Althouse: "The official line — that the slaughter of American officials was some sort of improvised movie review that got a little out of hand..."

September 22, 2012

"The official line — that the slaughter of American officials was some sort of improvised movie review that got a little out of hand..."

"... is now in the process of modification to something bearing a less patently absurd relationship to what actually happened. That should not make any more forgivable the grotesque damage that the administration has done to the bedrock principle of civilized society: freedom of speech."

Writes Mark Steyn.

174 comments:

David said...: Piss Christ: Five Stars

The Book of Mormon: Five Stars ("I really enjoyed it"--Hillary Clinton)

Innocence of Muslims: No Stars

The government should stick to their core competencies, like making automobiles.; 9/22/12, 3:47 PM
wyo sis said...: "No stars."

We don't have stars now we just have the "gaping maw" of the Obama logo.
What an improvement. Those stars represented a pointless theory that states as well as people have rights. In the new America only liberals have those and they aren't represented with stars.; 9/22/12, 4:00 PM
David said...: It sort of ignores federalism, doesn't it.

I see it as a moon symbol--as in moombat.; 9/22/12, 4:04 PM
SteveR said...: This incident alone should be enough to label the President on down as either willfully naive or dangerously stupid and thus not worthy of a chance for reelection. Lost in four years of similar failures, illogical hero worship and a media not doing its job, it hardly rates a notice for the sheeple.; 9/22/12, 4:05 PM
Tyrone Slothrop said...: This administration is incapable of learning that it's the coverup that hurts. If they had taken a modicum of blame on their own shoulders instead of trying to put it on Nakoula, or Bush, or anybody but themselves, the compliant media would now be hailing them as heroes instead of fighting a rear-guard action to save the election. After a solid week of character assassination by the same compliant media, Romney is still even with Obama, who right now is updating his CV. Ambassador-at-large to the Muslim world is one position he won't be seeking.; 9/22/12, 4:07 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: Ooof! Punch to the gut from Steyn.

He's been sounding the alarm for some time.; 9/22/12, 4:13 PM
Robert Cook said...: Glenn Greenwald had a column on this same topic in yesterday's GUARDIAN UK (online).; 9/22/12, 4:39 PM
Mogget said...: If the truth about Steven's death were written by the finger of God on the side of the Washington Monument the traditional media would still find some way to attribute it to random bird poop.; 9/22/12, 4:44 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: Althouse, I'm not exactly a Hillary supporter...

But, I gotta believe that, in her heart, she knows better.

How much longer do you think she'll go along with this?; 9/22/12, 4:45 PM
Chip S. said...: How much longer do you think she'll go along with this?

Isn't "going along with stuff" exactly how she's gotten this far? Why expect scruples all of a sudden?; 9/22/12, 4:50 PM
YoungHegelian said...: One of the things that pushed me right-ward, especially after 9/11, was my realization that our Islamist enemy was an apocalyptic religious movement.

Modern lefties, either moderate or not, simply have no gut understanding of apocalyptic spirituality. They think it's either a pose, or false consciousness. The idea that a group of people will see the world burn to placate their God is just simply beyond their ken. I remember some European politicians discussing the problem of Middle eastern poverty after 9/11, as if the 9/11 terrorists, ANY OF THEM, came from poor families. The lefties people simply cannot listen to the religious justifications given by the Islamists themselves, and believe that the Islamists actually believe what they are saying.

If you'd like a test case, discuss with a lefty the fact that high level Iranian officials have repeatedly said they intend to annihilate Israel, and see such an act as one step to bringing the occulted Mahdi back to rule the world in an age of Islamic peace. They simply don't believe people can be stupid enough to start a nuclear war for that!; 9/22/12, 5:02 PM
jr565 said...: For an attack of our embassies beucase of an obscure You Tube video it was awfully convenient that it fell on 9/11. Now, I believe in some degree of coincidence like the next guy. But c'mon.; 9/22/12, 5:10 PM
The Drill SGT said...: The scandal has five+ huge problems for Obama/clinton.

1. The abysmal intelligenve operation in Libya
2. the naive Rules of Engagement, signed off by Clinton for a station in a very dangerous part of the world
3. The bogus cover story of a movie demonstration, designed to shift the blame from 1 and 2 above.
4. The failure to defend America's Bill of Rights and their oaths of office
5. The coverup of all of the above.

Are they completely incompetent, or just lying fools who think we're idiots?; 9/22/12, 5:19 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Everything the media regurgitates is for the glory and coverup of their beloved dictator.; 9/22/12, 5:21 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: ...Be sure to purchase the new American flag with the Obama symbol. Hury before all the folks at NBC snap them up.; 9/22/12, 5:23 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Hurry...; 9/22/12, 5:25 PM
edutcher said...: Well, you know freedom of speech is one of those things the Lefties think should be reserved only for them.

That was one of their standard raps back in the good old days of the anti war movement.

Shouting Thomas said...

Althouse, I'm not exactly a Hillary supporter...

But, I gotta believe that, in her heart, she knows better.

If she did, she'd be POTUS. Shout, time to face the fact the Smartest Woman in the World isn't.

How much longer do you think she'll go along with this?

As long as she can.

After this, her public life is over.; 9/22/12, 5:29 PM
Anonymous said...: " As the more cynical Islamic imperialists occasionally reflected, how quickly the supposed defenders of liberal, pluralist, Western values came to sound as if they were competing to be Islam’s lead prison bitch.

Gee, that’d make a pretty funny number for Koran: The Musical next time Secretary Clinton wants a night out on Broadway, wouldn’t it?"

The man can turn a phrase.

As always, Steyn nails it.; 9/22/12, 5:32 PM
Brent said...: My son is a Marine Security Guard at an Embassy on the other side of the world. He can't say much about what they are doing right now, and I don't ask.

I will not vote for Obama.

