^your method for keeping score seems suspect.


question: if the previous president had a massive terrorist attack in his first year in office, and our current president did not, are we still allowed to claim that one is more "soft on terrorism" than the other?


i only ask because we seem to be operating under the assumption that the buck stops at the president for just about every scenario, and it baffles my mind how we can still call obama a "terrorist sympathiser" or "soft" and yet the previous administration gets away with calling september 11th a tragic event. so which is it?

[Edited on January 7, 2010 at 7:19 PM. Reason : ]

1/7/2010 7:06:27 PM

well, bush did more than just call it a "tragic event"...

1/7/2010 7:30:49 PM

^did he say that the buck stops with him or take ownership?

its a bit unfair to hold one person accountable, and then to give another person a free pass.

1/7/2010 10:22:32 PM

and to whom am I giving a free pass, again? did I absolve Bush ever? nope.

the major difference is one called it a terrorist attack, the other called it a "manmade disaster" by proxy.

1/7/2010 10:28:10 PM

that was intended to be more of a knock on dick cheney than you.

i don't quite care to keep up with your ramblings

1/7/2010 10:38:37 PM

dick cheney gives no one a free pass. not even people he shoots in the face

1/7/2010 10:42:49 PM

^^^that's utter bullshit and you know it. Nepalitono never referred to this incident as an attempted man made disaster and Obama has repeatedly called it was it was, an attempt at terrorism.

If your biggest complaint is that Obama doesn't say "terrorist" enough, you clearly have no legitimate criticism. So give it a fucking rest.


[Edited on January 7, 2010 at 10:47 PM. Reason : Z]

1/7/2010 10:45:11 PM

by the way, it wasn't "attempted." it was a failed terrorist attack. As in, it was an actual attack. that he won't even acknowledge that is pretty shity

1/7/2010 10:51:34 PM

Quote :

"Good afternoon, everybody.  The immediate reviews that I ordered after the failed Christmas terrorist attack are now complete."

first fucking sentence of his remarks today. Christ man, get a fucking clue.

He even threw in a "we're at war" to get your dick really hard.

[Edited on January 7, 2010 at 10:58 PM. Reason : .]

1/7/2010 10:57:23 PM

right. after he initially said it was an "isolated extremist." I don't put this attack on Obama specifically, but at least he could man up and call it what it is from the beginning without pussy-footing around.

1/7/2010 11:13:23 PM

We didn’t know if it was isolated or not from the very beginning. And in the sense that there were no other failed attacks that day, it was an isolated incident.

1/7/2010 11:19:07 PM

Quote :

"Good morning, everybody. I wanted to take just a few minutes to update the American people on the attempted terrorist attack that occurred on Christmas Day and the steps we're taking to ensure the safety and security of the country."

his first public remarks after the incident. Try again.

1/7/2010 11:23:35 PM

It’s amazing how delusional the right is regarding Obama. This is like the 100th time they have grossly mis-represented what Obama has said or done.

1/7/2010 11:33:19 PM

again. attempted terrorist attack. thank you for agreeing with me, moron

Quote :

"We didn’t know if it was isolated or not from the very beginning. And in the sense that there were no other failed attacks that day, it was an isolated incident."

bullshit. he didn't call it an isolated attack. he called it an attack by an isolated extremist, well after the media was reporting that the guy had ties to aQ

[Edited on January 7, 2010 at 11:38 PM. Reason : ]

1/7/2010 11:37:34 PM

wow

1/7/2010 11:43:47 PM

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/gop-house-candidate-fight-against-democrats-bigger-than-fight-against-terrorism.php

Quote :

"GOP House Candidate: Fight Against Democrats Bigger Than Fight Against Terrorism Eric Kleefeld | January 4, 2010, 1:10PM Allen Quist, a Republican candidate seeking the nomination to go up against Rep. Tim Walz (D-MN), has made a serious pronouncement: That the political battle against the Democrats is the defining fight of this generation, even greater than the fight against terrorism. "Now why am I doing this? I don't need to be in lights, I don't need to speak, I don't need to be before a TV camera, I don't need to be in the paper. I have been there, I have done all that. I don't need to be there," said Quist, a former state Representative who ran for governor twice in the 1990's, and even won the state party convention's endorsement in the 1994 primary against the incumbent moderate GOP governor. "It's because I, like you, have seen that our country is being destroyed. I mean, this is -- every generation has had to fight the fight for freedom. This is our fight. And this is our time. This is it. Terrorism, yes -- but that's not the big battle. The big battle is in D.C., with the radicals. They aren't liberals, they're radicals. Obama, Pelosi, Walz -- they're not liberals, they're radicals. They are destroying our country. And people all over are figuring that out." Quist does not have a clear road to the nomination, as he faces a convention/primary battle with state Rep. Randy Demmer. It will be interesting to see whether this stark Tea Party-style rhetoric will be an aid or hindrance to Quist's chances."

