Posted by Tina
The President gave his speech tonight. I watched a bit of it, though it was difficult. I had trouble believing that he was not just acting a part…he lost me when he said the ‘Islamic State wasn’t Islamic”…
Anyhoo, I’ve gathered opinion and information from around the web to share. Add your own thoughts and impressions if any.
Jennifer Rubin in The Washington Post:
As we suspected, President Obama tried in his Wednesday-night speech to make it sound like he was doing something new when he, in fact, he is not. Moreover, in describing his response, he made plain that he doesn’t take the threat to the homeland seriously. For a threat his advisers say is greater than that posed by al-Qaeda after 2001, he proposed measures suitable for Yemen and Somalia. No, really — that’s the plan.
David Corn of Mother Jones:
Here is President Barack Obama’s challenge: how to unleash the dogs of war without having them run wild.
This dilemma applies to both the political and policy considerations Obama faces, as he expands US military action in Iraq (and possibly Syria) to counter ISIS, the militant and murderous outfit that now calls itself the Islamic State and controls territory in northern Iraq and eastern Syria. In a speech from the White House on Wednesday night, Obama announced what was expected: the United States would widen its air strikes against ISIS in Iraq, “take action” of some sort against ISIS in Syria, ramp up military assistance for the Syrian opposition, keep sending advisers to assist the Iraqi military’s on-the-ground-campaign against ISIS, and maintain pressure on Iraqi politicians to produce a national government that can represent and work with Sunnis and, consequently, undercut ISIS’s support and appeal in Sunni-dominated areas of the country—all while assembling a coalition of Western nations and regional allies. (He gave no details about the membership of this under-construction alliance.) The goal: to “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS.
The President insisted that ISIS is not Islamic but that’s not what they think…who knows what Obama really thinks…we do know there is pressure from CAIR as CNS News reported today:
(CNSNews.com) …CAIR’s national executive director Nihad Awad made it clear what Muslims in the U.S. will be looking out for in the speech.
“American Muslims will evaluate the president’s strategy based on his willingness to reject ISIS’ misappropriation of Islamic terms and concepts, his clear support for the mainstream opposition to Syria’s murderous regime, his insistence on a non-sectarian government in Iraq, and his recognition that ISIS was created and is fueled by the lack of freedom and justice in the region,” he said.
CAIR, a lobby group that describes itself as “America’s largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization,” regularly campaigns against expressions of what it deems to be “Islamophobia.”
ISIS claims to be acting in the name of Islam, has declared an Islamic “caliphate” and invokes Mohammed and the Qur’an in its propaganda material, but the administration has repeatedly underlined its position that ISIS is unrelated to Islam.
Allahpundit at Hot Air reminds us how we got here:
I’ve linked it more than once before but it’s worth re-reading Peter Beinart’s post from a few months ago about Obama’s history of malign neglect in Iraq. He had one Iraq goal as president — to get out, come what may, just as he promised voters he would do in 2008. And he did it, even though that meant denying Iraq a small but potent residual American force that could have held Maliki’s sectarian impulses in check (which in turn would have made Iraq’s Sunnis less inclined to turn to ISIS) and would have been well positioned to smash ISIS once it crossed the border from Syria. Dexter Filkins of the New Yorker has written about this at length. Quote:
“We used to restrain Maliki all the time,” Lieutenant General Michael Barbero, the deputy commander in Iraq until January, 2011, told me. “If Maliki was getting ready to send tanks to confront the Kurds, we would tell him and his officials, ‘We will physically block you from moving if you try to do that.’ ” Barbero was angry at the White House for not pushing harder for [a Status of Forces] agreement. “You just had this policy vacuum and this apathy,” he said. “Now we have no leverage in Iraq. Without any troops there, we’re just another group of guys.” There is no longer anyone who can serve as a referee, he said, adding, “Everything that has happened there was not just predictable—we predicted it.”
The American ambassador at the time told Filkins that he and his staff got no guidance from the White House while they were trying to negotiate an agreement with Maliki. “[T]hey wanted to leave,” said Iyad Allawai, “and they handed the country to the Iranians. Iraq is a failed state now, an Iranian colony.” And now we’re going to be fighting on the Iranian side against the Wahhabi monster our absence helped create, a prospect so dismal and dangerous that even the famously hawkish David Frum thinks we should leave ISIS alone for fear of empowering Iran even further. Obama checked out on Iraq and now, thanks to his neglect, he has no choice but to check back in under the worst circumstances.
I know we have people that can do the necessary work…I just don;t know that our leadership has what it takes.
No I did not, I am tired of hearing one thing and at a later date to have it explained in a spin format by his staff, press core or some liberal water carrier.
The man is a college and Constitutional professor, why does he need to have his words or their meaning explained?
The only thing transparent I find in Obamas presentations is the teleprompter, without it, any thing he says is subject to any number of rewrites about his statements. This all leads to doubt about anything he has to say now, and of late you can tell more by his body language of just how unsure he is.
Just another photo-op. All the lofty promises da Prez made and the flag-waving in the speech pale when you consider the “you can keep your doctor” promise, his blaming of tsunamis for his failures, his “red lines” on Syria and the Ukraine, his promise of “transparency” and his stalling and obfuscating on his scandals.
Real leaders ACT and save the photo-ops for another day. Were I an allied country, I’d have to count my fingers after shaking hands with Obumble.
HERES A LITTLE DITTY THAT ABOUT COVERS IT ALL:
We are in one big “mell of a hess.” Where the “mell” were all of the left-wing media when all of this was happening? Nice of them to show up and act like journalist when they had no options left to try and explain away Obama’s actions.
My opinion you asked for is, if Obama’s polls hadn’t been in the toilet he would never have made the speech he did last night. His new strategy is only to help save the democrats up for reelection, because of pressure from the DNC.
Remember he has/had several Muslim Brotherhood supporters and a family member serving in his WH administration, specifically in the State Dept. and DHS.
I did not watch his speech, because with all of his past lies I don’t believe anything he says. In my opinion he’s an incompetent president lacking in the necessary skills to lead this nation and fulfill his oath of office.
How wonderful it would be to live again in a nation united instead of one divided.
Michael Rubin Weighs in on, “What is and Is Not Islam” over at Commentary:
The longer this man is in the president’s seat the more bizarre his stance becomes. My own thoughts go back to the church he attended for twenty years which preaches black liberation theology. I don;t pretend to know all of the nuances of this religion but at least on the surface it projects black superiority and resentment toward whites:
I don’t claim to be educated in BLT and I don’t expect anyone to believe that the opinion expressed above is true or widely held. I do find the opinion curious, given the behavior of our President, his AG, Eric Holder and others in the circle over the last six years.
Leftist contributors to PS will no doubt run screaming from the blog space now. I can’t explain their lack of intellectual curiosity. Blinders are only ripped from the eyes when the willfully blind are ready to see. As for me, dots deserve to be noted if ever we are to clearly get the big picture.
Here is another thought-provoking opinion about the Muslim mind-set that those of us with different religious beliefs or none at all are having a hard time understanding. (Be sure to watch the video.)
