I went back in the Google archives and found this story from the Guardian about the speech President Obama gave at Fort Lejeune in February of 2009, where he spelled out his plan in Iraq. Last night that promise was fulfilled on schedule and exactly as he laid out. Eat it, critics. Here is a reminder of what was said in that speech, from the Guardian piece…
Obama flew from Washington yesterday morning to Fort Lejeune, North Carolina, to deliver his speech in front of 8,000 marines. He told them it was going to be a speech with far-reaching consequences: “Today, I have come to speak to you about how the war in Iraq will end.”
Of the 142,000 US troops in Iraq, between 92,000 and 107,000 are to leave by August next year. The mission at that point will change, from combat to one that deals primarily with training Iraqi forces, supporting the Iraqi government and engaging in counter-terrorism.
So of course I remember how much skepticism there was from people in the “professional left” or as I like to call them “the Obama-haters”, so I did a little googling to find out what these folks were saying back then. Think how they are talking about Afghanistan now….do you see any similarities and will these assholes admit that they were wrong, yea right…
According to Ricks, military brass and foreign policy officials express deep skepticism toward Obama’s withdrawal timeline and “[m]any of those closest to the situation in Iraq expect a full-blown civil war to break out there in the coming years.”
“The quiet consensus emerging… is that U.S. soldiers will probably be engaged in combat there until at least 2015 – which would put us at about the midpoint of the conflict now.” In a summary of his book, Ricks concludes: “[T]he events for which the Iraq war will be remembered probably haven’t even happened yet.” (Washington Post, 2/15/09)
Here is some more skepticism from back when the president announced his plan, I wonder how many people are listening to these people and their predictions about Afghanistan today?
Iraq’s Parliamentary elections have not yet been scheduled and don’t even have an electoral law, and according to a number of senior Iraqi politicians probably will not be held until March 2010 (not December 2009). That would then give the U.S. about five months to withdraw the bulk of the dozen combat brigades which would reportedly remain. And then, keep in mind that U.S. officials generally agree (correctly) that the most dangerous period of elections is actually in their aftermath, when disgruntled losers might turn to violence or other destabilizing measures. So the following month will likely not seem a good time either. So that would leave four months to move, what — 9 brigades? Did someone say precipitous? Good luck with that.
Some people are just in denial about it, which shouldn’t be a surprise considering there is a lot of that going around amongst the Obama-haters. Here is a piece from the one and only Obama-hater Glenn Greenwald from October of 2009…
Beyond Afghanistan, Obama continues to preside over another war — in Iraq: remember that? — where no meaningful withdrawal has occurred.
Oh, and another from Glenn Greenwald further down in that post, emphasis is mine…
It’s certainly true that Obama inherited, not started, these conflicts. And it’s possible that he could bring about their end, along with an overall change in how America interacts with the world in terms of actions, not just words. If he does that, he would deserve immense credit – perhaps even a Nobel Peace Prize. But he hasn’t done any of that. And it’s at least as possible that he’ll do the opposite: that he’ll continue to escalate the 8-year occupation of Afghanistan, preside over more conflict in Iraq, end up in a dangerous confrontation with Iran, and continue to preserve many of the core Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies that created such a stain on America’s image and character around the world.
Where is the credit for fulfilling his promise to get combat troops out of Iraq? Hmmmmm, nothing on Glenn’s blog about the Iraq withdrawal at all, nada, nothing. Surprised? Not me. While that small but very vocal minority of Obama-haters keep chattering on, our awesome President keeps doing what he said he would do and delivering on his promises. Washington pundits don’t know how to act when someone actually does what they say and doesn’t let the media push them around with poll results. Keep it up, “Prez”, you’re doing an excellent job.
I periodically go over to Huffington Post just to see what sort of bullshit they are pushing on any given day and to get stuff for my two widgets on the right of the main page. I saw this stupid ass post by Dan Collins which I won’t link to, because I don’t want to give those assholes any more clicks than they already get. But here is a bit from his post…
Obama Does New York No Favors
People who don’t know New York City often make the mistake of assuming that because we’re so wildly diverse, we’re wildly tolerant.
Add Barack Obama to the list.
Last week, the president made a stupendously unhelpful entry into the controversy over the so-called Ground Zero mosque.
So by giving a speech where he talks about being tolerant of other religions and spelling out very eloquently what our founding fathers had in mind when it comes to religious freedom, he is being “stupendously unhelpful”. And backing up a little on that quote, he says that New Yorkers aren’t tolerant, they are diverse, but not tolerant? Really? It’s a New York thing, man, you wouldn’t understand. It’s amazing the extent to which people will contort themselves to try and blame every goddamn little thing on President Obama. This has to be one of the worst examples of the type of horseshit that shows up on Huffington Post and “Fire”bag”lake” multiple times in a day. He goes on with more…
But the issue had been decided legally in favor of the Muslim cultural center. The roar was dying down until the president put it front in center in the national political debate. At a dinner commemorating the Muslim Ramadan, Obama spoke out for freedom of religion and the right “to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.”