And that isn't an isolated act, Foxx for example has said about health care reform: ""We have more to fear from the potential of that bill passing than we do from any terrorist."

^^^I don't think the president can win the semantics game with the right regarding whatever politically correct term they they prefer whether it be terrorist activity, attack, incident, event or what have you, when they've already made up their mind about him as being the worse than terrorism.

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 1:04 AM. Reason : .]

1/8/2010 12:52:10 AM

^ hyperbole. Just getting the base riled up, see the same shit from both sides.

Quote :

"It’s amazing how delusional the rightleft is regarding Obama, Clinton, Carter Bush, Bush Sr., Reagan. This is like the 100th time they have grossly mis-represented what Obama an opposing party President has said or done."

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 1:33 AM. Reason : .]

1/8/2010 1:33:39 AM

CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Quote :

"President Obama and Democratic leaders have decided to bypass a formal House and Senate conference to reconcile the two health care bills. Instead - White House and Democratic leaders will hold informal - another word for secret - negotiations... meant to shut Republicans and the public out of the process. What a far cry from the election when then-candidate Obama pledged to quote "broadcast health care negotiations on C-Span so that the American people can see what the choices are." President Obama hasn't even made a token effort to keep his campaign promises of more openness and transparency in government. It was all just another lie told for political expediency. The head of C-Span wrote a letter asking Congress to "open all important negotiations, including any conference committee meetings, to electronic media coverage." When White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked whether the administration would support televising the negotiations, he refused to answer, mumbling something about "I haven't seen the letter." That wasn't the question. You either support openess or you don't. The Democrats insist this is all on the up-and-up... with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying "there has never been a more open process for any legislation." Really? This is the same Nancy Pelosi who, after becoming Speaker in 2006, promised the Democrats would have "the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history." Let's hope the voters remember some of this crap when the midterm elections roll around later this year."

1/8/2010 10:26:02 AM

They'd have to do a lot worse than that for me to vote Republican.

1/8/2010 10:30:47 AM

^
What would Obama have to do that would finally make you see the light?

1/8/2010 10:55:22 AM

^Do you actually think a republican led congress or a republican president would be any different with respect to transparency?

1/8/2010 11:13:38 AM

executive privilege

man sized safe

own classified stamp

google earth black out

1/8/2010 11:30:42 AM

Quote :

"President Obama and Democratic leaders have decided to bypass a formal House and Senate conference to reconcile the two health care bills. Instead - White House and Democratic leaders will hold informal - another word for secret - negotiations... meant to shut Republicans and the public out of the process."

How is that for the most transparent White House ever. If only the WH were made of glass, he might have a point. I also like how he is reaching across the aisle and all, too.

1/8/2010 3:07:14 PM

Actually I like how he isn't reaching across the isle. The GOP has brought nothing to the table this legislative session. What a golden opportunity, with this idiotic democratic congress doing its best to get voted out of office, to present viable moderate-conservative alternatives! Instead, they oppose everything for the sake of opposition without providing any alternative. You know who else does that? Four year olds.

1/8/2010 3:12:05 PM

Quote :

"by the way, it wasn't 'attempted.' it was a failed terrorist attack. As in, it was an actual attack. that he won't even acknowledge that is pretty shity"

aaronburro

Hear, hear!

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 3:12 PM. Reason : ^ FYI: It should be "aisle." ]

1/8/2010 3:12:09 PM

Quote :

"The GOP has brought nothing to the table this legislative session."

how can they bring anything to the table when they aren't even LET IN THE ROOM.

1/8/2010 3:13:04 PM

The door is open, they're just sitting outside it with their arms crossed and their lips pouted.

1/8/2010 3:15:35 PM

Aaron, they don't have to be in the room to come up with a plan and submit it to the country. Loud-mouth neckbeards like you would do the rest.

