Isn’t It A Bit Soon To Rewrite History?

Ok, back to business as I was a bit under the weather recently. Ever since the Christmas Day attempt at bringing down an airliner, Republicans have been salivating that there was a terrorist attempt under Obama’s watch. They figure this was just what they needed to begin a new string of attacks on Obama and Democrats and how they’re weak on “the war on terror”. Never mind that the policies in place were left over from the Bush-Cheney Regime; they count on the fact that most Americans don’t pay attention to politics so they can say virtually anything and get away with it. Like Obama, Bush was on vaction at the time of the shoe bomber attack. He didn't speak publicly for 6 days compared to Obama's 3. The perception that Republicans are asserting is that Obama wasn't doing anything after he learned of the attack. It would be laughable, but when I view other blogs, the conservative base actually believes that he just shrugged and continued to play golf. Conservatives are now attempting to rewrite history in the mindset of America. They are counting on the fact that most Americans are too lazy to fact check. Eventually this may work for them, as America gets dumber collectively with every passing year, but I think it's still a bit too soon!

First we watched Dana Perino in November claim on Sean Hannity’s show that there were no terrorist attacks during Bush’s administration. Ok, it’s Fox and Hannity, it would’ve been way too much to expect some journalistic integrity or credibility. Then there was Mary Matalin on CNN with conservative John King in December claiming the Bush administration “inherited the most tragic attack on our own soil in our nation's history.” Obviously soul mate King gave her a pass too. However, what former Clinton advisor George Stephanopoulos let Rudy Giuliani get away with Friday on Good Morning America was unforgivable. Giuliani claimed “We had no domestic attacks under Bush."  First it just appeared that he didn’t seem to remember he was the mayor of New York City on 9/11/01. Then he told yet another blatant lie which again went unchallenged, saying that it took Obama “10 days to respond.” In fact, anyone who has been paying attention knows that is untrue. After a firestorm mostly from the left was created by these lies going unchallenged, Rudy claimed he meant "post 9/11." Well, not so fast dude. GWB was in office from 1/20/01-1/20/09. What else happened on Bush’s watch you might ask? The Anthrax Attacks were from October-November 2001, the Shoe Bomber on 12/22/01, LA Airport shootings by Hesham Mohamed Hadayet on July 4, 2002, D.C. Sniper John Allen Muhammad in the fall of 2002, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar of Iran who claimed he was following in the footsteps of his idol, 9/11 hijacker Muhammad Atta when he ran down 9 North Carolina college students in March of 2006. Later in the day after being heavily criticized, even from some of ABC’s own correspondents for his failure to correct Giulini, Stephanopoulos posted an expression of regret on a blog post. A blog post?! Really? How about making your apology on GMA on Monday morning in the same time segment that the interview aired so the likelihood that you’ll be apologizing to the same mislead viewers is heightened.  When writing about Giuliani's misspoken words, the Washington Independent's Spencer Ackerman wrote: "You actually need to give President George W. Bush credit for this. The Bush people did a wonderfully effective job of making it verboten in mainstream political discourse to consider the deaths of 3000 Americans on 9/11 in any sense Bush’s failing."
Vice President Biden was right in 2007 when he said of Giuliani; “…I mean, think about it! Rudy Giuliani. There's only three things he mentions in a sentence -- a noun, a verb, and 9/11. There's nothing else! There's nothing else!...”

As far as the attempted attack on Christmas Day, it’s sickening that Republicans are happy that an attempt was made, but appear somewhat saddened that it failed. When you have Faux Newz resident talibangelical Brit Hume along with Bill Kristol claiming that the attack was a success even though the only thing Abdulmuttalab managed to set on fire was his own junk, you’re showing your hand. You’ve got Dick Cheney running to every single microphone or camera he can find to say that Obama’s too low key, doesn’t want to admit we’re at war and promises more attacks because of this alleged weakness and all the ditto heads (elected officials as well as the conservative electorate) follow his lead. Do they actually think if he says the word “terror” more often, that’s some sort of tool against terror? It's been one of their claims. How do they think they don't sound ridiculous? Maybe if the Bush-Cheney Regime hadn’t actually taken their eye off the real terrorists instead of trying to steal the “black gold” in Iraq, we wouldn’t be in this mess now. The sad truth about this fool who got 5 seperate deferments to keep him from serving in Vietnam is that the very people we're trying to defeat are listening to this idiot tell them that the current administration in inept.  He is inviting them to attack. Are the Republicans so hungry for power that they have total disregard for the safety of Americans not just here, but abroad?  Why can't the majority of Americans see this game being played?  Why isn't the majority of the media calling him or other conservatives out?  MSNBC is the exception.  They get called a liberal channel (3 hours with Olbermann, Maddow, Schultz) which is balony (3 hours of Scarborough and daily guest nazi Buchanan) because they seem to be the only one's that haven't yet fallen victim to the "conservative media bias" that now inhabits our airwaves.  It's crystal clear for anyone paying attention,that the current administration has stepped up the search and destroy missions of terrorist pockets. Isn't it likely that the current administration, by using the "speak softly and carry a big stick" approach is probably leading to more success because we're not tipping our hand to the enemy?  By the way, I think Obama's address on Thursday when he said, "The buck stops with me." was one of the most honest presentations any modern President has given.  If Obama and the Democrats do this right, the Republicans will never again be able to paint them as weak and defenseless. Maybe that's what neocons like Cheney are really afraid of, that it's working.