How to Drive a Muslim Crazy in One Easy Lesson:
By Dr. Sharon Schuetz
“When we think about Muslims and Islam and hear about Sunnis and Shi’ites, the Muslim Brotherhood, and all the wars and killing in the name of Allah we wonder why they would all kill each other if they’re all Muslims. It’s hard for most Americans to understand the mind of a god who would order his converts to kill in his name, and force non-believers to submit or die. For those of us who are followers of Christ it just doesn’t make any sense at all.
While they are Muslims, worldwide about 86% are Sunni and the other 14% are mostly Shi’ite. They parted ways when they couldn’t agree on the succession of rule after Mohammed’s death. Today’s Sunni comes from those who gave the leadership role to Abu Bakr, Mohammed’s father-in-law. The Shi’ites supported Mohammed’s son-in-law; Ali ibn Abi Talib (Ali) and believed that the ruler should come from his progeny. While there are differences in worship and style, this is where the divide started.”
At Peggy#5…Fantastic…young patriots are awesome! Madison Rising is awesome…thank you for sharing!!!
How do we tell a moderate from a radical fighter in Syria?
We can’t. That’s a moving target that changes with who’s in charge.
We can’t train or back ONLY the moderates, because next week they’ll turning their new skills on us. Look how our help worked out in Afghanistan! Was bin Laden a moderate? We helped train him.
Besides that, even if they win, there’s no reason to expect they will be any kinder and gentler than Assad’s regime. They’re sure not going to have any love for us.
Every country in Africa that has adopted Islamic rules is failing. Because they lack civil rights, they’re brutal. Because Islam is part political, part social and part theology, it controls every aspect of their lives and this has led country after country into ruin.
How is dumping Assad going to be any better under a new Islamic government? Good chance it will be worse.
Bombing ISIS is fine because it’s killing radicals and ruining their morale. That’s always helpful. However, beyond that I don’t see how we will ever be friends.
Compared to the non-Muslim world, they’re a bunch of ruthless barbarians. And given half a chance a barbarian will rape, torture, pillage and murder.
Even in a slightly more modern Iran they still treat women like property.
There’s nothing in it for us to have a one sided friendship with barbarians.
More Madison Rising here!
“… he lost me when he said the ‘Islamic State wasn’t Islamic’”….”
Maggie Gallagher over at National Review notes comments made by Bill Maher on the Charlie Rose show:
Has the worm turned?
#11 Libby: “Of course.”
Ok Libby, I’ll bite.
Please explain how the Islamic State is NOT Islamic.
I can’t wait to see your explanation.
Me too Peggy, I want to hear this one! This ought to be good. Please tell us m’dear Libby, why is the Islamic State NOT Islamic? Although technically none of them are Islamic. Point of order: They should be called Muhammadans, right Peggy? Yeah, I read the link where this scholar explains how much of the Koran is dedicated to “Muhammad the Profit” and how much is about Allah. Muhammad is all over the place. He makes up about 87% (or close to it) of the entire Koran and the other two books. So it’s basically about Muhammad the man and very little about Allah the Deity. Interesting?
#12 Tina, Yes the worm has turned.
Bill Maher: I Could ‘Possibly’ Vote For Rand Paul:
“Outspoken liberal and comedian Bill Maher says that for the first time in a long time, he might vote for a Republican.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/10/bill-maher-i-could-possibly-vote-for-rand-paul/#ixzz3D30uxTS0
Peggy at #11
I believe that was a snide retort meant for me. She couldn’t explain how ISLAMIC STATE is not Islamic any more than the president could without looking like a complete fool.
It is one thing to generously take the position that the violent jihadist war monger has perverted or bastardized a religion that some practice as a religion of peace; it is quite another to claim that they don’t get their ideas straight from the three Islamic religious books.
Another good perspective by Scott Johnson over at Powerline
Hey Jack, that was a pretty good link. Glad you enjoyed it too. Yup, from now on I’m going to refer to them as Muhammadans, if I can remember how to spell it next time and learn how to pronounce it. Kidding aside, the guy did make an interesting argument for his reasons.
Thought I’d check before going to bed to see if Libby explained how a self-identified group deciding to call themselves the Islamic State are not Islamic. It of reminded me of someone about six years ago saying America wasn’t founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs. She must be putting some real thought into what she’s going to write since it’s taking her so long.
Funny yet sad how some people feel they have the right to tell you what you are or are not when they don’t agree with who you are or you don’t fit into their agenda.
I figure if it walks like an Islamic duck, talks like an Islamic duck and says it wants to be called an Islamic duck by-golly I think we should honor their wishes and call them Islamic unless we get them to agree to being called Muhammadans.
Tina: “The President gave his speech tonight. I watched a bit of it, though it was difficult. I had trouble believing that he was not just acting a part…he lost me when he said the ‘Islamic State wasn’t Islamic”…”
Wow. Bush must have lost you a lot, then:
“I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world We respect your faith. It’s practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. (Applause.) The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.”
“The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don’t represent peace, they represent evil and war.”
“The head of the 22 nation Arab League rejected the claims of the terrorist leader and said he — Osama bin Laden — ‘doesn’t speak in the name of Arabs and Muslims…All of us here today understand this: We do not fight Islam, we fight against evil.”
But of course, that was OK, because Bush said it, not Obama.
Chris: “Wow. Bush must have lost you a lot, then”
Nice try, Chris. Bush sometimes murdered words. But Bush didn’t have a record of avoiding language, playing games with the language, or banning language in training manuals. He would have called the Fort Hood attack a terrorist attack and prosecuted it as such. Even the quote above shows his willingness to name the enemy and associate it with Islam:
Bush did what any person acting as leader must and would do to prevent angry backlash on innocent people and to prevent unnecessary division in the country.
We are clear that we fight against evil but it is a joke to pretend that these evil men don’t use the religion as justification.
Our military fight is with the evil men. To battle these evil men we must understand what motivates them…know your enemy!
There is another battle that will have to take place. Those who practice the Muslim faith must put an end to extremism and that will be difficult given the nature of books they revere as holy.
The PC practice of outlawing language, of mistaking interest and concern for hate, is not only dangerous but intellectually vapid.
“But of course, that was OK, because Bush said it, not Obama.”
Sure that’s it, if it makes you feel better. (VAPID!)
Tina: “We are clear that we fight against evil but it is a joke to pretend that these evil men don’t use the religion as justification.”
No one ever SAID they don’t use the religion as justification. You literally just made that argument up right now, because your first argument didn’t fly.
The fact remains: You criticize Obama for using nearly identical language that Bush used. When Obama says that ISIS isn’t Islamic, he loses you. When Bush said that Al Qaeda wasn’t Islamic, he was doing “what any person acting as leader must and would do to prevent angry backlash on innocent people and to prevent unnecessary division in the country.”
These are the types of double standards that arise when your morality is entirely based on tribal loyalties, not universal principles.
Your one valid point is about Fort Hood. I agree that there is certainly enough evidence to call the incident a terrorist attack. I am not 100% convinced that the “workplace violence” label came directly from the administration; it seems that Army politics played a role. That doesn’t excuse the president not calling it a terrorist attack, though.