Steyn is utterly and completely correct in his summing of the situation - this is a White House and a President caught with their pants down, by putting politics before national security and national honor are getting more Americans not even in war zones needlessly in harm's way.

Thank you to all of service men and women.

Can't wait for this "biggest fairy tale I've ever seen (thanks Bill Clinton - we agree)" to be fired after the votes are tallied on Nov 7th.

President-elect Romney - boy, that feels great!; 9/22/12, 5:33 PM
Ironclad said...: I fear for the reaction of "can't we all get along (and ban these "provications") type talk that I hear more and more on the talk shows. It is rare to hear on any of the "mainstream" shows anyone take a hard line Freedom of Speech line these days. When did the word "hate" become synonymous with "disagree"?

The media cover up is breathtaking too - anyone who brings up such discussion finds themselves silenced by a quickly called commercial break. If this story was during Bush's time, we would have had 24 hour coverage.

And I lived in Canada when the trials over Steyn's writing were starting - he is a courageous man to have stood down these people up there. But most disturbing was the reaction of most Canadian's to the trials (Oh, we should not offend). And now the same reaction is here.; 9/22/12, 5:38 PM
Mark said...: Obama has two core camps who will vote for him no matter what.

Those who can't admit they screwed up royally in letting that guy get the nomination, let alone the Presidency.

Those who truly believe Republicans/ Conservatives are out to control their precious bodily fluids and the organs that produce them.; 9/22/12, 5:56 PM
Comanche Voter said...: Ah well, another lap in the clown car for Barry and Hillary.; 9/22/12, 6:03 PM
Caroline said...: When did the word "hate" become synonymous with "disagree"?

When Obama became President. All disagreement became "hateful" racism. There was no media focus on the need to curtail "hate" speech when the left was fantasizing about Bush assassinations.

I don't like this trend towards "hating" the opposition. I can disagree with someone and still respect them, and their right to disagree with me.

However I have lost all respect for the Dem. party since it has become clear that, ironically, "hate speech"-- as in demonizing those who oppose Obama and/or his policies-- has been their re-election strategy for Obama for the past four years. It's an ugly tactic that is harmful to our country.; 9/22/12, 6:04 PM
yashu said...: Glenn Greenwald had a column on this same topic in yesterday's GUARDIAN UK (online).

I haven't read that column, but gotta give Greenwald credit. He's one of the very rare, exceptional progressives who's actually stuck by his values & principles and remained intellectually consistent during Obama's term. He's maintained the same standards in his criticism of Obama as in his criticism of Bush. In that he's like you, too, Cook. Props for that.; 9/22/12, 6:05 PM
yashu said...: Steyn, of course, knows better than most that defending free speech is not an academic exercise, and that we're right to feel alarm at any noises or moves the government makes to put seemingly innocuous, rationalizable, well-intentioned limits on it.

Steyn had to face prosecution and the prospect of being banned from publication for life in Canada-- for something he wrote. In Canada-- America's fraternal twin.

Steyn knows better than most that those of us who feel alarmed at this whole ado over an obscure youtube film (an ado made not just-- supposedly-- by the "protesters"/ terrorists, but by the US administration itself) are not being silly, paranoid, merely politically partisan, or making a "hero" out of this Nakoula fellow, whoever he is. We have legitimate reasons for our concern-- and you just have to look around the world, at fellow western democracies, to see why.

Of course, if you're not very attached to that aspect of American exceptionalism-- our commitment to the principle of free speech-- I guess you would think our concerns are silly. The likes of Nakoula, or Steyn-- who cares about them? We can do without the likes of their speech, "hate speech," right?

(I wonder what, say, Michael Moore and Bill Maher think about that?)

Here's a great longish essay Steyn wrote about a year ago on the assaults on free speech throughout the west.

IMO the guy's a freaking cassandra. On the topic of free speech, if nothing else, I heed his warning.; 9/22/12, 6:16 PM
Sprezzatura said...: Notice how instaHouse has backed away from the impeachable offense argument.

Now, they only want an apology from BHO. We already know this means they don't even want an apology--cons call non-apologies apologies, when BHO is concerned.

The gig is up. We see your bluster-backtrack.

Will the backtrack continue? Maybe by next week the cons will target their outrage at the perps, as the rest of America has been doing all along.

Or, maybe they'll continue to ironically demonstrate that free speech for hacks is very much alive and well in America.; 9/22/12, 6:17 PM
Unknown said...: This will cost him less than it should. I hope it sticks to him but I'm not optimistic. The more power flows into DC the more tribal politics becomes. The end of it is dictatorship. I wonder if it's possible to avoid.; 9/22/12, 6:21 PM
Dave said...: "JL said...There was no media focus on the need to curtail "hate" speech when the left was fantasizing about Bush assassinations."

Hate speech and hate crime discussions predate the Bush administration. These subjects received a lot of attention following the Matthew Shepard murder in 1998.

Also, I didn't know anyone on the left fantasizing about assassinating Bush. We were just waiting for him to choke to death on pretzels or go hunting with Dick Cheney.; 9/22/12, 6:22 PM
Dave said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/22/12, 6:23 PM
Chip S. said...: Maybe by next week the cons will target their outrage at the perps

You have a bizarre definition of a "perp." Do you also blame women for provoking men to rape?; 9/22/12, 6:23 PM
Sprezzatura said...: Chip,

Perps are perps. In your example the rapist is the perp. In Libya the killers are the perps. Hillary and BHO are not the perps.; 9/22/12, 6:28 PM
wef said...: this edited version of a Hitchens talk should be repeated:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcJxN1VlcuA

I claim the right not to be a censor

nine minutes of you time; 9/22/12, 6:32 PM
yashu said...: Yes, pbj, because it's impossible to be concerned about free speech and feel "outrage at the perps" at the same time.