The issue wasn’t dying down, if anything it was ramping up and someone had to step up and defend the principles our country was founded on, you putz. And almost everyone with a brain was able to realize that if he hadn’t said anything at the Iftar dinner, people would have said he was dodging the issue. I’m sure the author of the bullshit, Dan Collins, would have wrote a slimy piece about the president not stepping up to the plate. Even more of his crap…
Then he backtracked. “I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there,” Obama said after he had turned the issue into a national, radioactive debate.
“After he turned the issue into a national, radioactive debate”, give me a break. Newt comparing it to Nazi symbols or Peter King going on any cable news show that would put him on….that didn’t have anything to do with this “radioactive” debate? Nah, the president talking about tolerance and then clarifying that it is a local issue, but in America, people have religious freedom….that is what made it radioactive? What in the hell is wrong with some people? Like I said before, this is a perfect example of how normally thinking people can twist and contort their own beliefs when they hate someone enough. President Obama didn’t backtrack at all, he was asked a question at a rope line that was very specific and he answered it. His speech at the Iftar dinner was perfect, go read it here if you haven’t already. Nothing he said on the rope line backtracked from anything he said at the dinner. Backtracking would entail taking something back or changing something he said, he didn’t do that and thus, there was no “backtracking”. He actually reiterated what he had said at the dinner right after the comment that Collins quoted, he kind of did a Breitbart and conveniently didn’t print the whole quote because that would interfere with his real motive, to bash the President.
STOP READING THE HUFFINGTON POST – THEY SUCK ASS
Go look at this clip at Crooks and Liars from the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. My favorite line…
You can build a Catholic Church next to a playground, but should you?
This is a critique of a column in the right-wing Huffington Post by Dan Froomkin and could qualify for “Misleading Headline of the Day” (located on the bottom right of your browser window). But it entails too much ‘splaining, so I’ve bumped it up to a post. David Patraeus is making the rounds to the media to give an update on the Afghanistan War and of course it has brought out the obvious criticism that can be made of any war, it sucks. But in reading Froomkin’s piece, I was amazed at how flimsy the support was for his bold statements. He even refers to his own reporting as if it were now chiseled in stone and a known fact. His column appeared even before Patraeus made his appearance on Meet the Press this weekend. Froomkin starts out with these bold pronouncements…
As Gen. David Petraeus kicks off an extended media blitz intended to make Americans feel better about the war in Afghanistan — or at least give him some more time to fight it — he faces a foe more implacable than al Qaeda, or even the Taliban: Reality.
That reality, increasingly obvious to national security experts and the general public alike, is that no amount of good intentions or firepower is going to advance our fundamental interests in Afghanistan — and that as much as Petraeus might be able to achieve in the next six months, or a year, little to none of it is sustainable and most of it is, even worse, counterproductive.
I have to wonder how he defines “fundamental interests” and whether our military really is relying on the snarky “good intentions” and “firepower”. Our fundamental interests as defined by the Obama defense department is to stabilize the country, diminish Al Qaeda and get the hell out, in a nutshell. By all accounts, the increased drone attacks have been working to weaken Al Qaeda and in watching Rachel Maddow and Richard Engel’s reports from Afghanistan, the goal of stabilizing the country is proceeding on pace, with a hell of a lot to go. By setting up a false target of “good intentions and firepower”, he makes it easy on himself to shoot them down. Go read President Obama’s speech, which is here, and then comeback and tell me that the plan is “good intentions and firepower”. Is Froomkin a Republicans now or is he just taking a page from their playbook?
Froomkin also makes the bold prophetic statement that “none of it is sustainable and most of it is, even counterproductive.” Now you would think that as a writer, if you make that kind of bold prophetic statement you better be able to back it up. How does he back it up? He tells us how “Patraeus can’t say with any confidence that this ‘progress’ can be sustained.” So, because Patraeus can’t see the future, like apparently Dan Froomkin can, it becomes “little to none of it is sustainable”. That is one huge freaking leap from lacking confidence — to little to none can be sustained.
Rachel Maddow has some great reporting about how the mission really has changed and in many parts of Afghanistan, these changes are taking hold.
Of course our obsessive, negative, ratings-whore media have been focusing on the areas that are taking longer and give the impression of doom and gloom. The anti-war people, who I love and support, are doing what everyone seems to do, spinning things to their benefit. I saw General Patraeus on Meet the Press yesterday and as usual, I was very impressed with him. He didn’t say anything different than what the administration has said since the new strategy was formed. I just went back and read the President’s speech when he announced the new strategy and contrary to the spinners, it was a well reasoned, flexible plan that weighed all the potential pitfalls ahead and ways to respond to them. Some on the anti-war left and right are trying hard to rewrite history and to be honest, pronounced the strategy dead before it even began. They all seem to focus on this deadline for “beginning” to bring the troops home next summer. Their small-brain obsessiveness on this one point completely distracts them from weighing anything else. When I heard the strategy explained, I heard them say that they intended to begin withdrawing troops by July of 2011 but would re-access as things progressed. Everyone seems to want to make it a date-certain and are using that as the only benchmark in determining whether the new strategy is working or not. Watch the Rachel clip and others, she and Richard Engel did some amazing work and I trust that they are being truthful.