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 3:16 PM. Reason : >.<]

1/8/2010 3:16:00 PM

no, but they do have to be let in the room in order to affect the only process the democrats are looking at. But, yeah, I was unaware that internet neck-beards could introduce legislation and make Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi do things. I would have never guessed

The dems never included the repubs, they never had a plan to do so, so it only makes sense that the repubs would oppose the democratic plan. The dems would do the same thing were the roles reversed.

by the way, it's a lie that the repubs haven't submitted any plans. and you know it. They have submitted plans, and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi just ignore them.

1/8/2010 3:46:26 PM

Fed Advice to A.I.G. Scrutinized
January 8, 2010

Quote :

"New revelations that the government stopped the American International Group from revealing information about its bailout had securities lawyers and policy makers buzzing on Thursday about whether the information had to be disclosed under federal securities law, and if so, what to do about the lack of compliance, Mary Williams Walsh writes in The New York Times."

Quote :

"Securities requirements aside, Mr. Issa said this secretiveness flew in the face of good public policy and said he wanted to bring the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, to Capitol Hill 'to get every side of the story and understand what the motive and intent was of these actions.' Mr. Geithner was president of the New York Fed at the time of the e-mail exchange. The contents of the messages were first reported by Bloomberg News."

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/fed-advice-to-aig-scrutinized/?dlbk

TSA nominee misled Congress about accessing confidential records
Friday, January 1, 2010

Quote :

"The White House nominee to lead the Transportation Security Administration gave Congress misleading information about incidents in which he inappropriately accessed a federal database, possibly in violation of privacy laws, documents obtained by The Washington Post show."

Quote :

"[Erroll] Southers, a former FBI agent, has described inconsistencies in his accounts to Congress as 'inadvertent' and the result of poor memory of an incident that dates back 20 years. He said in a Nov. 20 letter to key senators obtained by The Post that he had accepted full responsibility long ago for a 'grave error in judgment' in accessing confidential criminal records about his then-estranged wife's new boyfriend."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123102257.html

1/8/2010 4:18:33 PM

^
I say hire the guy and then tell him that "Al Kayda" is sleeping with his wife.

1/8/2010 9:25:15 PM

Quote :

"no, but they do have to be let in the room in order to affect the only process the democrats are looking at. But, yeah, I was unaware that internet neck-beards could introduce legislation and make Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi do things. I would have never guessed The dems never included the repubs, they never had a plan to do so, so it only makes sense that the repubs would oppose the democratic plan. The dems would do the same thing were the roles reversed. by the way, it's a lie that the repubs haven't submitted any plans. and you know it. They have submitted plans, and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi just ignore them. "

Can you stop being blatantly dense, Aaron? If the GOP had anything resembling a game plan, they'd be in the news cycle 24/7 trumpeting alternatives to the current health care horse's shit of a bill that would undoubtedly gain them a lot in up coming elections.

1/8/2010 9:31:04 PM

Man with all the heat Obama is getting you'd think he spent almost a full 3 years on vacation days while presiding over two different wars, one of which had no practical or substantial connection with the 9/11 attacks and that he and his entire administration lobbied for under false pretenses

1/8/2010 10:12:22 PM

REALLY good article on Obama's execution of the War on Terror (such that it is). It gives a very balanced review of the policies the President adopted from the Bush administration (most of them) and illustrates the different rhetorical track that he has sought to establish. Long, but well worth a read over the weekend: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/magazine/17Terror-t.html

1/9/2010 3:19:17 AM

i already posted that, but a re-post is necessary. clearly

1/9/2010 3:25:34 AM

sorry, didn't see it, but it's worth two posts.

1/9/2010 3:44:13 AM

SandSanta all you need to do is google "republican health care proposals" and you will many different articles and ideas brought up by the right in the health care debate. it is disingenuous to say that they have proposed nothing.

I would agree that they have done a relatively poor job of telling the public of their options and ideas, but they are out there.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/03/politics/main5510731.shtml

[Edited on January 9, 2010 at 3:34 PM. Reason : ,]

1/9/2010 3:34:33 PM

^ i think he’s more concerned with proposals by republican legislators.

Nothing i’ve heard from the legislators has been a remotely serious attempt at an actual piece of legislation.

The one I recall of the top of my head called for elimination of employer provided health-care, which is pretty comical. It’s more drastic a change than anything proposed by the dems, and its benefits are specious at best.