That's why lefties never criticized or attacked Bush during the war, for his policies or the Patriot Act or anything else, because they were single-mindedly preooccupied with their outrage over 9/11 and jihadi attacks on our soldiers. And of course, all their current "outrage at the perps" would keep them from wasting much time targeting Romney...

Having trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time, are you? Sorry, can't help you with that.; 9/22/12, 6:33 PM
Chip S. said...: PB&J, I interpreted you as calling the filmmaker the perp.; 9/22/12, 6:34 PM
Sprezzatura said...: Yashu,

Around here, the perps are rarely mentioned by you cons, but you blather w/o end re Hillary and BHO.

If walking and chewing gum is so easy, why can't y'all get er done.; 9/22/12, 6:38 PM
Tyrone Slothrop said...: Dave said...

Also, I didn't know anyone on the left fantasizing about assassinating Bush.

Did you miss this? I guess so.; 9/22/12, 6:41 PM
Sprezzatura said...: Anywho,

I'm outa here. Great day, and the first time I've been to my Seattle house in five months means I give up. You cons are right, BHO is evil.

Later; 9/22/12, 6:42 PM
Chip S. said...: PB&J, I can't claim to have detailed knowledge of all the threads here on this general topic, but in the ones I've participated in the cons have been criticizing Obama for having painted Video Guy as the inflamer of an innocent mob of otherwise-peaceful Muslims. I haven't seen any cons failing to blame the savagery on those who planned, led, and executed the murders.

What I've seen far too much of here has been an eagerness to shred the constitution in order to avoid further arousal of a group of people who, it is claimed, simply can't keep from doing what it is they do--swarming like hornets at the least provocation.; 9/22/12, 6:46 PM
Michael K said...: "Watch for the frightening weeks between Election Day and Inauguration Day, when, no matter who wins the election, Barack Obama will retain all the awesome power of the presidency without any of the accountability of an impending election."

Ann, you missed Andrew McCarthy's column right next to Steyn's. Nobody could respect Steyn more than I do but he is writing about something we all know, even the lefties who won't admit it.

The blind sheik caper will take place NO MATTER WHO WINS the election. This will cost us dearly even if there is a President Romney next year.; 9/22/12, 6:52 PM
frank said...: I now know how Winston Churhill felt in the pre-war years. If you voted for Obama in '08, God Bless you. If you vote for Obama in '12, God Bless America.; 9/22/12, 7:03 PM
yashu said...: Around here, the perps are rarely mentioned by you cons, but you blather w/o end re Hillary and BHO.

You don't hear "cons" talking about islamists and terrorists?

I thought you lefties thought cons were too islamophobic. Now they're not outraged enough by islamist violence?

Also, come on. Of course there will be more talk/ discussion/ argument/ blather where there is disagreement. Everyone here agrees that Stevens's murder was shocking, heinous, abhorrent. I feel extreme moral revulsion at those (whether that was a mob or coordinated terrorists or both) who are responsible. Do I have to preface every comment with an expression of my outrage before I can go on to question or criticize related actions (or inactions) by the administration or the MSM?

In fact, the extent of my outrage would motivate some of those questions and criticisms, directed at the actions and inactions of this admin and the MSM.

We can honor the dead, and execrate the killers, and go on to argue about inadequate reportage and government policies and lies, too. Nothing has ever stopped the left from doing this. Why is it now inappropriate for the right to do so?; 9/22/12, 7:09 PM
yashu said...: Later pbj, Seattle's beautiful, enjoy your house.; 9/22/12, 7:10 PM
garage mahal said...: Man, it seems just like yesterday that if you questioned POTUS about anything related to national security you were a filthy fifth columnist traitor who hates America.; 9/22/12, 7:15 PM
CWJ said...: Dave@6:22

I can't believe that you're trying to make that no fantasies about killing Bush kite fly. This has been demolished so often here and elsewhere that I can only assume that you're looking for the abuse you so rightly deserve.

You're a hack and a half and I won't feed you any longer.; 9/22/12, 7:16 PM
garage mahal said...: One British film speaks for every single liberal in America. That's established fact brah!; 9/22/12, 7:24 PM
Joe said...: The scariest part of this episode isn't how Obama or Clinton acted; it's how the main stream media acted. Their failure to a) report the truth and b) defend free speech is utterly shameful.

If the major networks and newspapers had any balls, they'd fire all the idiots who failed to do their jobs as reporters and advocates of the first amendment.; 9/22/12, 7:27 PM
yashu said...: Man, it seems just like yesterday that if you questioned POTUS about anything related to national security you were a filthy fifth columnist traitor who hates America.

And dissent was the highest form of patriotism! "Since when has it been part of American patriotism to keep our mouths shut?" So said our current Secretary of State in 2006.

Funny, eh?

By the way, I'm sure you didn't notice, but there was a lot of disagreement and debate on the right, among Republicans and conservatives and right-wing libertarians, over Bush's foreign and national security policies. I followed much of that debate on blogs. There were neocons and realists and isolatonists and hawks and civil libertarians and all sorts of other varieties and shades in between. There was respect for Bush as CIC, but there was never any monolithic agreement with him, on anything he did, on the right.; 9/22/12, 7:29 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: One obvious question, who do you trust to avenge the killing of our Ambassador, Obama, who has a proven track record in this area, or Romney, who is so risk averse that no one seems to be really certain what his real view is on literally any topic.; 9/22/12, 7:31 PM
Michael said...: Garsge. That was before we closed zgitmo and quit using drones; 9/22/12, 7:32 PM
Michael said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/22/12, 7:32 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: One obvious question, who do you trust to avenge the killing of our Ambassador, Obama, who has a proven track record in this area, or Romney, who is so risk averse that no one seems to be really certain what his real view is on literally any topic

True, Romney never ordered drone strikes against any US citizens while he was governor of Massachussets. That's got to count against him.; 9/22/12, 7:35 PM
Michael said...: ARM. Our CEO apparently had to be egged on to get a "proven record".; 9/22/12, 7:36 PM
Anonymous said...: One British film speaks for every single liberal in America. That's established fact brah!

