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.

Fox: They Distort, They Decide (that viewers are too dumb to notice)

On Faux Newz, the fairly unbalanced channel, boot-licking, Sean Hannity had a big week ignoring major gaffes by his guests. First came Sarah Palin who was trying to show off her foreign policy knowledge, responding to a question by Hannity on how we should handle the nuclear threat posed by Iran. It didn't take long for it to become abuntantly clear that she doesn‘t know the difference between Iraq and Iran. 



Can you believe that there are actually some Americans who think that she‘s qualified to be president?  This woman clearly is not ready for national politics.  What is clear is that she wants to make a ton of money on her book tour and clearly will on the backs of her lower middle class supporters who believe she's the real deal and will plunk down their hard earned money (please watch video at the end of this paragraph to watch an example of her supporters).  The sad thing is, I'm willing to bet most of them won't read anything except the back cover, the inside of the dust jacket and probably look through the 16 pages of color photos. The thing about the video above is Hannity sitting there like the president of her fan club and not at least nudging her that she's got her countries mixed up.  If she just misspoke once, I could see him giving her a pass, but after several times in 1:03, he ends up looking just as ignorant as she does.  There's several things about her popularity that are disturbing.  The fact that she doesn't know the difference between Iraq and Iran makes me think she has no understanding of world events.  The fact that she doesn't know the difference between a continent and a country makes me think she flunked geography.  Her word salad speaking ability makes me think she flunked english.  The fact that she didn't know "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 makes me think she flunked history.  The fact that it took her over a year to figure out what she reads makes me think fellow wingnut Dick Armey finally told her what to say.  The fact that she had no clue what Charlie Gibson was talking about when he asked her, her opinion of the Bush Doctrine which makes me think McCain's handlers flunked vetting.  Scariest of all, many of her supporters are willing to vote for her because they find her attractive or that she's an average person...just like them.  On her attractiveness, that's subjective.  While I don't find her offensive to look at, the minute she opens her mouth, the ugliness is impossible to ignore.  As far as her being "just like them"...what the hell is wrong with these people?!  I don't want my president to be average or just like me.  We saw what eight years of having a guy who folks thought they could have a beer with got us.  I want my president to be way above average, maybe even a Harvard Law School graduate.  I don't want to be able to beat our president in a debate about policy!

 

Then came Hannity's interview with former Press Secretary Dana Perino who President Obama recently nominated to serve on the Broadcasting Board of Governors, an independent agency responsible for overseeing the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and other non-military broadcasts sponsored by the federal government.  What the hell is he thinking?  In a discussion on Hannity's show, Perino claimed that President Obama was playing politics by refusing to describe the massacre at Fort Hood as a terrorist attack. "We should call it what it is," she said. "We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term."  Is she kidding?

 

One again, did you notice the lack of correction from Hannity or Stuart Varney?  I know the Bush Administration tried to pin 9/11 on Former President Clinton for 7 years and 3 months, but do they actually believe that people don't remember who was sitting in a Florida kindergarten classroom being read "My Pet Goat" by 5 year olds on September 11, 2001?  A few months later, five people were killed in the anthrax attacks.  Clearly, conservatives want to call the Fort Hood murders, terrorism so that they can claim there was a terrorist attack on Obama's watch and use that for campaigning by saying he's weak on national security/defense.  The thing is, by definition, terrorism is the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.  I don't think what Major Nidal Hasan did accomplished any of those things.  Even though we know that Hasan had exchanged several emails with a radical Yemeni American cleric, there's also a paper trail of him not wanting to be deployed to kill Muslims.  This is a disturbed man who should've been removed from the military two years ago, who snapped and belongs behind bars for the rest of his life.  Yet, Perino went on to say "I hope they're not looking at this politically. I do think that we owe it to the American people to call it what it is."  So who is actually playing politics with this tragic event?  Do the right thing Mr. President, recind that nomination from this spin machine.

Is Fox so sure of it's complete mastering of brainwashing their loyal sheep that they get more brazen as time moves on?  In 2004, they actually won a lawsuit by using the defense that they didn't need to use facts as they are an infotainment channel!  The "fair and balanced" catch phrase they flash repeatedly has always represented a subliminal message to their weak minded viewers.  As time has moved on, the lies have gotten more outrageous, which led to the White House calling them out for what they are.  Former White House communications director Anita Dunn said, "Let's not pretend they're a news network, Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party. What I think is fair to say about Fox, and certainly the way we view it, is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party."  And White House senior adviser David Axelrod added that they're "not really a news station", their viewers were outraged, infiltrating left wing blogs while brandishing their ignorance about the fact that their favorite channel doesn't use facts!  I saw countless copied Nielson ratings posts about how many viewers were watching them as if to prove that the estimated 3 million angry, undereducated fools determined the pulse of the country. My standard gas on the fire response is, "that's because the Faux sheep need to have their bigotry and ignorance justified on a daily basis. Liberals are confident enough in their beliefs that we don't need daily reassurance."  Furthermore, none of them seem to realize that these are not "hard numbers", but an estimate based on 25,000 Nielson homes out of 114,000,000 U.S. homes. Who watches the most tv? Angry, white, middle-aged conservatives.  As the saying goes, "You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts."  The next comparison is always "MSNBC does it too."  Not exactly.  MSNBC isn't promoting progressive rallies, like Fox did with several conservative "Teabagger" events. Fox sponsored and sent their nighttime anchors out to multiple locations to cover the "grass roots" events.  The closest thing MSNBC has done via Olbermann's Countdown is assist the National Association of Free Clinics in getting donations for free health care clinics to underprivileged areas.  Let's see, one station chose to support anti-Obama rallies (let's just be honest here), the other channel chose to help those less fortunate.  Indeed, MSNBC has three hours of liberal commentators with Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz, who are increasingly focused on the dual task of holding President Obama to a progressive agenda and criticizing his detractors. MSNBC also has three hours of conservative talk with Joe Scarborough and daily guest, nazi Pat Buchanan, who are focused on criticizing the President and defending his assailants!  Chris Matthews is a conservative Democrat, so I laugh when the right calls him liberal.  They haven't figured out that not all Democrats are liberal just because all Republicans are conservative.  The rest of the MSNBC news line-up is a mixed bag of hopefuls along with Andrea Mitchell (Mrs. Alan Greenspan).  Fox counters with supposed liberal Alan Colmes who everyone knows is a joke, except their loyal viewers.  Even Colmes is in on it which makes his sellout all the more disgusting.  He makes the exact case that Fox wants to promote, that Democrats and/or liberals are weak and he's paid quite handsomely for it.  The bottom line is that Fox is right wing propaganda 24/7.