Here is where Froomkin cites himself as the source for – himself. He is of course obsessing over that date or “deadline” and mixing and matching “significant troop withdrawal” with the Administrations date to begin withdrawing troops. When the new strategy was announced, it was clear that the July 2011 date was for beginning troop withdrawal, no one said “significant” troop withdrawal, that’s just another straw dog that Froomkin sets up so he can shoot it down. Check this out…
Petraeus is said the be starting to hedge on President Obama’s promised deadline of July 2011 for withdrawing American troops.
That’s hardly surprising. As I reported two weeks ago, the timeline for an American troop withdrawal has steadily been growing longer for some time, with Obama’s deadline looking more and more hollow, and the real timeline for significant troop withdrawal — barring a change in course — now extending at least to 2014, if not far beyond.
If you click on that link where he sources himself and read it, you will see a paragraph that reads like this.
“All of these benchmarks are designed to pacify onlookers on the Hill, help to justify our presence in the country, and set unrealistic goals that everyone knows are not going to be met,” said retired Army Col. Douglas Macgregor, a respected military strategist and author. “You’re never going to achieve them. None of this is aimed at extricating American power and forces from anywhere.”
So I thought to myself, respected military strategist, let me investigate. This “respected” military strategist was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq. In fact, he consulted with ole’ Donald Rumsfeld in 2002 about an invasion of Iraq. Uh, he doesn’t have my respect, but apparently Dan Froomkin has a lot of respect for him…at least when it is convenient to bash President Obama.
In observing the reactions from mostly the Obama haters on the left, I see all sorts of playing loose with the facts, stretching things, exaggerating things, setting up false equivalencies and using Republican sources when it’s convenient for them…they sure can channel Republicans when they want to.
I’m so disgusted by my own party and people who call themselves “progressives” that I’m tuning things out. I’m going “nah, nah, nah, nah” in my head. I have a long post about the Afghanistan War that I’ve been working on but am so disgusted that I’m ignoring it. I’ll finish it soon and put it up, but until then, enjoy this open thread where you can vent for me. HELP! I’ll just say that I was very impressed with General Patraeus, he isn’t your average, everyday military guy. But he is nuanced and hardly anybody in the media, including the progressive blogoshpere….does nuance. Fucking idiots.
President Obama proves once again, why he is the right person for the job. In remarks at the Ramadan Iftar dinner at the White House, he spoke in support of the controversial community center being planned 2 blocks away from “ground zero”. For anyone capable of being tolerant to others, this is really a silly issue. Jon Stewart does the best job of summing this up, go look at it. I am unable to embed Comedy Central clips on this blog, I’m too poor right now to pay the upgrade fee. But if you haven’t seen Jon’s piece, you really have to. Then come back here and read the rest of this post. There is a commercial that plays before the clip.
“Let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure.”
What bothers me about this crusade by Islamophobes and Xenophobes is that somehow because of the “symbolism” of it being so close to “ground zero”, the media is helping to push this bigotry and justifying it with the fact that it is close to the World Trade Center site. There are so many things wrong with this idea, the first is that the whole touchy-feely symbolism thing about everything, is getting out of hand. I’m not sure when Americans became soooo sensitive and such big wusses. Everything “sends a message” these days or has some sort of deeper meaning, apparently whatever any given person reads into a situation. It’s like we are all quivering little children who are afraid of anything that moves.
I remember thinking after 9/11 that a lot of Americans really have an attitude that an American life is much more important than any other life. How many hundreds of thousands of people have been killed around the world, genocide in Darfur, starving in many places of the world, but when 3000 people get killed in New York City, they are somehow way more important than the lives of…well, how about an estimated several hundred thousand in Iraq that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Feith/Wolfowitz and the rest of the neo-cons murdered in a war of choice. Now I’m sure some will take offense to that for the exact reason I said it and say something like “these were Americans killed on 9/11″. Yes, they were Americans and 310 of them were foreign nationals. One source I found said 62 Muslims died in the attack. But when you read or listen to those most outraged by the community center, they talk as if all 3000 where white, god-fearing Christians. I’m sure if we tried to point out to them the diversity of the people who were in those buildings, their eyes would glaze over and there internal “nah nah nah nah” would kick in.
Besides the symbolism thing, there is also the whole blaming an entire religion for the actions of a group of terrorists. Timothy McVeigh was raised Catholic and killed 168 people in Oklahoma, are we preventing Catholic churches from being built because of Tim McVeigh? Or how about the Israeli serial killer that was just caught who killed 5 people, should we stop that synagogue from being built down the street? When people buy into that bullshit mentality, they are admitting that they are bigoted, there is no other reason for it. Of course these days being a racist has become chic (in some circles, not mine). The racists have come out of the closet and are being paraded on my television daily. Maybe it’s a good thing to get them out in the open, is it worse to have them simmering below the surface or out there in the light of day?