1/9/2010 4:17:01 PM

Been saying it for a while, but more evidence that Obama's legislative chops aren't all that:

Quote :

"In Reid's book, he writes that a 2007 conversation developed into whether Obama could be the next president. "If you want to be president, you can be president now," Reid says he told Obama. Reid says Obama replied, "I don't know, Harry. I don't think so." But in their new book, the reporters say that Obama was summoned to Reid's office in July 2006 — and that Obama thought that he was about to get scolded by the majority leader. As soon as Obama took his seat, the authors write, Reid told Obama: "You're not going to go anyplace here. I know that you don't like it, doing what you're doing. The authors write that Obama was not sure what Reid was talking about initially when he made clear that he didn't think Obama was going to have a long career in the Senate. The two men spoke for 20 minutes, and Obama later was asked by his aide Robert Gibbs what they did wrong."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31318.html#ixzz0cFDShNNO


It doesn't mean he's doomed as a President, but it is a rather glaring weakness. It'll be interesting to see how he performs with a less friendly congress after 2010.

1/10/2010 3:48:05 PM

That article doesn't make it sound at all like Obama had weak legislative chops. All i got out of it was that, for whatever reasons, Reid was trying to encourage Obama to run for president by cynically suggesting he wouldn't accomplish anything in the senate. Was Reid's assessment accurate? Or was it just posturing?

1/10/2010 4:00:13 PM

It has been a pretty consistent motif that President Obama did not like the legislative process, I remember reading articles about it while he was still a candidate. He is a big picture guy, not a details guy. This is reflected by his involvement in the health care process which has been largely, "give me a bill and I'll support whatever it is, but I'm not going to take a stance on particular policy issues."

Again, it doesn't doom his presidency, but it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

1/10/2010 4:05:45 PM

yeah, i guess i just don't really follow how his "legislative chops" could negatively affect his credibility as a president. he's not part of the legislative branch. as president and head of the executive branch, why should he be concerned with the nitty gritty of the legislative process? shouldn't a president be more concerned with the big picture?

[Edited on January 10, 2010 at 4:36 PM. Reason : .]

1/10/2010 4:34:27 PM

^ yeah, it’s odd he’s doing this as prescribed in the constitution, and is being crucified by some for it

Leaving it up to the legislators I guess theoretically puts it closer to the hands of the people, but the legislators are a collectively dumb lot (especially the House), so it’s dangerous too.

1/10/2010 4:46:18 PM

Quote :

"yeah, i guess i just don't really follow how his "legislative chops" could negatively affect his credibility as a president."

it doesn't really, this was just the most relevant thread unless we want to start an *** OBAMA WATCH 2010 *** thread.

Quote :

"it’s odd he’s doing this as prescribed in the constitution, and is being crucified by some for it"

I've made it a point to say elsewhere that I was a fan of this approach, but I've also made no bones about the fact that I talk out of both sides my mouth on this issue

1/10/2010 5:54:09 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100112/ap_on_bi_ge/us_stimulus_counting_jobs

White House will no longer count/release # of jobs created/saved by the stimulus. From now on, it will only detail # of jobs funded by stimulus money.

"That means that any stimulus money used to cover payroll will be included in the jobs credited to the program, including pay raises for existing employees and pay for people who never were in jeopardy of losing their positions."

1/12/2010 4:38:06 PM

^CHANGE. First of all the whole "or saved" is basically saying thsat the people are a bunch of fucking idiots who will believe anything. I just farted, and saved 10k jobs...prove me wrong.

1/12/2010 4:46:32 PM

i agree it's difficult to quantify the number of jobs "saved" thanks to stimulus money, but to suggest it hasn't happened or isn't happening is dishonest.

1/12/2010 6:51:49 PM

^
Yes and how many more jobs would have been saved or created if Obama had given the stimulus $ directly to the people instead of to the Big Banks and other Gov't entities?

1/12/2010 7:59:07 PM

Pretty hard to tell. It's very likely that in the short term the job losses would be worse as Citi, ML, Wachovia, AIG, GM, Chrysler and many companies associated with them went bankrupt and had to lay off many many people. Some consumers would simply pay off debts with the money given them by the Fed, others would spend it into the economy. But with the removed uncertainty, its likely we would be on a clear road to recovery by now instead of this economic purgatory we're in.

1/12/2010 9:09:59 PM

^ yeah, i’d say the losses would be worse, because companies would be more willing to cut people.

I wonder though what could have happened if more of the money was used to help people go back to college?

1/12/2010 9:16:39 PM