9/22/12 7:24 PM

Yes, I remember how all the liberals strongly denounced the film when it was released.

Well, actually, I don't.

BTW, garage, I like your new avatar. It's a lovely photo of Elizabeth Warren's grandpa.; 9/22/12, 7:36 PM
Anonymous said...: "True, Romney never ordered drone strikes against any US citizens while he was governor of Massachussets."

I hold that against him. Why didn't he hit Barney Frank's district when he had the chance?; 9/22/12, 7:41 PM
hombre said...: Will we ever find out if the Ambassador was tormented before being murdered or is that a "need to know" deal?; 9/22/12, 7:43 PM
wyo sis said...: "Obama, who has a proven track record in this area"

We're not talking about his political opponents.; 9/22/12, 7:44 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Maguro said...
True, Romney never ordered drone strikes against any US citizens while he was governor of Massachussets. That's got to count against him.

Expressing an opinion that the majority of the country believes to be the real belief of the candidate doesn't strike me as all that difficult, which was my point. The funny thing about the 47% comment was how it functioned like a Rorschach test, no one, left or right, was really certain if this, at last, was the 'real' Romney or whether he was just pandering to a bunch of bigoted donors, who he laughed about when he got back to his hotel room.; 9/22/12, 7:46 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Michael said...
ARM. Our CEO apparently had to be egged on to get a "proven record".

Yeah, everybody's the mother of success, but there was only going to be one mother of failure.; 9/22/12, 7:49 PM
Cedarford said...: Ironclad -

And I lived in Canada when the trials over Steyn's writing were starting - he is a courageous man to have stood down these people up there. But most disturbing was the reaction of most Canadian's to the trials (Oh, we should not offend).

There is a difference between a desire, way to PC in Canada's case NOT to OFFEND the common citizenry in the polity...

And giving ammunition to the enemy to use.

Steyn is the former and he fought a good fight, Nakoula is the latter. He meant to incite, and a whole pack of Islamoids in different countries are as ready to rally their followers on any excuse as fast as Al Sharpton revvs up his pack of black racists whenever interracial crime departs from the usual suspects and it is claimed Whitey did the crime.
My grandfather said in WWII, they loved feeding the jarheads all sorts of ammunition the Japs stupidly gave their enemies. Whip them up into a killing frenzy.
The Japs also had certain success with getting numbers of Asian sympathizers in several countries by playing footage of American racists loving their 1st Amendment Rights braying away about all yellow skinned bastards needing to pay..Fortunately, the Japs engaged in such brutality it wiped out the gains of dumb Freedom-Loving Americans running their mouths off in a way that aided the Japanese "Anti-colonialism. Co-Prosperity sphere, Asia for the Asians!" strategies.

Right now, there are Neocons and Christian Zionists that ache for another war...this one the Big War that will be as meaningful as WWII..The war against Islam.

Problem is we are not ready.
1. We are on the edge of a 2nd Great Depression, and the war they thirst for would put us in that along with 7-10 dollar a gallon gas, rationing, and taxes going into the 50% plus range.

2. We need to get a stable energy supply.

3. I do not want to have Obama at the helm if the war the Fundies and Neocons seek happenes.

4. This sort of Naloula shit makes our job if a war comes out far more difficult. Far too frequently, our planners make stupid assumptions about cooperation with Muslim nations is a given - and we are told by the Turks, etc. to fuck off given our fealty to Israel.
It makes it even harder to contemplate a modicum of support in any Muslim country we may have to overfly or use bases in if we become "The Nation That Sanctions Blaspheming the Prophet" working with the "Zionist Entity" to launch preemptive war on Iran.
Even the nations that hate the Shiite Muslims of Iran and want to greenlight an attack would find that hard to swallow; 9/22/12, 7:51 PM
MisterBuddwing said...: One British film speaks for every single liberal in America. That's established fact brah!

For what it's worth:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/kilborn-cbs-target-bush-0

And:

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621; 9/22/12, 7:54 PM
Chip S. said...: One obvious question, who do you trust to avenge the killing of our Ambassador

Well, I know which one that can't be trusted to pay enough attention to intel to provide protection to our ambassadors.; 9/22/12, 8:08 PM
yashu said...: Cedarford, granting for the sake of argument that you're right about Nakoula, the problem is that making an example or exception of him is too easily generalizable. By both islamists and the government. If you make Nakoula an exception to the First Amendment, he'll come to define a new rule. Cases "like" Nakoula's. And who gets to determine what is relevantly "like"?

Regardless of what Nakoula intended or what his movie is or isn't responsible for, to make an example or exception of him is to give islamist terrorists, on the one hand, and the US government, on the other, too much power over American free speech. It sets a precedent. One that is likely to be followed-- by islamist terrorists, on the one hand, and the US government, on the other.; 9/22/12, 8:08 PM
sakredkow said...: The more I read of this stuff the more it seems to me that electing Romney is the same thing as giving the keys to the car to the children.; 9/22/12, 8:18 PM
Howard said...: yashu

we have no idea why the Feds wanted to talk with this guy. Go ahead and pretend he is some symbolic hero. He is also a scumbag and a person of interest in the murder of our ambassador.

I know you guys are all Brietbart and shit. Bully for you and the fancy decoder rings. Hillary is ready to walk. What has Romnulus had to say about the issue today? I'm sure he has been told to keep is cocksucker shut.; 9/22/12, 8:19 PM
Michael said...: Phx. 16 trillion in debt. 4 dollar gas. 8% plus unemployment. A child could do better. I would let my child drive before I would let this jackass drive.; 9/22/12, 8:22 PM
Michael K said...: "Right now, there are Neocons and Christian Zionists that ache for another war...this one the Big War that will be as meaningful as WWII..The war against Islam."