I recently traveled to New York and New Jersey, was all over NYC one day and do you want to know what was cool. There were people of all races, nationalities, religions, sexual orientations, whatever and they spoke many different languages….and the really cool thing about it, they were all getting along. When you get out into real America, one that isn’t filtered by a news anchor or political pundit, you see what the true American spirit is about. I didn’t see one teabagger protest during my whole trip. I didn’t see anyone screaming racial slurs at people. I didn’t see anyone yelling about illegal immigrants while packing a gun. I didn’t see Pat Buchanan dividing people up into stereotypes or Joe Scarborough talking about the latest poll on a street corner. I saw people living their lives and letting others live theirs. It was beautiful, really. I guess that is why I am making an effort to turn off my cable news, go out in the real world and interact with people. When we live in a cable news bubble, we run the risk of thinking like the people who want to ostracize anyone who is different from them.
I’m pasting the text of President Obama’s speech at the dinner last night after the fold. Read it, it shows that President Obama is a real American who contrary to the bigots on the right, knows the beliefs our country was founded on. Thanks to the LA Times for the text.
NOTE: This is a partially completed post that I thought I would put up for a couple of reasons. First, I’m not sure when I’ll get a chance to finish it and second, there is so much corruption from the Republicans over the last 10 years, it is overwhelming. I mean Jeez, these guys were busy. You might notice how the party of family values loves them some sex.
Charlie Rangel’s ethics charges are making the Republican’s all giddy with excitement, they think it’s a problem they can hammer Democrats with in the Fall to help them take back the house and senate. Really? You guys really want go down the “ethics road” considering some of your party’s recent problems. Really? Well OK, if that’s what you want to do. Let’s get out the stones and start throwing them suckers, from Steve Benen….
In contrast, the corruption that overcame the Republican establishment during their reign of error was systemic and overwhelming. After a while, so many GOP officials were involved in scandals, the names started to blur together. Which one was Abramoff’s buddy? Which one took bribes from defense contractors? Which one had his home raided by the FBI? Which one was locked up in a federal penitentiary? If Republicans really want to talk about ethical lapses, it’s worth reminding them of names like DeLay, Cunningham, Ney, Foley, Lewis, Burns, Stevens, Craig, Vitter, Miller, and Renzi, among others.
My favorite in that bunch is David Vitter who as most people know but some may have forgotten, likes to hire prostitutes and is into wearing diapers with them. Is that an “ethics” violation according to Republicans? Probably not, since one of their own can do no wrong. Even though that is my favorite in that bunch, the ones that really are more serious – are abuses of power and the worst kind of crimes against the country. Duke Cunningham, remember him….bribery….from The Washington Post…
Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-Calif.) resigned from Congress yesterday after tearfully confessing to evading taxes and conspiring to pocket $2.4 million in bribes, including a Rolls-Royce, a yacht and a 19th-century Louis-Philippe commode.
Prosecutors said Cunningham, an eight-term House member, “demanded, sought and received” illicit payments in the form of cash, home payments, furnishings, cars and vacations from four co-conspirators, including two defense contractors, over the past five years.
He kind of took the whole bribery and abuse of power to a whole new level. In comparison, the worst of the charges against Charlie Rangel seem to be the allegation that he didn’t pay taxes on hundreds of thousands of dollars of income. So, yes, that is not right and everyone will say so including Rep. Rangel. He is pleading ignorant for the most part, it seems. So if he had paid taxes on that additional income, based on the chart I have below….it would be an estimated $61,000 if it were $300,000 of income and $123,000 if were income of $500,000. So yeah, that is not right. But Duke Cunningham took bribes of $2.4 million dollars….bribes, not tax evasion, bribes and you know that bribes usually mean some sort of favor for those bribes, which climb into the tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money going to Duke’s buddies. Are the two comparable, I don’t think so, Homey. Multiple millions of taxpayer dollars being diverted to cronies vs. tens of thousands of dollars not being paid in taxes with no favors attached, no Rolls Royces, no defense contracts.
Republican’s with criminal problems in recent years:
Bill Frist – Senate Majority Leader, “insider trading” regarding “the sale of shares of HCA Inc. held in a blind trust earlier this year, one month before a weak earnings report sparked a drop in the company’s stock. Nashville, Tennessee-based HCA, the biggest U.S. hospital chain, was founded by Frist’s father and brother.”
Senator John Ensign – Cheated on his wife with a campaign aide who was the wife of a staffer. He then helped get the staffer a job with a lobbying firm which is illegal. We’ll see how it all works out. Oh, and by the way, pure coincidence I’m sure but his parents wrote a check to the staffer for $96,000 following the discovery of the affair. Hmmmm…..
Senator Larry (wide stance) Craig – soliciting gay sex in a bathroom, what’s the big deal with that…oh, that’s right he is a hypocrite.
Senator Ted Stevens – found guilty of 7 counts of falsifying official Senate Records, lots of good corruption there.