Chris: “When Bush said that Al Qaeda wasn’t Islamic”
Bush did not say that! Bush said very clearly that those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah.” He clearly said they used (perverted) the faith to wage war. He DID NOT say that al Qaeda was not Islamic.
Also…if Obama had a decent record with respect to our enemies and the language this difference might not be so HUGE. But he has a pronounced record of not only refusing to name the enemy CORRECTLY but also changing training manuals, calling obvious terror acts “acts of violence…like any crime on any night in the streets of Chicago. THIS IS A PROBLEM!
“…it seems that Army politics played a role”
Even if army politics (activism if you ask me) played a role the President stood firmly behind the changes.
Who the he77 do you think is running the country? Where does the buck stop? What do you suppose happens when a new president takes over in the big chair in the oval office? Do you really think everything remains the same or is every department clearly cognizant of the new guy in town, his polices and proclivities? Don’t you think they realize they will now serve under the leadership of the man and his appointed lieutenants?
Your preaching to me from on high needs to stop Chris.
George Bush was a rock. He made decisions based on principles and the advice of the experts around him.
Obama is putty. He makes decisions based on personal ideology and political winds…and his activism never stops. He is consistent in his determination to fundamentally transform America! Everything flows from that context.
Tina: “Bush did not say that! Bush said very clearly that those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah.” He clearly said they used (perverted) the faith to wage war. He DID NOT say that al Qaeda was not Islamic.”
“The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam.”–George W. Bush
“Also…if Obama had a decent record with respect to our enemies and the language this difference might not be so HUGE.”
So then condemn him for that. Do not condemn him for saying the same thing you admired Bush for saying.
There are valid critiques of Obama. That fact does not justify making ridiculous critiques of Obama. You seem to have an “anything goes” attitude when it comes to criticizing your political enemies. Not only is this unjust, it makes your argument weaker.
Chris quoting Bush again, “The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam”…the enemy is still acknowledged as based in Islam.
Words mean things Chris and our President isn’t being entirely honest…he isn’t just being diplomatic in his expression…he is being quite specific!
He is being specific for a reason, the same reason he will not allow words like Islam, jihad, and Islamic terror to be uttered by our military and intelligence people or written in training manuals even though it makes communication nearly impossible. The same reason he would not designate Fort Hood a Terrorist attack…the same reason for releasing FIVE of the most dangerous terrorists from Guantanamo…the same reason he failed to be prepared for the worst in Benghazi…the same reason his red line was meaningless…the same reason our troops must fight under ridiculous rules of engagement…and on and on.
At the very least he can’t decide whose side he is on and attempts to be on all sides at once. There are reasons to suspect it’s something much deeper than that. I am content to let history and the powers that be decide that but defend my ability to notice how odd his approach is. I will not refrain from noticing and expressing what I see.
“There are valid critiques of Obama. That fact does not justify making ridiculous critiques of Obama.”
This President has been treated very well with respect to the war, up until Benghazi, compared to the way GWB was treated, including by you. I remember your piling on attitude in the Bush years. Your complaint is silly.
“You seem to have an “anything goes” attitude when it comes to criticizing your political enemies”
My argument is backed up by the ongoing rhetoric of the President over six years and his own policies. Training manuals were changed under his watch. Rules of engagement were changed under his watch. Dangerous “Islamic” terrorists were set free under his watch…one pronounced he would see us in New York as he walked through the gates. His language and refusal to accurately describe our enemy is consistent over the years…and troubling. He made this speech only when the entire world finally awoke, including some in the sycophant press, to realize he’s been floating BS about al Qaeda being decimated and on the run. He can’t easily hide now behind silly pronouncements but he can stay consistent in his refusal to speak of the religious ideology that frames as religious social and political inspiration for the terrorists…even so his carefully written words are being taken with a grain of salt.
Chris if you are still unaware of the pattern of behavior and rhetoric that underlies my argument its because you refuse to take it in. My argument is just fine. It’s been built over time right here on this blog. This isn’t about hating the man, you complete adolescent! It is about the dangerous place in which he has put us all.
Tina, you don’t understand the strategic reasons for not acknowledging ISIS as Islamic. This is not about political correctness, it’s about delegitimizing the organization. What do you think groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS want most of all? War between Islam and the West. By refusing to recognize these groups as Islamic at all, it undermines them and weakens their (already quite pathetic) attempts at a moral argument.
Bush understood this, and so does Obama.
Your claim that Bush faced worse disrespect than Obama is patently absurd; Bush managed to get almost his entire agenda enacted with bipartisan support, including the Iraq War, which was supported even by mainstream sources such as the New York Times. He did face a backlash once it was revealed that the war was entered under extremely flimsy pretenses, and that the administration should have known better, but this was nothing compared to Republican congressmen swearing that their number 1 agenda going into Obama’s presidency was ensuring he would be a one-term president. When people died at embassy attacks under Bush, Democrats did not hold nine separate congressional investigations in a desperate attempt to validate their conspiracy theories. With few exceptions, Democrats did not accuse Bush of deliberately sabotaging the country or of siding with terrorists, but this rhetoric is typical among the right wing, and you engage in it constantly.
Go back and refresh your memory on my critiques of Bush. You will find that I usually said I believed the man had good intentions, but was very misguided. I also gave him credit when it was due, and I did not demean him for doing things that were common to other presidents. This is nothing like your belief that Obama is intentionally undermining our country, or your routine demonization of Obama for doing and saying similar things to Bush.
Chris, I think the strategy of delegitimizing ISIS aka ISIL by not calling them “Islamic” is rather futile at this point. They already have an Islamic army that numbers between 30,000 and 45,000 Muslims. Their Muslim members are often recruited from mosques and they come from many nations, including the US and UK. The main reason they join up to fight is for the creation of an Islamic State. A westerner (infidel) refusing to call them Islamic fighters has about as much meaning the GOP telling democrats they’re not really democrats. They (ISIS) may well have a pathetic moral argument for being there and doing what they do, but the main point is they fully believe it! What we think is not relevant and to prove that point they obviously have no problem recruiting fighters and financial sponsors from all over. The time for an ad campaign has past, it’s about war fighting now. Bombs and boots on the ground, otherwise Iraq is dead and Syria probably is too and Jordan is next. ISIS presents a huge problem and because they are SUNNI that’s a big problem for Iran if they gain traction. Right now the future of ISIS is probably going to be determined by the USA more than anyone else… I can’t see any other country willing to step up, not even Iran and they have a lot to lose if ISIS wins. It sucks to be in this damned if you do, damned if you don’t position, but that’s the way it is.
Chris: “Tina, you don’t understand the strategic reasons for not acknowledging ISIS as Islamic. This is not about political correctness, it’s about delegitimizing the organization.”
Kinda like standing in the school yard and firmly stating, “Are not!” to a bully’s equally firm, “Are too?”
Do you really think any of these murderous, tyrannical, monsters would feel “deligitimized” by such remarks?