Another brilliant dickweed comment. Islam declared war on us in 1979, before you were sentient, probably. Otherwise why say something so dumb ? Did you not notice the World Trade Center falling down ? How about the embassies in Africa ?

I know your solution. Give Saddam Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. That would be brilliant.

We need our own oil now and we have an idiot who is going to shut down our coal fired power plants. Electricity will double, at least, in cost.; 9/22/12, 8:24 PM
Michael said...: ARM. An ironic use of an old saw. I am not sure you get it. Our president has never been at the helm of any failure, ever. Ask him.; 9/22/12, 8:24 PM
Anonymous said...: " Go ahead and pretend he is some symbolic hero" Who, exactly, besides Shouting Thomas, has made a "hero" of this guy? The whole point of the First Amendment is that even scumbags have a right to free speech.; 9/22/12, 8:27 PM
Chip S. said...: a person of interest in the murder of our ambassador.

Riiiight.

And pb&j wonders why the cons here don't talk more about the real perps. The Obots here still haven't figured out who the actual perps are.; 9/22/12, 8:30 PM
Howard said...: Michael K

It was way (way!) before 1979. It's been like 1,000-years, dude. That's before even Althouse was born. The problem got bad when we helped kick the Turks off their necks back in WWI.; 9/22/12, 8:30 PM
Howard said...: Chip S

you mean the guys that got runoff in Benghazi by a pro-US popular uprising.; 9/22/12, 8:31 PM
Cedarford said...: Michael K said...
"Right now, there are Neocons and Christian Zionists that ache for another war...this one the Big War that will be as meaningful as WWII..The war against Islam."

Another brilliant dickweed comment. Islam declared war on us in 1979, before you were sentient, probably. Otherwise why say something so dumb ? Did you not notice the World Trade Center falling down ? How about the embassies in Africa ?

================
I hate to belabor the obvious, but like with the Soviets, we are in a Cold War where proxies for the most part, but sometimes direct parties, die in small proxy wars.

Piddling stuff on the scale of major war like the Civil War, WWI, WWII.

When I say they ache for major war, I mean in a total global war scale. As much as some extreme radical Islamists - these Neocons and Fundies want to leave the Cold War with Islam. Take it white hot, accept and inflict tens of millions of casualties.; 9/22/12, 8:32 PM
Chip S. said...: I mean the guys the administration was warned about on Sept. 8 and did nothing to stop.

I don't mean the US citizen that our fearless warrior president tried to use as a scapegoat to cover up the fact that he put a higher priority on resting up for his Vegas trip than monitoring events in Benghazi in real time.; 9/22/12, 8:36 PM
Howard said...: OK exile. You are right. My bad

Right 1st amendment is good for Skokie Nazi's and such. However, when their is a link to murder, a trip to downtown is in order.

Also, we have no idea what kind of intel is available on this scuzball and who he may have been dealing with. He is a lead and quite possibly a dead end.

WTF is wrong with bringing him in for a chat? Because the right wants to punk Barack Hussein Obama by second guessing every fucking move in real time while the fur is still flying.; 9/22/12, 8:39 PM
Howard said...: OK Chip S. you are into 20/20 hindsight. Take a number, pal the rest of us are looking ahead at what's coming next.

You and your fellow hand wringers are so completely feminized, you have no clue how disgusting and un-American you're attitude is.; 9/22/12, 8:43 PM
Chip S. said...: you have no clue how disgusting and un-American you're attitude is.

You forgot "racist."; 9/22/12, 8:50 PM
Chip S. said...: the right wants to punk Barack Hussein Obama by second guessing every fucking move in real time while the fur is still flying.

How about if we just criticize him while he's partying with Jay-Z? Would that be ok?; 9/22/12, 8:52 PM
Known Unknown said...: One obvious question, who do you trust to avenge the killing of our Ambassador, Obama, who has a proven track record in this area, or Romney, who is so risk averse that no one seems to be really certain what his real view is on literally any topic.

I trust the men ordered to do the job.; 9/22/12, 8:54 PM
Howard said...: Chip S. I care less about your race. Your Oprah Dr Phil soap-opera view of the world and war is the core issue.; 9/22/12, 8:55 PM
Howard said...: I understand his multi-tasking disturbs you. He should have a sob-fest instead?; 9/22/12, 8:58 PM
yashu said...: Cedarford, those "neocons and fundies" you're referring to are strawmen. I'm acquainted with a fair amount of the right-wing blogosphere, and literally no one-- not even the most rabid anti-Muslim commenters I've ever come across-- bear any resemblance to your description. Other than the occasional moby.

Honestly, I don't know where in the world you got that picture of what "Neocons and Christian Zionists" want. Not one single person I've ever come across that I would identify or would identify himself as "Neocon" or "Christian Zionist" aches for "the Big War that will be as meaningful as WWII.. The war against Islam."

Total straw man.

It's ridiculously false to say "neocons" want a "war against Islam," when "neocons" are precisely those who most notoriously advocated the Bush doctrine concerning the liberalization of the Middle East, hoping for Muslim democratization, etc. They can be accused of being too idealistic about Islam-- not aching to wage war on it! And Christian Zionists are primarily concerned with Israel's survival-- forestalling total war, not pushing for it-- they're Zionists for Christ's sake (inadvertent pun), not Crusaders!

Even the most rabid anti-Muslim commenters I've come across, the extreme hyperbolic types who fantasize/ joke about dropping nukes, don't have any yen for "war." What they want is to be left the fuck alone by terrorists, get out of the ME and be done with it.

So: your argument is invoking straw men.; 9/22/12, 9:00 PM
chickelit said...: Free speech threatens Obama's reelection chances. Is it any wonder he needs to throttle it?; 9/22/12, 9:00 PM
Chip S. said...: Your Oprah Dr Phil soap-opera view of the world and war is the core issue.

phx says Romney's callow. PB&J says cons aren't talking about the real perps in the murder of our ambassador. And Howard says I have an "Oprah Dr. Phil" view of the world and war.

