not want to kill Arabs. He does not hate the indigenous Palestinian people.
WTF, Media Matters? Since when did Al-Awlaki become an Al Qaeda leader? There is no question that he was a US citizen, a fact that gets no emphasis in this very long article, but the only folks who say he was a leader of Al Qaeda are the people who hunted and murdered him (and some days later, his teenage son, who was at a picnic) without a shred of due process.
So I ask again, Media Matters, WTF? Are you guys now just settling for being the Democratic version of FOX News? Do you think we need that?
My New Year's resolution is this: I vow to unsubscribe and withdraw my viewership and support from Media Matters (and any other "news" organization) unless they resolve to hold all political and news reports and statements similarly accountable to our one shared reality.
Phewding on New Year's Eve? Come on. There are many of us who don't support the Israeli government's oppression of the Palestinian people. Other people on here aren't gushing over Obama's use of drones. Why do you suppose that some of us stand along the highway each week with peace signs?
You are unbalanced yourself and not getting anywhere by always assuming an attack mode. You turn people off rather than find out where people are really coming from.
You are late to an issue I have been talking about and writing about since the 70's. Mostly you are a jerk. Being an obnoxious pain wont help you. Being this stupid and pathetic wont help you. It isnt this sites job to take up whatever issue YOU want them to push. They are never going to do that. MEDIA. Conservative MEDIA. That is what they specialize in if you want an issues site go somewhere else
Of course not. That isnt what they do. You MIGHT see a correction of how the conservative media COVERED it but this site doesnt do commentary about political issues. Also you are a LIAR with your pro Obama idiocy. Conservative media. That is what they cover NOT issues. Right now there is such hysteria about Obama a lions share of the conservative media is about that. When it looked like Hillary had a shot a winning the nomination most of the misinformation was about her and all we heard was how this was a pro Hillary site. You are an obnoxious jerk.
Together, we’ll continue to keep conservative misinformation in check, CORRECT BIASED "NEWS" REPORTS, AND RAMP UP OUR EFFORTS TO RESTORE RESPONSIBILITY TO OUR MEDIA LANDSCAPE. [emphasis added]
Question: When you first came to Media Matters, did you NOT know that they are an organization that reports on and sometimes corrects misinformation from conservative sources?
US citizens will have no legal protection, no right to a trial, no right to legal representation, and no evidence that has to be produced by the government against them.
President Obama will go down in history as the disgraceful President that nullified the Bill of Rights, established in 1789 and rendered invalid in 2011. The very President that promised to close Guantanamo Bay and stop Extraordinary Rendition
Well done President Obama. Well done silent liberals.
John
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540
While pretending in the signing statement that his administration has good intentions with respect to unlawful detention of American Citizens under this law, they ring about as hollow as the rest of his promises and leave the door wide open for abuse by this and future Presidents.
This part of it should give away this fraud's intentions:
"Moving forward, my administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded..."
Sickening. Just sickening.
John
d) CONSTRUCTION. -- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
That means that there isn't anything in that section that is intended to LIMIT or [b]EXPAND{/b}the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force. No limits of the "authority of the President" to use military force (against American citizens).
(e) AUTHORITIES. -- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
It says nothing whatsoever about protecting American citizens from the National Defense Authorization Act as some would allege.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing LAW relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing AUTHORITIES relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
Section (e) merely says that it does not alter "existing authorities" relating to the detention of US citizens.
The Patriot Act already establishes an "existing authority" that anyone suspected of being involved in terrorist-related activities can be arrested and detained without trial.
The President already claims he has the power to put Americans on a "Kill List".
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-cia-killlist-idUSTRE79475C20111005
All that is required is that they be suspected of being involved in terrorism in any way, and not a shred of evidence is required by the government to support that. No trial, No arraignment, No evidence and No hearing. You are accused and then you disappear.
The NDAA openly states that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing AUTHORITIES...".
Read the explanation by Congressman Justin Amash (R) Michigan:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=296584837047596&_fb_noscript=1
The key to subsection 1021(e) is its claim that sec. 1021 does not "affect existing law or authorities" relating to the detention of persons arrested on U.S. soil. If the President's expansive view of his own power were in statute, that statement would be true. Instead, the section codifies the President's view as if it had always existed, authorizing detention of "persons" regardless of citizenship or where they are arrested. It then disingenuously says the bill doesn't change that view.
If American Citizens were exempt from this new law it could have flat out stated it. It does not, even after the controversy.
John
And that includes reporters like Rachel Maddow, etc who are hell bent on protecting this Republican wannabe President at all costs (the chief cost being the well being of the people).
John