Leader of the House of Representatives Tom Delay – Lots of corruption here, he resigned to avoid us all hearing about it in detail.
Newt Gingrich – Resigned from the House and agreed to pay $300,000 in penalties.
Rick Renzi – Bribery….land deal….$700,000
Bob Ney – Jack Abramoff, bribes, influence peddling…
Bob Barr -
Bill Thomas -
Dan Burton -
Sexual Harrassment, Affairs and out of wedlock babies
John Ensign (affair, bribery, corruption), Larry Craig (soliciting gay sex), Bob Packwood (sexual harrassment, 10 staffers), Newt Gingrich (affair while wife was being treated for cancer), Henry Hyde (5 year affair), Bob Livingston(several affairs), Bob Barr (whipped cream), Bill Thomas (affair with lobbyist), Dan Burton (many affairs, sexual assault, mistresses on payroll), Charles Canady (affair), Dick Armey (sexual harrassment of students), John Peterson (sexual harassment, 6 women), Bill Janklow (accused of rape of child),Vito J. Fossella (affair), Helen Chenoweth (affair), J.C. Watts (out of wedlock child), Connie Mack (affair with Sonny Bono’s wife), John Schmitz (affair and strange emergency room visit), Don Sherwood (affair and charges of abuse), Strom Thurmond (out of wedlock child), Donald “Buz” Lukens (sex with a minor), Ken Calvert (caught with prostitue), Chip Pickering (affair), Jim Bunn (affair with staffer), Ed Schrock (tapes soliciting gay sex), Dan Crane (sex with 17 year old female page), Gerry Studds (sex with 17 year old male page), Robert Bauman (soliciting sex from a 16 year old boy),
Don Young -
Katherine Harris -
Conrad Burns, Rick Santorum, Roy Blunt, Tom Feeney, Marilyn Musgrave, Bob Ney, Richard Pombo, Charles Taylor, Mark Foley,
It was almost funny watching Keith Olbermann and Michael Moore take great offense to Robert Gibb’s punching back at some critics on the left. They both seemed to think Robert was speaking directly to them, now Keith might have a point, but Michael Moore seemed to want to step in front of the bullet. And their attempts to be funny were pretty lame in my opinion. Thanks to Crooks and Liars for a partial transcript…
“When Mr. Gibbs is worried about what people on the left are smoking, from my experience the person in the room who’s most paranoid about who’s smoking what is usually the person smoking the really heavy stuff,” noted Moore.
Wow, that is the best you can come up with Michael? Let’s break it down, “the person in the room who’s most paranoid about who’s smoking what”, why on earth would someone be “paranoid” about what someone else was smoking? They are paranoid about getting busted for what they are smoking, not what someone else is smoking. It makes no fucking sense. What Robert Gibbs said is exactly right, if you assholes can really compare President Obama to Bush, you are fucking smoking crack, not weed. If that offends someone because they did make the comparison, they deserve much more than a statement claiming they need to be drug tested, they deserve to be run out on a fucking rail. More idiocy from Michael Moore…
“From the beginning of this administration, what did people on our side of the fence say? You should take over these banks temporarily and fire all the thieves who stole our money. But instead what did they do? They enabled them,” explained Moore.
Really, so President Obama would be so much better off if he had taken over the banks and discarded our capitalist system in one fell swoop? What a stupid fucking idea that would guarantee an all out attack on him as a socialist, which might be good in Michael’s world, but for someone who is trying to fix the big fucking mess that was handed to him, not such a great idea. The naiveté of some of these people is staggering. And of course, Moore also throws in the fact that he expanded the effort in Afghanistan and claimed he caved to the right. He campaigned on expanding our presence in Afghanistan, don’t you remember? Or were your lips wrapped around Hillary’s ass so tight that you missed it? Here is even more bullshit from Michael Moore on Keith Olbermann…
“Everything that we’ve been trying to push them to do has now come back to bite them in a profound way to the point where they’re very frightened, as they should be, about the election in a couple of months,” Moore said
You should be frightened, you dumb fuck, because you and your stupid cohorts on the far left are helping Republicans to gain back control of our government and where will you be then? Oh, making money producing documentaries about Republicans, your cottage industry. Do you and Keith really give a shit about progressive ideas or are you just out for your own shameless self promotion. That last statement about being frightened shows that you don’t get it and really aren’t too concerned about the consequences of a Republican House of Representatives. How fucking stupid are you Michael Moore? Here is a little more stupidity from Michael Moore…
“To go after your core base, I mean the people that are really — the ones that go out and carry the water for you, to do the hard work, it’s like — I mean this is the guy, Gibbs, you don’t want him like drafting the fund-raising letter for the next election cycle. It will begin something like ‘Dear biggest Obama supporters, you suck. Now send us money, please.’ It’s just like it’s totally crazy,” he said.