What could be the cause of this widespread projection of Obama's flaws onto his critics?

My money's on desperation, but may just be my overly compassionate Oprah side.; 9/22/12, 9:02 PM
chickelit said...: Howard and ARM loathe Romney--I get that. I just wonder what makes them love Obama so? I have yet to hear either dismiss Obama's growing cult of personality. That should alarm any reasonable person. When I asked this yesterday, all got was- "what about Reagan worship?" Non responsive answer.; 9/22/12, 9:04 PM
sakredkow said...: "neocons" are precisely those who most notoriously advocated the Bush doctrine concerning the liberalization of the Middle East, hoping for Muslim democratization, etc.

And incidentally most notoriously advocated invading Iraq, in response to an attack from...Afghanistan.; 9/22/12, 9:06 PM
sakredkow said...: I do think Romney's callow. I also think he's pretty ignorant of the world.; 9/22/12, 9:06 PM
Chip S. said...: And incidentally most notoriously advocated invading Iraq, in response to an attack from...Afghanistan.

You've already forgotten that Step 1 was knocking the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan? Really?

But do we really have to go over the entire history of the last 11 years in order to discuss the last two weeks?; 9/22/12, 9:10 PM
Chip S. said...: I do think Romney's callow.

Hey, I wasn't calling you a liar, phx.

What fascinates me is that you really view him this way, especially in comparison to Obama.; 9/22/12, 9:11 PM
chickelit said...: phx said...
I do think Romney's callow. I also think he's pretty ignorant of the world.

Now you sound just like a Sullivanist.; 9/22/12, 9:12 PM
sakredkow said...: But do we really have to go over the entire history of the last 11 years in order to discuss the last two weeks?

Yo, don't blame me. Blame the dude who started in on neocons "notoriously" advocating the Bush Doctrine. I was just responding to that with a little balance.; 9/22/12, 9:13 PM
Synova said...: "When I asked this yesterday, all got was- "what about Reagan worship?" Non responsive answer."

Save us Zombie Reagan, you are our only hope.

I got information the other day about doing calling for Romney. I mentioned to the girl that I hadn't done anything like that since Ronald Reagan ran for president.

She got sparkly eyes. I'm not kidding. Oh, she breathed, I wish I could have worked on his campaign! I assured her that I had only done calling for the local party, certainly not for his *campaign*. I didn't quite know how to deal with someone getting all sparkly eyes.

But you know what? Reagan is DEAD.

It's sort of silly for some 20 year old to get breathless over him, but it's still not the same thing at all as building a cult of personality around Obama.; 9/22/12, 9:15 PM
Sammy said...: " President Barack Obama is about to release or transfer 55 Gitmo prisoners, 1/3 of the inmates, despite reports that the Libyan believed to be behind the killing of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens was a former Guantanamo inmate transferred to Libyan custody.
The large percentage of those scheduled to be released are Yemeni, according to a list made public by the Obama administration.
Obama stopped the release or transfer of Yemeni inmates in 2010, because the conditions in the country were viewed as too "unsettled" at the time."

After this week does it look like Yemeni
" conditions improved", It's as if he doesn't care about anything except making some progressive interest groups happy before the election.; 9/22/12, 9:16 PM
sakredkow said...: Hey, I wasn't calling you a liar, phx.

Whoa, where did that come from? I must have expressed myself poorly somewhere as I never thought you did.

I do think think Romney's inexperienced and callow in foreign policy compared to Obama. Yes, I really do.; 9/22/12, 9:16 PM
sakredkow said...: It's sort of silly for some 20 year old to get breathless over him, but it's still not the same thing at all as building a cult of personality around Obama.

Well I suppose it's silly but young people being young... I don't know if it's better or worse than falling all over yourself for Justin Bieber. Actually it's probably worse, but that's what kids will do.; 9/22/12, 9:20 PM
yashu said...: WTF, phx? Did you disagree with or refute anything in my statement? No. And now (like in the earlier thread) you once again accuse me of "starting in on" something, when I'm just directly replying to and countering a claim/ argument made by another commenter.

Maybe it's not worth replying to you, after all.; 9/22/12, 9:23 PM
Anonymous said...: "You and your fellow hand wringers are so completely feminized, you have no clue how disgusting and un-American you're attitude is."

So says a bootlicking worshipper of President Mom Jeans. Do you get tingles up your leg when Obama speaks, Howie?

It's so charming, watching liberal men trying to talk tough. Akin to Pee Wee Herman doing gangsta rap.

But, Howie, I thought "dissent is patriotic!"; 9/22/12, 9:23 PM
chickelit said...: One thing Romney lacks is a cult of personality. Despite what Crack (and Crack alone) thinks.; 9/22/12, 9:23 PM
sakredkow said...: Chickelit one thing Romney lacks is a personality.; 9/22/12, 9:24 PM
Chip S. said...: phx, the "liar" comment was meant to be jocular.

The point is, I believe that you're sincere and not a crazy person, so your opinion on callowness is truly puzzling to me.

Romney has experience as a successful executive in the for-profit sector, the private non-profit sector, and government. I will be delighted to see Obama surrender the car keys to this man.; 9/22/12, 9:25 PM
sakredkow said...: Well jeez yashu, I didn't want to be blamed for rehashing the last eleven years either.

And it's not that serious yashu. I'll do whatever you want.; 9/22/12, 9:26 PM
Anonymous said...: "I do think think Romney's inexperienced and callow in foreign policy compared to Obama."

Pray tell, what was Obama's foreign policy experience in 2008? As far as I know, he doesn't even speak Bahasa Indonesia and he lived there as a child. I hear he speaks pretty good Austrian though.; 9/22/12, 9:27 PM
Robert Cook said...: "...high level Iranian officials have repeatedly said they intend to annihilate Israel...."