I think they would be strengthened…”We’ll show you whose Islamic!” It makes a fabulous recruiting tool too…”The president of the US says you are not Islamic…want a chance to show him?”
As I said before there is a purpose in differentiating between Muslims that align with ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, and the like and those who practice their religion in peace.
It is ignorant beyond belief to state “ISIS is not Islamic” when the word Islamic is represented in the acronym signifying the enemy wears that mantle.
“Your claim that Bush faced worse disrespect than Obama is patently absurd; Bush managed to get almost his entire agenda enacted with bipartisan support, including the Iraq War, which was supported even by mainstream sources such as the New York Times”
Sure, immediately after the towers fell when real life played across our experience in living color and everyone was wide awake engaged and untouched by politics…and everyone in politics knew that anything else would be suicide. But it didn’t take long for the criticism, the undermining, the political case against Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney/Halliburton to start and it dogged Bush/Cheney/Halliburton for the rest of his presidency! Movies were made, plays were written and acted, 911 truthers emerged, the media provided a continuous anti-war, anti-Bush drumbeat, Cheney was #12’d into the evil Darth Vader, Articles of Impeachment were introduced, Democrats attempted to block the surge…the ridiculous aging hippie group code pink camped out at the Bush ranch. The supercilious Senator Obama was just one of many voices joining the chorus…a voice that continued well into the Obama presidency. Your own voice dripped with that same level of sarcasm and superiority that often tinged left’s criticism.
A quick check across the information superhighway (with zero checks for racism or any other questionable tie) is informative:
A posting from NewsMax in September of 2002 in something called Rense.com:
I encourage you to read the entire article, it’s quite illuminating!
A story from September 2003 in the NYT is significant:
A CBS article in November of 2005 is titled Bitter War of Words Over Iraq features Cheney vs Reid:
We could go on for hours rehashing the constant onslaught of criticism, after all, this has been the MO for Democrats and nothing i sacred, including defense of our nation…they proved that during the war in Vietnam.
There are many other contentious associated issues that accompanied war criticism but I think this serves as reminder enough.
I have a memory like an elephant. Please don’t attempt to blow further smoke on this futile erroneous claim.
” You will find that I usually said I believed the man had good intentions, but was very misguided.”
How kind your memory is to you.
“This is nothing like your belief that Obama is intentionally undermining our country”
Speculation, backed by a stream of dots, is NOT an accusation expressed as certainty…STOP misrepresenting what I say!
“…or your routine demonization of Obama for doing and saying similar things to Bush.”
Kindly provide a few of these words, in context if you please. (While you are looking please note if the tone you imagine is in response to your attitude rather than a personal indictment of Obama)
I’ll check back later.
Tina: “…it dogged Bush/Cheney/Halliburton for the rest of his presidency!”
A more illuminating error was never made.
Also illuminating: the best examples of irrational, hyperbolic criticism of Bush you can come up with are…accurate critiques of the rationale for the Iraq War? Very poor showing. The Democrats who criticized the rationale for the Iraq War were right. I don’t believe Bush intentionally lied, but I do believe his administration (and the CIA, and others in the international community) had plenty of reason to doubt “Curveball’s” intel, as they were warned that he was a fraud years prior. I don’t blame Bush as much as I blame Cheney and the CIA for this; he relied on them for guidance, and they steered him wrong.
There were 9/11 truthers on both the left and right; one of them worked for Fox News for quite a while.
Truthers are seen as loons by most on the left. The tolerance for birthers among the right was something unique and unprecedented. And the Benghazi and death panel conspiracy theories are downright mainstream on the right these days.
“Speculation, backed by a stream of dots, is NOT an accusation expressed as certainty…STOP misrepresenting what I say!”
I’m not misrepresenting anything; you, Peggy and Jack have all said on many occasions that you believe Obama is intentionally trying to lower the status of the United States, without any accompanying question mark or “stream of dots” to provide plausible deniability, so it’s a little too late to deny this.
“Kindly provide a few of these words, in context if you please.”
I already did that in comments #19 and #23. You responded by splitting hairs.
Chris: “…hyperbolic criticism of Bush you can come up with are…accurate critiques…”
Come come, Chris, aren’t you just attempting to say your side is always right and mine wrong…your side always “accurately” critiquing and mine always “hyperbolic?”
“The Democrats who criticized the rationale for the Iraq War were right.”
Inaccurate! In hindsight they had a better view, which they used politically to try to destroy Bush. Prior to invasion they thought the same exact thing that Bush, and the rest of the free world, thought. We have posted the quoted.
Bill Clinton 1998
A list of Democrat quotes on Saddams WMD posted here:
” The tolerance for birthers among the right was something unique and unprecedented.”
Horsehockey! Do you honestly believe the left has abandoned its love and support of Rosie O’ Donelle…she was rewarded with a hosting spot on The View!
Michael More is celebrated even though his so-called documentaries were total crap! The Play based on an investigation into the assassination of Bush was heralded as brilliant! (Years after the assassination of President George W. Bush in Chicago, an investigative documentary examines that as-yet-unsolved crime.)
“…you, Peggy and Jack have all said on many occasions that you believe Obama is intentionally trying to lower the status of the United States”
I don;t want to speak for others but expressing the OPINION that it looks like that is what he is trying to do or the OPINION that what he is doing has led to that end is not the same as saying he is deliberately trying to destroy the country. I have to admit, without reservation, that it is within the realm of possibility given his background, his expressed dislike of our flawed constitution, his declaration that he would “fundamentally transform” America, his unwillingness to release his school transcripts, his associations and support of questionable groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood, all make his presidency unlike any other I’ve ever seen. The only thing the man seems man committed to is redistribution and activism both of which are divisive and in fact contributing to the ruination of our country. Our debt and unsustainable programs will soon place us in terrible peril economically.
Frankly Chris your very un-serious critique of Obama with respect to the economy surprised me after the $#!# you gave Bush on the debt.
“You responded by splitting hairs.”
Please name the group that occupies portions of iraq and Syria and has beheaded three westerners recently. Write it out if you DARE!
Bush intentionally lied, it has been proven. Read the declassified docs and the wiki leaks. Bush wanted saddam before he stole the election… documented. But Cheney is the biggest criminal. War is a profit business and wall street profits. Banks fund both sides of war as they are doing now. media is not hinest and we are being sold a bunch of goods again! Look at how many of those retired generals on are the Boards of arms companies….history repeats
PBO? I think he is being lied to cause he is not war happy and WTF is Cheney doing talking about anything! proven war criminal!
The Military Industrial Complex has over 1 Billion slated for Propaganda…. much of that is spent here.
#27 Tina: “How kind your memory is to you.”
Chris was in his teens back then. I doubt he has any in depth memory of what was taking place between the parties back in DC during this time since he was still in junior and/or maybe senior high school.
Chris’ arguments are based on what he’s read and not on real life experiences to base any memory on. He has no memory of that time except those of a child and a child’s understanding. And since his primary source of information is from left-wing progressive sites he can only express what he’s read and tries to as usual convince everyone he’s an expert and therefore always right.