If the president’s “core base” are people saying he’s just like Bush, who fucking needs that “core base”. Seriously, if he thinks the presidents core base thinks like he does, he is really living in his own fantasy world. And then his “fund-raising letter” bit, doesn’t that read like a 14 year old wrote it. “Dear biggest Obama supporter, you suck”. It’s not funny and it is very juvenile. I may pick apart Keith’s special comment if I feel so inclined, it sounded like a 14 year old who just discovered a thesaurus for the first time.
I had the opportunity a few months ago to meet Michael Moore, he came to our town for a fundraiser for a local theater and I know the people who were bringing him in. They offered me the opportunity to meet him and I passed. Even though I like some of what Michael does as far as shining a light on the corruption in the Republican party and the government, I’ve always thought his movies cross over the line and take huge leaps at conspiracies that exist in Michael’s head alone. I have to give him credit for being a successful filmmaker, I only hope I make as much as he does someday. But I plan to do it by presenting information for people to make their own conclusions.
So all of these “professional left” who are jumping in front of Robert Gibb’s bullets, ought to back up and take a reality check. Do you really think President Obama is just like Bush? And if so, you really do need to lay off the crack pipe and get into rehab. I’ll link to it one more time, that awesome site that is chronicling the president’s accomplishments, and I dare you to go and read the whole fucking thing and then tell me that he is just like Bush.
The last thing I’ll say is how low can Keith’s ratings go? I, for one, will not be watching his show anymore for many reasons. This last special comment is just part of the reason. He spends about a third of his show teasing what is coming up later in the show. If I wanted to watch that type of shit, I would watch Entertainment Tonight. The core base, that I know of, think the president has done a great job. They don’t watch the inside Washington shows like I do. They live their lives, watch network news once in a while and see that he passed health care reform, he saved the economy from a major collapse, he’s bringing the troops home from Iraq and has set a timetable for bringing them home from Afghanistan, he has increased funding for the arts and humanities, he’s done more for the environment than any president ever….just ask any environmentalist, he’s kept teachers on the job, he’s fixing our crumbling infrastructure, he’s appointing competent justices to the Supreme Court…go read that awesome site I linked to above for hundreds of more examples of progressive things this president has done.
Get over yourselves, professional left, you’re acting like a bunch of whiny ass kids. And like I said before, if you took offense to Robert Gibbs statement about being drug tested and really do think President Obama is just like Bush, you have to put that crack pipe down and join Lindsey Lohan in rehab.
I’m not usually a fan of Mark Halperin, too much of an insider for my tastes and one of the editors of the conventional wisdom in Washington DC, but this morning he had a line that was classic. Asking Sam Stein (one of the big shots at Huffington Post) who wrote about Robert Gibbs statement clarifying his shot at some on the left. I’m paraphrasing but I think I’m pretty accurate with it….
“Do you read the Huffington Post?”
Fucking classic. He then went on to point out the constant negative stories on that rag and the utter lack of credit to President Obama for anything he does. Sam Stein, to be fair, is one of the more fair columnists at Huffpost…Bob Cesca being the absolute best, but still tainted by the rag he writes for in my opinion. Sorry Bob, but Arianna and Roy are not doing progressives any good by bringing down the whole party. So Sam is much more tempered with his opinions and snarkiness than some of the others on that site, but Halperin’s comments were freakin awesome in my opinion. I hope someone posts it on Youtube.
Robert Gibbs made a clarification of his comments that were reported by The Hill where he, heaven forbid, criticized some people he referred to as the “professional left”. Sam Stein said The Fuckington Post received a statement from Robert Gibbs and prints it with all his snarkiness surrounding it. I won’t link to that piece of shit rag, but I will copy and paste from it…
In a statement to the Huffington Post, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs acknowledged that his recent broadside against the “professional left” was inartful, and called for renewed unity among the Democratic community.
Referring to statements he made in an interview with The Hill published Tuesday, Gibbs reiterated his belief (which served as the basis of his initial remarks) that the president had achieved a host of legislative accomplishments for which he was not getting proper credit. But he said that Democrats, “me included,” need to “stop fighting each other and arguing about our differences on certain policies, and instead work together to make sure everyone knows what is at stake because we’ve come too far to turn back now.”
Robert, don’t take it back, those assholes like Jane Hamsher, Glenn Greenwald, Cenk Uygur and the rest of the “Firebagger Brigade” don’t ever want to work with President Obama. Just like the asshole Republicans, don’t reach your hand out to those PINO’s “progressive in name only”. They and their rabid followers have an irrational hatred for President Obama, I get their troll comments all the time. Their goal is to help bring down President Obama to “prove” that Hillary or Dennis Kucinich should have been president. I think it just pisses them off more when the president accomplishes something. Nicole473 commented at Bob Cesca’s place that brings this home to me…
These Firebaggers are nuts, IMO.
This fact was brought home to me recently when I posted about a new website. A Firebagger went berserk over it in the comments. A Firebagger whom I know from Twitter, and who seems to be a very reasonable human when not discussing Obama.