Liz Cheney’s neoconservative political attack organization, Keep America Safe, is out with a new ad titled “100 hours.” It is complete with images of the President golfing on his Hawaiian vacation. Stephanopoulos actually did his job today on ABC’s “This Week”, confronting Cheney about her hypocritical attack. “As many Democrats and others have pointed out, President Bush waited six days before doing much about Richard Reid, the shoe bomber.” Cheney evaded the question entirely, pretending not to hear it. “The point of that ad,” she said, “was this notion that you cannot win a war if you’re treating it as sort of an inconvenient sidelight.” My question is why anyone gives a rat’s behind what this neocon nobody has to say. Her father's crooked administration didn't give a damn about defeating terrorists, they lied to get into a war with a country who's oil they wanted to control. They never even attempted to capture bin Laden. If they had, they wouldn't have been able to occupy Iraq.  Her father is an evil bastard and it’s clear the apple didn’t roll far from the tree.

It’s really disheartening what we’ve become as a nation. All those right wingers claiming that Obama is the most polarizing President ever (they still can’t believe the black guy won) don’t seem to remember that George W. Bush who was never rightfully elected to his position actually said in November of 2001, “You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror”, when anyone dared question his policies on his new found purpose. You can’t really get any more polarizing than that. I believe that was a crucial turning point that pitted conservatives against liberals in a very hardened way and I don’t see it getting better any time soon, especially since the right wing religious zealots are having success in determining public policy. I have a genuine fear that this country at some point is going to become a theocracy, not a democracy.

Quick Thoughts: Not all Republicans are clueless political gamers afterall. Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN) said on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt” about the criticism of Obama's handling of the terrorist situation: “It’s unfair, I think the president is focused…To the contrary, Obama has demonstrated firmness” and “decisiveness… That’s been the antidote to the criticism.” Good for him to have the guts to say so! I'm sure he's not the only one who feels this way, but the larger portion prefer to play partisan politics or are afraid of getting in Cheney's crosshairs...or crossbow! ...

On Thursday, Tea Party Nation claimed that "liberal troll" Rachel Maddow tried to join the group and "we banned her 7 minutes after she joined. I have little doubt she will mention this on her show." The teabaggers must've been disappointed that Rachel did not mention it, although Keith Olbermann and Richard Wolfe discussed the falsehood on Countdown. Did a bunch of 8th grade level racists actually think they were going to outsmart her? The funny thing is, as soon as I received the forwarded "tweet" from TPM, my first thought was "riiight, she joined using her own name." My next thought was, "typical conservatives not looking at the big picture." I guess it never occured to the teabaggers that by publicizing this lie, liberals and Maddow fans in general would actually join the site to "disrupt the flow of constructive dialogue against liberalism." Check it out. Did I mention the site ended up going down? The always polite Ms. Maddow responded with: "Of course, this idea of me trying to join their listserv is completely made up, but still -- I'm flattered the Tea Party folks think I'm well known enough to help their cause, I wish them all best luck with their conference."

Finally, Brit Hume who seems jealous of the attention all the other crackpots on Faux get decided to jump on board. The born again evangelical now believes he has the credentials to lecture others' religious choices. He said Tiger Woods should convert to Christianity for forgiveness and redemption.[].make a total recovery and be a great example to the world. Yeah, you know how wild and crazy those Buddhists are. I guess that in Brit's world, Vitter's penchant for prostitutes and diapers, Sanford and Ensign's mistresses are all ok now because they're Republicans and they've allegedly asked for forgiveness from the Lord. Never mind the path of destruction they created for those around them. As far as Buddhists, since I knew nothing I looked it up, unlike Hume. Their basic belief is that suffering ceases when desire ceases, that enlightenment obtained through right conduct, wisdom, and meditation releases one from desire, suffering, and rebirth. Seems like those will apply to Tiger's "transgressions" just fine.