Where? When?; 9/22/12, 9:27 PM
sakredkow said...: Romney has experience as a successful executive in the for-profit sector, the private non-profit sector, and government.

Yeah the callow co-sign remark was strictly in relation to his understanding of foreign policy. I don't think his strengths as a CEO help him there even if I stipulated they help him with the economy.

I'm off my game with jocularity I guess. ~~In fourteen months I only smiled once and I didn't do it consciously~~; 9/22/12, 9:30 PM
Chip S. said...: Here you go, RC.; 9/22/12, 9:31 PM
sakredkow said...: was Obama's foreign policy experience in 2008?

I'm not arguing that Obama was more experienced in 2008 than Romney is now. I'm arguing that Obama is more experienced now than Romney is.; 9/22/12, 9:32 PM
gk1 said...: I don't expect even handedness from the MSM but this is frickin' ridiculous. Their assertions this was related to the film should have been horse laughed right then and there. This is why its dangerous to have a lap dog press. The guys in the white house are never going to learn until they fall on their fucking faces and have a few teeth knocked out. Mommy and daddy can't always be there when the fall. Stop propping them up, assholes.; 9/22/12, 9:32 PM
Chip S. said...: Obama is more experienced now than Romney is.

So you were all-in for Bush in '04?; 9/22/12, 9:34 PM
sakredkow said...: Respect for yashu. Pardonnez-moi.; 9/22/12, 9:34 PM
chickelit said...: phx said...
Chickelit one thing Romney lacks is a personality.

I sincerely doubt that. He's certainly less charismatic than Obama. I think that is a plus. Obama is way too caught up in looking and acting like a celebrity. Maybe you consider that a positive. May be you just think he's good-looking.; 9/22/12, 9:36 PM
Anonymous said...: Robert Cook asks "Where? When?"

Well, there's this:

http://www.arabnews.com/node/421222

Which took all of 10 seconds to find on the Internet. Plenty more where that came from. If you're interested.

I suspect you are not.; 9/22/12, 9:38 PM
sakredkow said...: No I wasn't for Bush in '04 because I saw how badly steered he was by the neo-cons in his first admin.

I got to say, Bush started out beautifully immediately following 9/11. He really made me proud. I thought he rose to the occasion. And then came Iraq.

But I won't ever say anything bad about that administration and their response right after 9/11. I felt for each of them, but esp Bush and Ashcroft. My heart almost broke for them.; 9/22/12, 9:38 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: yashu said...
Even the most rabid anti-Muslim commenters I've come across, the extreme hyperbolic types who fantasize/ joke about dropping nukes, don't have any yen for "war." What they want is to be left the fuck alone by terrorists, get out of the ME and be done with it.

I am not sure that this is really true. People like Lynne Cheney seem to believe in permawar, any disengagement means weakness. I agree that the bulk of the population is war weary and just wants to get the fuck out of the middle east. This is why Romney hooking up with the neocons made so little sense politically. Tacking towards the Ron Paul wing of the party would have made more sense both politically and from the point of view of common sense.; 9/22/12, 9:39 PM
yashu said...: And it's not that serious yashu. I'll do whatever you want.

Hmm let me think...

Anyway phx, cool. I'm just not the flame war type (and avoid getting into arguments with commenters who are). Hell, I've dished some out at you, so I know should I take some back. But just seems like you've been carping at & about me personally today for no reason at all. Maybe oversensitive, never mind.; 9/22/12, 9:43 PM
sakredkow said...: Bush had a line about the dissidents and the oppressed throughout the world that he delivered in his 2002 State of the Union. Something about, "The United States sees you for who you are. The future leaders of your countries."

I thought and still think it was one of the great lines from a SOTU. That never stops making me feel proud.; 9/22/12, 9:45 PM
chickelit said...: ARM stretched: People like Lynne Cheney seem to believe in permawar, any disengagement means weakness.

LOL! You're really desperate, aren't you?; 9/22/12, 9:45 PM
yashu said...: Respect for yashu. Pardonnez-moi.

Done, back atcha.; 9/22/12, 9:47 PM
Caroline said...: Hate speech and hate crime discussions predate the Bush administration. These subjects received a lot of attention following the Matthew Shepard murder in 1998.

I was addressing the question asked- When did the word "hate" become synonymous with "disagree"?

I don't recall the talking heads labeling opposition to any previous president as racism or "hate" speech. That's a new, despicable low introduced by the Dem. Party to tar Republicans, conservatives, Tea Partiers, and anyone opposed to Obama's policies. Deny and ignore this tactic if you are inclined. I, and many others who have been disparaged, won't.

Also, I didn't know anyone on the left fantasizing about assassinating Bush.

Again, ignore it if you wish.; 9/22/12, 9:49 PM
sakredkow said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/22/12, 9:50 PM
Unknown said...: ----He is also a scumbag and a person of interest in the murder of our ambassador.

Lots of scumbags don't have a half dozen heavily armed deputies KNOCK ON THE DOOR at midnight.

a person of interest!!!!! You can't be serious!!!! The Al Queda local branch in Libya collaborated with an Egyptian Copt.

Gives new meaning to whacky conspiracy theory.; 9/22/12, 9:52 PM
sakredkow said...: Yashu, I can dish it out hard and I'll buy the first beer for anyone who is still talking to me.

But you let me know when I cross your line.

~~I want you to make love not war
I know you heard it before~~; 9/22/12, 9:53 PM
Robert Cook said...: Ummm...dudes...quotes from President Ahmadinejad to the effect that "Zionism is a cancer that must will disappear" or "must be destroyed" do not constitute any sort of assertions, "repeated" or otherwise, that Iran "intends to annihilate Israel."