There is a hatred that I think started during the election when Hillary and Barack were at the peak of their battle. I had many friends who were very angry and bitter that Obama was beating her, they became irrational. Thankfully most of them came down after the heat of the battle, but some who have the power of the pen like Hamsher, never did. They have clung to this irrational hatred and are still fighting Hillary’s lost battle. Was that Jane Hamsher dodging sniper fire with Hillary on that runway in Bosnia? Back to the Fuckington Post piece…Sam Stein makes a bold statement “The vast majority of the reaction, however, was sharply negative.” He then quotes the one and only Janey Hamsher…
“Spiro Agnew — sorry, Robert Gibbs — says “the professional left is not representative of the progressives who organized, campaigned, raised money and ultimately voted for Obama” emailed Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake.com. ” Well, the Obama in the White House is not the Obama who organized, campaigned, raised money and ran for office, so I guess its’ a wash.”
How clever, Jane. Is that like a twist on words that you thought up all by yourself. Wow, I wish I were that clever. Jane Hamsher does not represent very many people on the left…if you go to her site and read the comments, which can lower your IQ so be careful, but if you read her commenters, not very many are progressive. They use the exact same talking points as Fox News. Firebaglake does not represent the progressives. There may be a few sane people there who are progressive but most of them are with the hate Obama crowd and consumed with an irrational hatred for President Obama. I don’t want to call them racist, but man, that irrational hatred they have smells very much like the same stench that comes from racism.
Update Courtesy of Staci…
Via John Cole over at Ballon Juice:
Here’s a better question for you all. Name one time the “professional left” has had the administration’s back on… anything.
Since the inauguration, it has nothing but attacking from the left, calling them failures, adding to the cacophony of outrage to the right, all while pretending they were moving the overton window. We’ve heard calls for every administration member’s head, from the left, since day one. All the while, the same folks pretend to be the base (they weren’t- the ones I have in mind were in large part Hillary supporters) and babble about the Overton Window.
Christ- Ed Schultz and the usual poutrage crew spent the last five months of HCR trying to kill it dead, with Ed switching at the last moment when it was clear it would pass. If you were Robert Gibbs, you’d tell these people to shut the fuck up, too.
Dead on, thanks Staci……
I wrote a post about this with all sorts of expletives because as anyone who reads my blog knows, these so-called progressives who are undermining President Obama just piss me off. They are doing nothing but hurting Americans when they help to usher in more Republican rule. Here is the article where Gibbs tells it like it is, my favorite part is below…
“I hear these people saying he’s like George Bush. Those people ought to be drug tested,” Gibbs said. “I mean, it’s crazy.”
I won’t put up the expletive laden post, my mother always said “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all”…which I only take into account once in a while.
A plurality of Americans think bank bailouts started under President Obama, according to a new Pew poll.
In Pew’s most recent “News IQ Quiz,” 47 percent of respondents thought Obama initiated the Troubled Asset Relief Program, compared to just 34 percent who correctly guessed it was former President George W. Bush.
Yo, anyone interested in the truth….George W. Bush signed the TARP bailout on October 3, 2008, well before Barack Obama was even elected president. Spread the truth…it hurts Republicans. The interesting thing about it is that prior to signing, the bill was supported by the American people. Before the congress started debating it, from Pew…
By a margin of almost two-to-one the American public thinks the government is doing the right thing in investing billions of dollars to try to keep financial institutions and markets secure. Reacting to initial reports of the federal bailout plan over the weekend, 57% said the government was doing the right thing, while 30% said it was doing the wrong thing. At the same time, only 19% of the public believes that the government is currently doing an excellent or good job in handling the financial problems on Wall Street. Support for the administration’s plan to bailout many of the nation’s troubled financial institutions is largely bipartisan.
After the debate, those numbers changed but still showed a plurality of people supporting it, from a Pew poll a week later….
As Congress debated the financial bailout bill over the past week, public support for government action has declined. A new Pew Research Center survey conducted Sept. 27-29 finds a narrow 45%-38% plurality of the public saying that a government plan to invest or commit billions of dollars to secure financial institutions is the right thing to do.
Of course our amnesic public with the help of the brain dead media and the lying Republicans have succeeded at placing this at President Obama’s feet like several other actions by Bush and his gang. But wait, there is more, the majority of the TARP has been paid back
The Troubled Asset Relief Program has reached a significant milestone: The amount of TARP money paid back to the federal government has surpassed the amount that remains outstanding. Through the end of May, $194 billion in TARP money had been repaid, compared with $190 billion in TARP still owed to the government.
Every time someone in the media allows this misinformation to be spewed onto their airwaves, we must stand up to it. The lying and misleading has to stop or us Democrats will pay the price in November.
“Obama Dealt Setback By Jobs Report” (Reuters) – Why exactly is this a setback for President Obama? Are they talking political and if so, do they really think a jobs report in August of 2010 is somehow going to set him back 2 and 1/2 years from now? Really? And if they are talking about the economy suffering a setback, then why is the headline “Obama Dealt Setback…”, is the president the economy now? This is one example of a misleading headline to subtly dig at the president, try to pin the slow growing economy solely on the him.