#28 Chris: “…you, Peggy and Jack have all said on many occasions that you believe Obama is intentionally trying to lower the status of the United States”
Darn right I have, because the facts are right in front of your face every day, but you refuse to see them.
When the majority of people are saying they are worse off now than before Obama took office AND don’t believe their children will have a better life than they do what more proof do you need?
More people are without jobs, more are on a variety of assistance, more have given up on the American dream of ever owning a home, more young adults are still living at home.
I was married when I was 20 and owned my first home when I was 24, which is almost an impossible occurrence today.
So, Chris how old are you? Are you still living at home or do you own your own home.
Has Obama made it better or worse for you compared to what I was able to do?
Don’t you get that Tina, Jack and I want for you and our grandkids a better life than what we had, and not one that is on a path to being equal to those of third-world countries?
Peggy: “More people are without jobs”
That is entirely false. The unemployment rate has fallen nearly every month for the past four years. Unemployment peaked in April 2010 as a result of the global recession. You can’t possibly blame that on Obama without also giving him credit for bringing the unemployment rate down in the years since. For the past two and a half years, unemployment has been lower than it was when Obama was inaugurated. We’ve also had 45 straight months of job growth.
I don’t credit Obama for all of that, because I don’t delude myself into thinking that one constantly obstructed president is the end-all be-all of our economic performance. But if he is intentionally trying to bring America to its knees as you ludicrously claim, he isn’t doing a very good job of it.
“Has Obama made it better or worse for you compared to what I was able to do?”
I’m surprised you didn’t notice the ridiculousness of this comparison as soon as you made it. You realize that Obama is not the only person to be president in the intervening years?
You had the benefit of a higher minimum wage than my generation has. Your generation had the benefit of a more affordable, marketable college education. Your generation had the benefit of stronger unions. Because of these benefits, your generation had a stronger middle class, hence more demand for products, hence a stronger overall economy. Obama did not change any of this; all of these benefits were fading away long before he was inaugurated, and Republicans have fought tooth and nail to prevent him from bringing some of them back.
“I was married when I was 20 and owned my first home when I was 24, which is almost an impossible occurrence today.”
Yes, and it was just as impossible during the Bush administration. Your idea that this is a new problem is very out of touch.
“So, Chris how old are you? Are you still living at home or do you own your own home.”
I am 25 and still living at home. It is impossible to buy a home on Wal-Mart paychecks or long-term sub paychecks (I cared about my students, and my sanity, too much to pretend I could reasonably do both). I am now a full-time teacher, impatiently awaiting my first check which will come at the end of September. I plan on renting a room from a friend soon. California pays new teachers well, and Selma pays them *very* well, but it will be years before I am able to save up enough to afford buying a home.
I could blame Obama for this, but that would be insane.
“Don’t you get that Tina, Jack and I want for you and our grandkids a better life than what we had”
I am 100% convinced that that is exactly what you want. I am also 100% convinced that you have no idea how to achieve that. You don’t actually listen to people in my situation; you lecture us on how we need to be more responsible, more educated, more thrifty, and more hard-working, and when we show you statistics proving that we’re already doing everything you’re asking us to do to prove we deserve to live above the poverty line, you tell us we’re still not doing enough and that the solutions to our problems is to lower taxes on the wealthiest among us so that our bosses can pay us more money, presumably out of the goodness of their wallets.
I guess it’s the thought that counts.
Tina: “Come come, Chris, aren’t you just attempting to say your side is always right and mine wrong…your side always “accurately” critiquing and mine always “hyperbolic?””
No. There were irrational, even hysterical, critiques of Bush made by Democrats that you could have used. Instead, you chose to use rational and accurate critiques of the Iraq War that history has judged to be correct. There is no comparison.
“Inaccurate! In hindsight they had a better view, which they used politically to try to destroy Bush.”
What? So they had a better view than Bush, but they still weren’t right? That doesn’t make any sense.
“Prior to invasion they thought the same exact thing that Bush, and the rest of the free world, thought. We have posted the quoted.”
Some of the quotes you posted WERE before the Iraq War, and including Democrats warning us not to get involved. So clearly everyone did not agree that the Iraq War was necessary.
But you’re proving my point. Most Democrats supported Bush initially. They did not oppose him out of partisan spirit. When it turned out the intel was wrong, they turned against him. That’s rational behavior.
You’ve criticized Obama for a MUCH less serious intelligence failure in Benghazi. But you don’t hold Bush accountable for an intelligence failure that led to thousands of our soldiers going to war based on faulty intel. That’s not rational behavior.
“Horsehockey! Do you honestly believe the left has abandoned its love and support of Rosie O’ Donelle…she was rewarded with a hosting spot on The View!”
Do you honestly think that was a “reward” for being a truther, and not her years as a successful stand-up comedienne and actress? “The View” is not a political show, it’s an entertainment show that sometimes talks (badly) about politics. That’s not the same as conservatives relying on certain birther sites like World Net Daily for news, when the entire purpose of such sites is to make money off rubes by peddling conspiracy theories.
“Michael More is celebrated even though his so-called documentaries were total crap!”
Never seen them, not interested. Also, whatever flaws exist in them can’t be as bad as the demands of “Where’s his birth certificate?!” directed at a man who has released not one, but two legally valid birth certificates.
“The Play based on an investigation into the assassination of Bush was heralded as brilliant!”
And? Maybe it was.
It was a play, Tina. You’ve brought this up a lot but you’ve never shown that the play actually advocated for or glamorized the (fictional) death of the president. And you’ve said nothing about conservatives actually advocating for the death of certain liberals (Ann Coulter saying we should hang Bill Clinton and wishing that the terrorists had hit the NYT building instead of the Twin Towers, Glenn Beck fantasizing about poisoning Nancy Pelosi on air) which were much worse.
“Please name the group that occupies portions of iraq and Syria and has beheaded three westerners recently. Write it out if you DARE!”
Am I supposed to be afraid to do this? ISIL, aka the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. What is that supposed to prove? By your logic, you must believe China really is a people’s republic.
#33 Chris: “Peggy: “More people are without jobs” That is entirely false. The unemployment rate has fallen nearly every month for the past four years.”
Once again Chris you are entitled to your opinion but not to claim false facts as the truth.
The “real” unemployment rate was 14.2% in Jan. 2009 when Bush left office and Obama took over. Since then the rates have been 16.7% in Jan. 2010, 16.2% in Jan. 2011, 15.1% in Jan. 2012, 14.4% in Jan 2013 and 12.7% Jan. 2014.
There is only a 2.5% difference between Jan. 2009 and Jan. 2014. So, how can you claim the unemployment rate to have fallen just about every month for the past four years when the stats prove they haven’t?
They were even above 16% for two whole years after the recession was declared over in June of 2009. This past Jan. was the first year the rate was less than it was in 2009.
I’m talking about real unemployment where the figures include those who have given up looking for a job and are now living on the streets even. Just because someone quits going to the unemployment office doesn’t mean they don’t count any more or those who can only find part-time work when they want full-time work should be counted too.
“But if he is intentionally trying to bring America to its knees as you ludicrously claim, he isn’t doing a very good job of it.”
