Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
a good game now, helped elect Bush twice. That goes for the entire commercial news establishment. The only reason they're supporting Obama is that the powers that be know they went too far. They still are giving unlimited face time to free market fantasists without competent rebuttal.
The moral is, don't trust commercial news. And for goodness sake, when will liberals start up their own news outlets, starting on public access and moving onto commercial bandwidth? NBC may have softened their tone for the moment, but they could start character attacks on the Obamatron at any second.
When will liberals toughen up and go strategic? It's like they only like to talk but don't really care.
We get it, EVERYTHING GW Bush did is BAD and everything Obama WILL DO is good, great, biblical even. But in spite of your BDS rants W kept us safe from the Islamo’s who will kill us dead as soon as they can. You can pussy-foot (or pussy-mouth) yourselves to death, deluded the lot of you. Bush tore down the walls of ineptitude put up by that narcissist Clinton and his horrible minion, Jamie Gorelick and her lurch-like boss Janet Reno (a more stupid and ineffective woman I have never seen) and allowed our intelligence people to do their job and that is stop the killers. Does anyone remember that Mohamed Atta and his murderous dog compatriots learned the fly airplanes WITHOUT landing them? And that no one in the US law enforcement could actually QUESTION such training???!!! Talk about criminal, how about bringing CLINTON and GOERECK and Janet Reno up on treason charges!!?? They are the real criminals.
Bush sat on and pretty much killed off Al Queda world-wide. Hence, no more 9-11’s, an event I totally place on Clinton’s door step (I wonder how many of the jumpers voted for that clown?). Now we see and will see what you lefty’s will do under your Messiah:, eviscerate he CIA and justice.
Dick Morris has a column in NY Post today where he lays out the blue print for disaster:
"Leon Panetta, his choice for CIA chief, is as liberal as they come. Though originally a pro-Nixon congressman, he long ago embraced the left with the fervor of a convert and brings these values to the CIA.
Panetta will, presumably, curb such practices as waterboarding, rendition and warrantless wiretapping. So we won't gather much intelligence - but our spies will dot all the i's and cross all the t's.
Over at Justice, Obama is naming four liberals to staff the agency, each determined to rein in effective intelligence-gathering.
Professor Dawn Johnsen of Indiana University Law School is to head the Office of Legal Counsel. She distinguished herself by writing a law-review article taking issue with President Bush's efforts to keep us safe. It was titled, "What's a President To Do: Interpreting the Constitution in the Wake of the Bush Administration Abuses." Presumably, she'll bring back the days of the wall between criminal and intelligence investigations, which led to our failure to examine the computer of "20th hijacker" Zacharias Moussaoui, which contained wire-fund-transfer information on the other hijackers.
No less an authority than Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, who taught Elena Kagan, the new solicitor general, predicted that she and Johnsen would "freshly re-examine some of the positions the previous administration has taken."
Obama's other Justice appointments, David Ogden as deputy attorney general and Thomas Perrelli as associate AG, bring back Clinton/Reno Justice Department retreads. Both participated eagerly in the constraints on intelligence-gathering that left us so vulnerable on 9/11.
Bush's legacy shows one clear achievement: He kept us safe after 9/11. Now his successor's policies are about to eradicate that singular achievement. The liberals will, of course, all cheer these appointments and the policies they'll pursue once in office, but these appointments make it frighteningly more likely that we will, indeed, be hit again."
Hit again is right. I would not work in any high-rise building during the next 4 years, nor spend too much time in a mall. If and when this does occur you’d better kiss Obama and his admin good-bye because Americans simply will not stand for it. It’s one thing to write blistering arguments attempting the re-write history about Bush but the truth is in the facts…Fact 1: George W Bush kept us safe…Obama? We will see but if he doesn’t 2010 and 2012 campaigns will have slogans that go: “Bush kept us safe, unlike Obama!”.
... should be held accountable and tried as the war criminals they are. What will it take to start the ball rolling on this?
to be directed against the Obama Administration that does not investigate and prosecute officers of the Bush Administration for violations of criminal and civil law, does not disavow the illegal methods used, and, indeed, continues to commit the same kinds of atrocities. Bush was a pioneer in greatly expanding the powers of the Executive Branch, thanks to a spineless Congress. Now that the territory has been claimed, I fear Mr. Obama will not readjust the "balance of powers" to their constitutionally prescribed limits.
"President Bush inherited a peaceful, prosperous America."
Salon ignores the fact that al Qaeda had declared war on the U.S., and had bombed two U.S. embassies in August 1998 and the USS Cole just three months before Bush became president. In addition, during the exact same months that Clinton launched a preemptive attack on Iraq and a "technically illegal" war of choice on Kosovo, the 9/11 Commission reports that al Qaeda planned 9/11.
As far as a "prosperous America," the dotcom bubble of March 2000 eventually led to the recession that became in March 2001. In other words, Bush inherited the Clinton-Gore recession.
Therefore, it is a blatant lie to say Bush inherited "a peaceful, prosperous America."
Since Barack Obama became president-elect, many in the mainstream media have claimed he will inherit the greatest economic crisis since FDR.
Interestingly, many in the media made similar claims before Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president. For example, according to the January 19, 1981 issue of Newsweek, “When Ronald Reagan steps into the White House next week, he will inherit the most dangerous economic crisis since Franklin Roosevelt took office 48 years ago.”
Is Obama really facing an economic crisis greater than Reagan faced 28 years ago?
The misery index (the sum of the inflation rate and the unemployment rate) was 21.98 in June 1980. It was down to 10.07 when Reagan left office in January 1988. The misery index was 7.77 in November 2008.
Given that the misery index was nearly three times as high when Reagan became president than it is today, it appears the claim that Obama will inherit the greatest economic crisis since FDR is quite an exaggeration.
Source: http://www.miseryindex.us/raw_data.asp
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