Palin Punked By A Comedian...Again
Once again, I thought the body of my article was complete, but this is too good to not report. Canadian Comedian Mary Walsh is the co-creator and star of "This Hour Has 22 Minutes", a nightly news parody show in the same vein as "The Daily Show."  She arrived in character, as conservative Marg Delahunty to the Borders in Columbus, Ohio where Palin was signing books.  It's bad enough that Fox favorite pin-up doesn't want to see our health care system improved, now she's venturing into Canada's health care system telling Walsh that "Canada needs to dismantle its public health-care system and allow private enterprise to get involved and turn a profit!"  In addition to those comments, Walsh said, she found it equally bizarre that no one was allowed to ask Palin any questions at the book-signing. "It was great fun, but also very strange," Walsh recalled. "We're in a bookstore, at a public event, in a place one would think was a bastion of free speech. And no one was allowed to ask questions. What are they afraid of?"



Quick Thoughts: The best line of the week from an unknown commentator on Huffington Post, “If Sarah Palin ever wins the presidency, Canada will have to build a wall on it’s southern border.”... “The Wrap’s” Dylan Stableford quotes a Fox News insider as saying Bill O'Reilly had a "hissyfit" over the fact that Hannity's interview with Palin would air first, so he released a teaser of his Palin interview on his YouTube channel, a move Stableford characterized as "going rogue" and a "pre-emptive strike. You know, with the Republicans eating their own, it really is fitting that the egomaniacs at Faux would follow suit.  Get the popcorn, this could be fun!... Bat shit crazy Michele Bachmann and Palin will be speaking at the National Tea Party Convention in Tennessee in February. "Press will be allowed in a designated section of the lobby of the convention only and will not be allowed inside the convention, there will be no media allowed for the banquet with Sarah Palin." I don't know about you, but it makes me wonder what they're hiding... Howard Dean thinks that Joe Lieberman should give up his chairmanship of Senate Homeland Security Committee if he can't bring himself to oppose a Republican filibuster of health care reform legislation.  Never mind letting him give it up, Harry Reid needs to issue an ultimatum and stick with it. "You caucus with the Democrats, you're with us or you're not.  Here's the price"... Speaking of Joe, after ignoring several requests from Rachel Maddow to appear on her show after stating he'd welcome a serious policy debate, I love that blogger Mike Stark found him in person and asked him to debate Rachel and his response was, "No, no, she's got a point of view". Does he not understand that a debate is a discussion of opposing views?  Sitting around with his like minded pals on Fox Sunday isn't a debate. Heck, she even offered him a shake and a cookie!... Rush Limbaugh and Glenn "he's a hoot" Beck (twice) called Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu a prostitute and hooker for allowing discussion of the health care reform bill. So Christian of them. This sexist attitude is one of the reasons why the GOP should continue to struggle to attract a majority of female voters. Imagine had Olbermann called Palin or Bachmann one of those things. The right would've organized a campaign to get him fired. While Keith has his fun with those two with their ineptness politically, he's never stepped over that line.  The cons don't think their side has a line. So Sarah, Michele or Carrie Prejean, where's your outrage?  Where's that double-standard?... Lou Dobbs is considering a Senate run in New Jersey.  How big does your ego have to be to think being an opinion commentator makes you qualified for office?  The police refuted his claims of gun shots at his house.  They've determined that the gunshots were from hunters nearby and not an attack on he and his wife. Lou figured it was a great way to get publicity and maybe some sympathy. Right wingers never want to hear facts. They get in the way of a perfectly good lie... A funny thing happened as I was finishing this up on this Thanksgiving evening, Beck put to rest any rumors of one possible "dream team" ticket. On his radio show today, Beck said he was absolutely ruling out the possibility of running for office with Saracuda at the top of the ticket.  It also appears that his true opinion of the former governor was expressed.  BECK: I don't think things are hoots. I don't. I don't think it's a hoot. I would never use the word hoot, and I respectfully ask that every time my name is brought up she would stop using the word 'hoot.' No, no I'm just saying -- Beck-Palin, I'll consider. But Palin-Beck -- can you imagine, can you imagine what an administration with the two of us would be like? What? Come on! She'd be yapping or something, and I'd say, "I'm sorry, why am I hearing your voice? I'm not in the kitchen." ...ouch...
If you want to listen in entirety, here's the clip: Beck Turns Down Ticket With Palin, Makes Sexist Remark

Until the next time...