Oh but, Chris he is doing a very good job of it, just like he said he would. Just look at those real unemployment numbers and put a face to each number and then add a couple of dependent kids to each one too.
“I’m surprised you didn’t notice the ridiculousness of this comparison as soon as you made it. You realize that Obama is not the only person to be president in the intervening years?”
Oh but Chris, I do recognize their were other presidents between when I was married in 1967 and today, because I lived through the horrible years of Jimmy Carter when interest rates shot up to the mid to high teens and we could only buy gas on certain days depending on our license plates ending with an even or odd number. And I remember the boom years under Reagan who after a couple of years pulled us out of the mess Carter created.
Believe me I don’t blame Democrats. I wish like hell we had Democrats like Jack Kennedy around today. I blame the progressives that took over the Democrats and are working on taking over the Republican party now too. Progressives want BIG government and high taxes to pay for all of the “free” stuff they want to give EVERYONE. And that scares the hell out of me. What happened to the Jack Kennedy Democrats who believed, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country?”
Today I heard employers are cutting back hours and laying off employees because of ObamaCare. I’ll see if I can find an article for you. I haven’t had time to research anything.
Do take a minute and read through this article. I think you will find it informative and it will explain where I got my above figures from. It’s source is BLS, so should be reliable.
What Is the Real Unemployment Rate?
“What Happens When You Count People Who’ve Just Given Up Looking for Work?
The real unemployment rate (U-6) is almost double the widely reported rate (U-3) issued in each month’s jobs report. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports on both each month, but there isn’t as much media attention paid to the real unemployment rate. However, it may paint a clearer picture of true unemployment in the U.S.
In the widely reported unemployment rate (U-3), the BLS only counts those who have looked for a job in the past four weeks as unemployed. They’re included in the labor force, because their jobless situation is only temporary (hopefully).
Once they haven’t looked for a job in the past four weeks are no longer counted as unemployed or in the labor force. They are added to a group the BLS calls marginally attached. Among them are the discouraged workers, who have given up looking for work altogether. The rest have gone back to school, gotten pregnant or become disabled. They may or may not eventually return to the labor force, depending on their circumstances.
Once they haven’t looked for a job in 12 months, they’re no longer counted as marginally attached. (Source: BLS, Definitions)
The BLS considers part-time workers as employed. However, it does count those who would are working part-time, but would prefer a full-time job. These people are considered underemployed.
The U-6, or real unemployment rate, includes everyone who wants a full-time job but doesn’t have one. It counts the marginally attached (including discouraged workers) and the part-timers who would prefer a full-time job. As a result, the real or true unemployment rate is much higher.”
ObamaCare Employer Mandate: A List Of Cuts To Work Hours, Jobs:
“ObamaCare’s impact on jobs is hotly debated by politicians and economists. Critics say the Affordable Care Act gives businesses an incentive to cut workers’ hours below the 30-hour-per-week threshold at which the employer mandate to provide health insurance kicks in. White House economists dismiss such evidence as anecdotal, but BLS data show that the workweek in low-wage sectors sank to a record low in July — just before the Obama administration delayed enforcement of the employer mandate until 2015.
In the interest of an informed debate, we’ve compiled a list of job actions with strong proof that ObamaCare’s employer mandate is behind cuts to work hours or staffing levels. As of September 5th, our ObamaCare scorecard included 450 employers with more than 100 school districts among them. Recently, IBD explained that a big minimum wage hike alongside the employer mandate would add to pressure on employers to cut workers to part-time, complicating the goal of reducing inequality.
Click on the employer names in the list below for links to supporting records, mostly news accounts or official documents.We’ll continue to update the list, which we encourage you to share and download into a spreadsheet to sort and analyze. If you know of an employer that should be on the list and can provide supporting evidence, please contact IBD at firstname.lastname@example.org or @IBD_JGraham.”
Check out the long list which includes public and private employers. Several are educational with teachers and aids listed to be cut.
Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/090514-669013-obamacare-employer-mandate-a-list-of-cuts-to-work-hours-jobs.htm#ixzz3DSKBUsnh
“I am 100% convinced that that is exactly what you want. I am also 100% convinced that you have no idea how to achieve that. You don’t actually listen to people in my situation;…”
Chris, Jack, Tina and I have had some degree of success in our financial lives, which has provided us with the life-style we are able to enjoy today. Did we make mistakes? Sure, we all did. But, sharing our experiences and trying to help you younger ones from making the same mistakes is what parents (us old people) do to try and help until we’re blue in the face. If we didn’t care we wouldn’t spend all of this time trying to get through to you.
Elders in some societies are revered for their wisdom and experience. It used to be that way here, at least it was when I was young. But, now were just considered old fuddy-duddies who have nothing to contribute any more, because there’s no one who will listen.
The choice is your Chris to take what we have to offer or not. The future is yours.
Criticism for the Iraq war was political. I say that because Democrats that voted to give authorization for the war and pushed through crowds to get a photo op right after 911, and media types that wished 911 happened when their party was in office (Chris Mathews) later turned it all around just to damage Bush and win votes. The campaign was full throated and horrific and you know it.
The examples I gave were to show you the criticism started early in 2002. This: “at the invitation of dictator Saddam Hussein, three Democrat congressmen visited Baghdad to try to undermine U.S. policy,” would have been considered treasonous at some points in our history.
Must I remind you that it was YOU who brought the birth certificate issue to Post Scripts? None of us cared.
Islamic Chris…they believe it and that is all that matters. If we are going to rid ourselves of the scourge of Islamic terrorists then we had better get to know them. You can dance around the truth of it but it will not change the truth one bit.
“you must believe China really is a people’s republic.”
ISIS (or ISIL) have no such pretenses! Your logic doesn’t really follow. You were able to write out the word Islamic but you couldn’t quite let it stand, could you?
That’s a problem whether you realize it or not…the tentacles of this policy are also getting kids killed (idiot rules of engagement) so as far as I’m concerned you can stuff it.
Peggy: “#33 Chris: “Peggy: “More people are without jobs” That is entirely false. The unemployment rate has fallen nearly every month for the past four years.”
Once again Chris you are entitled to your opinion but not to claim false facts as the truth.
The “real” unemployment rate was 14.2% in Jan. 2009 when Bush left office and Obama took over. Since then the rates have been 16.7% in Jan. 2010, 16.2% in Jan. 2011, 15.1% in Jan. 2012, 14.4% in Jan 2013 and 12.7% Jan. 2014.”
Peggy, look at those numbers again. Do you see how they don’t contradict what I said at all? Even using your “real unemployment numbers” instead of the BLS numbers I cited, they still show a clear downward trend in unemployment over the past four years, and they show that your most recent “real” unemployment number is less than it was when Obama was inaugurated (12.7% is less than 14.2%).
So your comeback doesn’t disprove my point; it confirms it. Whether you use the generally accepted unemployment numbers I linked to, or the “real” unemployment numbers, it is clear that unemployment has consistently gone down since 2010, and that your claim that “more people are without jobs” today than when Bush left office is false.