“Jobs Report Taxes Obama’s Political Capital” (NPR, you know that liberal news org.) The actual story is pretty balanced, it actually starts out with “Fairly or unfairly, jobs have become one of the most important barometers in assessing the president’s performance” and it mentions how the Republicans have been stopping all the presidents efforts to help the economy. Does the headline reflect that, nah, let’s all pile on the one guy who’s trying.
“July Jobs Report Renews Concerns Over A Stalled Recovery” (The Washington Post) So when exactly did concern drop? In order to be renewed, doesn’t it have to have subsided. And is the recovery stalled, according to economists the economy is still growing, slower than “expected” which always makes me ask, who is doing the “expecting”? Would that be those liberal business people on Wall Street? Would it be those people who are pissed that the Obama administration just signed a Wall Street reform bill? Nah, not those economists. Check out this handy little graph that shows growth over the last 8 years, 6 of Bush and almost 2 of Obama.
Notice how the economy goes in waves. In my many years in college, I took about 8 economics (or related) classes and one of the first things you learn is that the economy goes in cycles, it’s kind of why people play the Wall Street game…it’s why they have futures markets…but when it goes up, it comes back down. You can see from the graph that there aren’t any upticks that last very long, they are all very similar. There is that one big downturn though, which brings me to another lesson we learned in those exciting classes like “Money, Credit and Banking” and that is that there is a lag time between actions taken to effect the economy and when the results occur. It’s only logical, right? Hmmmm, who was president just prior to that downturn? Now I’m sure the trolls might say, see how during Bush’s term it didn’t go down as much. Could that be that bubble that was being created with all those sub-prime mortgages and junk bonds and those fucks on Wall Street setting us up for that big dip you see in red? That’s a direct result of Bush and his Wall Street buddies going nuts and no one regulating them. Remember, they put the foxes in charge of the hen house.
“3rd month of weak hiring signals long slog ahead” (Yahoo News) If you read the article, there is nothing that signals a “long slog” ahead. Refer back up to that chart, the ups and downs are pretty consistent, it surely won’t be any longer than any other downturn. The fickle and I will add “economically challenged” media gets all excited when it jumps up and acts like the world is about to end when it goes down. It’s all about ratings, make everything sensational, make bold pronouncements, use misleading “lower 3rds” on the screen to make it more sexy. Cable news sucks ass, all of them, including MSNBC.
Her first big hit “Chuck E.’s In Love”. I like her so much, I even named my dog after her.
I saw Sam Stein from the Huffington Post on Morning Joke last week and I’m just now getting around to commenting on his appearance and column about polls. In full “snark” mode, he belittles Robert Gibbs response about the media’s obsession with polls on a day-to-day basis. As I read his piece, it read like someone obsessed and in denial about it. Here’s a piece of it…
ABC News’s Jake Tapper sought reaction to the network’s newest poll showing that 51 percent of respondents would rather have Republicans running Congress. CNN’s Ed Henry wanted to know why, in that same poll, “six in 10 Americans have little or no faith in the President to make the right decisions.” CBS’s Chip Reid then pointed to his own network’s poll showing that only 13 percent of respondents thought the president’s economic programs had affected them personally.
Exasperated, Gibbs deployed a classic rejoinder: mocking the polling-obsessed media culture.
“You know, in all honesty, Chip, there isn’t a website in the world that doesn’t have a new poll every day,” the press secretary replied. “And if you spent a lot of time sitting around worrying about polls rather than worrying about the people that you’re trying to help, I’m sure you’d get discouraged. But we’re way too busy to sit around looking at polls.”
Too busy to look at polls? Perhaps. But not too poor to pay for them. While Gibbs routinely chides members of the press for obsessing about the day-to-day temperamental swings of the American public, behind the scenes the White House has poured plenty of money into conducting its own public opinion polls. Through June 9, 2010, the administration, via the Democratic National Committee, has spent at least $4.45 million on the services of seven different pollsters, according to records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. (The Huffington Post looked into only those expenditures that totaled more than $5,000.)
OK, so they’ve spent money on doing their own polls, is that something special? They would be fools not to take their own polls with all the bad methodologies and analysis out in the public sphere. Just because they are taking polls doesn’t mean they are making decisions on a day-to-day basis. If that were the case, where would health care reform be or any of the other unpopular but necessary actions that he has taken over the last 19 months. It is one of the reasons why I like President Obama so much, he is in Washington to do a job, not get re-elected. I’ve said many times that I almost hope he doesn’t run in 2012 just to piss off the prognosticators who like to look at everything through the political lens of “how is this going to affect him politically?” The media IS running a continuous election cycle, it never stops…..it just keeps going and going and going and going. It’s no wonder the American people are so down on politicians in polls, they are sick of the media talking about it. That is probably why the media ranks right down there at the bottom along with the politicians.
Even though I linked to the Huffington Post, I hope you don’t stay there after reading Stein’s piece, it’s a vast wasteland of Lindsey Lohan, Brittney Spears and misleading headlines.