“There is only a 2.5% difference between Jan. 2009 and Jan. 2014. So, how can you claim the unemployment rate to have fallen just about every month for the past four years when the stats prove they haven’t?”
The stats you provided do NOT prove that the unemployment rate hasn’t fallen almost every month for the past four years. I can’t believe you think that they do–you didn’t even show a month-by-month comparison, you showed a year-by-year comparison, and even your numbers show it getting lower every year.
Step up your game.
“Oh but, Chris he is doing a very good job of it, just like he said he would.”
He never said he was going to bring America to its knees. You appear to be hallucinating.
“Just look at those real unemployment numbers and put a face to each number and then add a couple of dependent kids to each one too.”
Are you still talking about the real unemployment numbers you posted which have been going down for the past four years? You don’t seem to understand your own evidence.
Tina: “Criticism for the Iraq war was political. I say that because Democrats that voted to give authorization for the war and pushed through crowds to get a photo op right after 911, and media types that wished 911 happened when their party was in office (Chris Mathews) later turned it all around just to damage Bush and win votes. The campaign was full throated and horrific and you know it.
The examples I gave were to show you the criticism started early in 2002.”
Do you realize you are completely contradicting yourself?
The Iraq War began in 2003. You are saying that Democrats only turned against the war later as a political move. Largely, this is true; but as evidence, you cite Democrats opposing the war before it even began. That doesn’t make any sense! The Democrats who opposed the war before it even began had nothing to gain, politically, at the time. Their opposition was likely genuine, and history proves them right. It is the Democrats (and Republicans who supported Bush before the war who we should all be taking issue with. The war with Iraq was a costly mistake, in both lives and money. Jack at least recognizes this, as do a growing number of Republicans.
Describing poverty today and in the 1960s is like comparing apples to organs.
The War on Poverty Has Been a Colossal Flop:
“Today, the U.S. Census Bureau will release its annual report on poverty. This report is noteworthy because this year marks the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon Johnson’s launch of the War on Poverty. Liberals claim that the War on Poverty has failed because we didn’t spend enough money. Their answer is just to spend more. But the facts show otherwise.
Since its beginning, U.S. taxpayers have spent $22 trillion on Johnson’s War on Poverty (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusting for inflation, that’s three times more than was spent on all military wars since the American Revolution.
One third of the U.S. population received aid from at least one welfare program at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient in 2013.
The federal government currently runs more than 80 means-tested welfare programs. These programs provide cash, food, housing and medical care to low-income Americans. Federal and state spending on these programs last year was $943 billion. (These figures do not include Social Security, Medicare, or Unemployment Insurance.)”
The War on Poverty After 50 Years:
Chris, I don’t have a lot of time today, so will address two of your issues quickly.
We are both citing BLS figures. You’re using the U-3 and I’m using the U-6 numbers. Both are presented in the attached BLS report. So, my information is just as valid as yours. Check them out.
Your math seems to be a bit fuzzy. When you start at 12.2% in 2009 and jump up to 16.7% and 16.2% in 2010 and 2011 how can you say there’s been a decline in the unemployment rate every year for the past four years? That’s like saying I was going 80mph in a 50pmh zone, but it didn’t count because I slowed down to 50 again four miles down the road. Try convincing a cop you were speeding by your definition.
It’s 2014, the rates went up every year from 2010 to 2013 and dropped in Jan. 2014. If there had been a four year decline as you say the drop would have started four years ago in 2010 and would have been lower than the 12.2% rate in 2009. They weren’t, they were higher not lower. 16.7% is higher than 12.2%, right?
The fact you don’t see this is puzzling.
Correction: “Try convincing a cop you WERN”T speeding by your definition.”
Back to an original point that criticism of Bush began early and continued throughout his presidency:
Chris: “Your claim that Bush faced worse disrespect than Obama is patently absurd”
The effort to destroy Bush were relentless resulting in unearned low approval numbers. The press was in league with Democrats pushing the lie that we were Lied into war. Every single democrat believed what Bush believed, backed what he was doing for the reasons he did them. If there was a lie involved it was that they knew there were no WMD all along.
The reporting on approval numbers was another weapon they used to further erode support for Bush and the war. Breitbart, “Networks Reported Bush 2006 Low Approval Numbers 13 Times More Than Obama’s 2014 Numbers.”
There was no contest. In fact the pass Obama got for most of the last six years is the main reason he was reelected, IMHO.
Tina: “When you start at 12.2% in 2009 and jump up to 16.7% and 16.2% in 2010 and 2011 how can you say there’s been a decline in the unemployment rate every year for the past four years?”
Because January 2009 is more than FIVE years ago, not four.
January 2009 – January 2010 = 1 year
January 2010 -January 2011 = 2 years
January 2011 – January 2012 = 3 years
January 2012 – January 2013 = 4 years
January 2013 – January 2014 = 5 years
“It’s 2014, the rates went up every year from 2010 to 2013 and dropped in Jan. 2014.”
Huh? No, they didn’t. Your numbers clearly show that the rates went up from 2009 to 2010, but went down every year from 2010 to 2014:
“The “real” unemployment rate was 14.2% in Jan. 2009 when Bush left office and Obama took over. Since then the rates have been 16.7% in Jan. 2010, 16.2% in Jan. 2011, 15.1% in Jan. 2012, 14.4% in Jan 2013 and 12.7% Jan. 2014.”
“If there had been a four year decline as you say the drop would have started four years ago in 2010”
“and would have been lower than the 12.2% rate in 2009.”
No, because that was 5 years ago, not 4.
Tina: “The effort to destroy Bush were relentless resulting in unearned low approval numbers.”
Awesome. So low approval numbers for Obama is proof that he’s a bad president and Americans don’t support him, but low approval numbers for Bush is proof of a media-led conspiracy.
“Every single democrat believed what Bush believed, backed what he was doing for the reasons he did them.”
…You mean except for the Democrats you JUST CITED in Comment #27 who did not believe what Bush believed, and did not back the war prior to the invasion, right? (contradicting yourself again)
“If there was a lie involved it was that they knew there were no WMD all along.”
You’re right that no one knew for sure, but there were democrats who argued that we should have listened to the UN weapons inspectors when they told us that we needed to wait to find out. One of them was then-Senator Obama.
“The reporting on approval numbers was another weapon they used to further erode support for Bush and the war. Breitbart, “Networks Reported Bush 2006 Low Approval Numbers 13 Times More Than Obama’s 2014 Numbers.””
Just throwing this out there: maybe that’s because Bush’s 2006 approval numbers were lower than Obama’s 2014 approval numbers, and hence more interesting?
“There was no contest. In fact the pass Obama got for most of the last six years is the main reason he was reelected, IMHO.”
No, the main reason he was reelected is that his opponent was caught on tape insulting half the country. Obama had no competition.
Ok Chris, I’ll give you 2009 was more than four years ago, but you need to admit the benchmark you’re using to prove the four-year decline from Jan. 2010 at 16.7% is 100% Obama’s since the recession was declared over in June 2009. You don’t want to use 2009 and five years ago as the starting point you have to factor in the big increase between 2009 and 2010.
You don’t get to move the starting line just so you can declare yourself the winner.
When Bush left office in Jan. 2009 the U-6 unemployment rate was 12.2%.
Jan. 2014 the U-6 rate was 12.7% with the Bush era recession ending in June 2009.
So, please explain how we’re all better off after FIVE years of Obama economics? Rhetorical question, because the facts prove we’re not.
Did you read the projected layoffs and hours cut coming because of ObamaCare? Makes one wonder what the unemployment rate with be next January with all of those new layoffs. I’d bet it won’t be below Bush’s 12.2% rate.
Don’t you wonder what happened to all of those people who were laid off when the rates were in the 15-16% range those THREE years?
Chris: ” So low approval numbers for Obama is proof that he’s a bad president and Americans don’t support him, but low approval numbers for Bush is proof of a media-led conspiracy.”
Leave it to you to come up with a kindergarten understanding of the point. I am simply saying as long as the media favors Democrats they will have, to a certain degree, unearned favorable ratings and vice verse for Republicans.
Whenever anyone does one of those man on the street political question interviews the public shows itself to have shallow political acumen. How the news is reported, what is reported and what is left out forms understanding and the “popularity” of politicians. To some degree people are like sheep, not wanting to be part of what isn’t popular.
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
— Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“…You mean except for the Democrats you JUST CITED in Comment #27 who did not believe what Bush believed, and did not back the war prior to the invasion, right? (contradicting yourself again)
I guess you’ve never heard of back stabbing A-holes?
One of the quotes above has Ted Kennedy traveling to Iraq in September 2002 to bad mouth President Bush and talk against the war:
Also quoted was Ted Kennedy in September 2002: “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Also on the same day: “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.” — Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
Democrats were stumbling over each other to make statements of agreement to go to war:
The vote to go to war in Iraq was October 16, 2002. Kennedy was one of the ones who voted against it. Shrewd politician; major back stabbing, two faced donkeys butt.
But Bush lied people died became the narrative very soon thereafter and NOT one of these weenies stepped forward to correct the record.
If it’s too difficult to grasp, that these people played politics to defeat the commander-in-chief while our guys were fighting and dying and our nation was at war…if you cant see how our media got on board, and Hollywood got into the act then maybe you will never get it. And if that’s the case, I have no further interest in trying to enlighten you.
“You’re right that no one knew for sure”
Back up. I looked at my sentence three times; should have known it would confuse: ““If there was a lie involved it was that they knew there were no WMD all along.”
What I was trying to say is that the lie is that they weren’t sure. Everyone believe they were definitely there…everyone! Later they pretended they didn’t (they lied) and had the unmitigated gall to suggest Bush knew there were no WMD and lied u into war. I don’;t know how president Bush held his tongue over the ensuing years…only his faith and the support of his wife and family I guess.
“we should have listened to the UN weapons inspectors when they told us that we needed to wait to find out.”
We had already waited through Clinton’s eight years and seventeen U.N. resolutions. Pleas try to recall that it was also in the intel that Saddam had funded and supported terrorists. After 911 the mindset was, what else might they have in mind…our leaders were shook up. Remember how they all went out on the steps to lock arms and sing god Bless America?
“maybe that’s because Bush’s 2006 approval numbers were lower than Obama’s 2014 approval numbers, and hence more interesting?”
Really? Bush’s numbers were fueled in part by all of the negativity from leftists…our economy was doing okay, in fact, notice the take by the left wing Washington Post:
I finally found a WaPo article on the economy 2014 after searching through eleven pages in the search engine and this is what Robert Rubin had to say:
Main stream media reporting on economic conditions under Obama is worse than I thought.
“No, the main reason he was reelected is that his opponent was caught on tape insulting half the country.”
If that is the case then a bunch of very silly young people lacking the depth to make a sound decision voted. Which, by the way, vindicates Romney’s thought no matter how poorly the words were that he chose to express it. An activist played into that shallow political depth and sucked em all in.
I have to say that an equally ignorant number of Republicans chose to stay home and not vote…also showing an incredible lack of political depth and decision making acumen.
“Obama had no competition”
If you can still say that maybe there is NO HOPE for this nation.
The competition was so far superior it’s painful to think about. Mr. Romney would have done so much better for the poor and middle classes and he would have immediately placed us in a very different pose with respect to terrorists, Russia, and China. He definitely would not have turned loose five of the most dangerous terrorists or lifted sanctions on Iran. Like I said…painful…three western journalists might still be alive and countless ME men, women, children, Christians might still be alive.
More lies exposed.
The Cost of Obamacare Subsidies Now Projected by CBO to Explode All Over Democrats’ Senate Chances:
“Again, under the Affordable Health Care Act, costs were purported to decrease. But Medicaid spending is expected to nearly double by 2024.
Currently, 20% of Americans still think that health care costs will go down under the law, while the majority believe that the cost of health care will go up under the law. According to the Congressional Budget Office, they couldn’t be more correct.
It’s no wonder why politicians aren’t bragging about Obamacare this fall. This is how President Obama sold his signature healthcare legislation in 2009, rebutting critics who said “the numbers don’t add up”:
(w/ charts and videos)
Unbelievable media bias facts.
There Were 124 Reports on Bush’s Approval Rating in First Half of 2006 — Compare That to Reports on Obama’s in First Half of 2014: ‘Incredible’:
“During the first half of 2006, there were 124 network news reports on former President George W. Bush’s approval rating, according to conservative watchdog group Accuracy in Media. Accordingly, there were just nine reports on President Barack Obama’s low approval rating in the first half of 2014.
The discrepancy has some decrying media bias. John Ekdahl, a blogger at the popular Ace of Spades blog, called the comparison “f***ing incredible” in a tweet.
The media study appears to have originated at the Media Research Center, which analyzed past ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts earlier this month to determine how many times public opinion polls were referenced for each president during the specified time frame:
Such coverage is in stunning contrast to how those same newscasts relentlessly emphasized polls showing bad news for George W. Bush during the same phase of his presidency. Media Research Center analysts reviewed every reference on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts to public opinion polls from January 1 through August 31, 2014, and from the same time period in 2006. Eight years ago, the networks aired 124 evening news reports which cited public opinion polls about either President Bush’s overall approval rating or his handling of specific policies. In 2014, those same broadcasts produced only nine reports which mentioned public opinion surveys related to President Obama.”
More ObamaCare bad news.
Minnesota’s Biggest (And Cheapest) Obamacare Insurer Drops Out Over Overwhelming Costs:
“The largest insurer with the lowest premium rates on Minnesota’s Obamacare exchange is dropping out because the government health-exchange is unsustainable, the company announced Tuesday.
PreferredOne Health Insurance told MNsure, the state-run exchange, Tuesday morning that it would not continue to offer its popular insurance plans on the marketplace in 2015. It’s “purely a business decision,” spokesman Steve Peterson told KSTP-TV. The company is losing money on administrative costs for plans offered on the bureaucratic and glitchy government exchange.
Part of the problem, according to PreferredOne, is that MNsure hasn’t even been able to verify its customers’ information. PreferredOne said that some of its customers have turned out not to even live in Minnesota.”