Ahmadinejad is a largely ceremonial figure and does not lead Iran's government, for one. For another, his statements, kooky and apocalyptic as they are, are broadly general in their nature, a politician's boilerplate pandering, and offer no specificity as to how or when Israel might be destroyed or made to disappear, or who might bring about such an excision of the tumor.

His comments are much the same kind of xenophobic vitriol common among our own political class during the cold war and the red scare. Should Russia have taken every stray remark by politicians trying to gain prominence and win votes by baying for commie blood as serious policy statements by the American government that we intended to annihilate them?; 9/22/12, 9:55 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: chickelit said...
I have yet to hear either dismiss Obama's growing cult of personality.

As a personality cult, things definitely peaked at the 2008 convention and this would have been a more valid criticism back then. I also found the hagiography a bit excessive at that time. For myself, I couldn't even be bothered watching Obama's DNC address this year, so that gives you an idea how I feel. This being said I, like the majority of Americans, basically like the guy. He seems to have a few core beliefs, primarily to help the less fortunate, and is otherwise a pragmatic problem solver.; 9/22/12, 9:59 PM
Chip S. said...: Cook is right. We should demand proof of nefarious intent before slandering Iran. Only then is action called for.

And Obama's just the guy to rely on to avenge shit. Someone reasonable told me that.; 9/22/12, 10:01 PM
yashu said...: Yashu, I can dish it out hard and I'll buy the first beer for anyone who is still talking to me.

I'll get the second round.; 9/22/12, 10:02 PM
Chip S. said...: He seems to have a few core beliefs, primarily to help the less fortunate, and is otherwise a pragmatic problem solver.

There's more of that bizarre projection.

What problems has Obama solved, not just as president, but in his adult life? Other than the problem of getting elected to office, of course.; 9/22/12, 10:05 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: chickelit said...
ARM stretched: People like Lynne Cheney seem to believe in permawar, any disengagement means weakness.

LOL! You're really desperate, aren't you?

No. I find Lynne Cheney scary. I wouldn't want people like that back in charge of the administration under any circumstance. What part of 'failed strategy' do they not get.; 9/22/12, 10:07 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: What problems has Obama solved, not just as president, but in his adult life?

Well, he almost got that asbestos removed from Altgeld Gardens.

Came *this* close.; 9/22/12, 10:09 PM
sakredkow said...: What problems has Obama solved, not just as president, but in his adult life?

WTF? What problems in his adult life would you be talking about?; 9/22/12, 10:11 PM
Anonymous said...: It's ridiculously false to say "neocons" want a "war against Islam," when "neocons" are precisely those who most notoriously advocated the Bush doctrine concerning the liberalization of the Middle East, hoping for Muslim democratization, etc. They can be accused of being too idealistic about Islam-- not aching to wage war on it!

Cedarford: As usual, yashu says it well. I supported the Iraq War and your strawman doesn't describe me either.

My concern is to avoid a war with Islam, which after 9-11 and in view of the militant Islamic programs to obtain WMD, looked like a sure bet.

We won't lose that war but I greatly fear we will be forced to kill huge numbers of Muslims. I don't want that. The War on Terror and the efforts to democratize the Middle East looked like the best shot to avoid it.

That effort failed because the majority of Muslims don't want to democratize or to give up jihad, and because of internal opposition in America and Europe.

So now we will wait and see. We will have to hope that Muslims somehow moderate on their own before they get WMD and attack America or Israel.

Frankly, I'm not optimistic. I don't believe we will get through the century without a hundred million or more people, mostly Muslims, dying in a war.; 9/22/12, 10:11 PM
Chip S. said...: WTF? What problems in his adult life would you be talking about?

Jeez, I'm letting your side use the guy's entire adult life from which to pick one single cherry of a solved problem, and your panties are in a wad over that?

The question is what solutions ARM is talking about. Try a different pair of reading glasses.; 9/22/12, 10:16 PM
Anonymous said...: What problems has Obama solved, not just as president, but in his adult life?

Well, he almost got that asbestos removed from Altgeld Gardens.

Came *this* close.

9/22/12 10:09 PM

The beer summit was nice too.

And he did a bang-up job bringing the Olympics to Chi-oh, wait.; 9/22/12, 10:18 PM
sakredkow said...: I guess he solved the problem of getting an education. I guess he solved the problem of what he would do for a career. I guess he solved the problem of finding a mate and raising his progeny. Given what we see I guess he's pretty good at solving whatever problems he has had in his personal life.

[
shrug
]; 9/22/12, 10:19 PM
Chip S. said...: phx, let me put this in terms even a liberal can understand: What problems faced by any person or persons has Obama solved since he left law school?

I'd accept blame for lack of clarity were it not for the fact that Maguro and exiledonmainst understood my question.; 9/22/12, 10:23 PM
sakredkow said...: Not that I expect that to lead to a retraction of "What problems has Obama solved, not just as president, but in his adult life?", which strikes me as a little amateurish.; 9/22/12, 10:23 PM
Anonymous said...: "I guess he solved the problem of getting an education. I guess he solved the problem of what he would do for a career. I guess he solved the problem of finding a mate and raising his progeny."

And Romney has done none of those things.

Come to think of it, millions of Americans have managed, somehow, some way, to get educations, figure out what they would do career-wise, and married and raised children. Are they all qualified to be president?

Jesus, you're praising Obama for meeting the minimal requirements for adulthood? Talk about the bigotry of low expectations.; 9/22/12, 10:25 PM
sakredkow said...: What problems faced by any person or persons has Obama solved since he left law school?

You're seriously saying Obama hasn't solved any problems since leaving law school?

You should stick to "He's a lousy President and a socialist."; 9/22/12, 10:25 PM
sakredkow said...: And Romney has done none of those things.

I never said Romney didn't.; 9/22/12, 10:26 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Chip S. said...

What problems has Obama solved,

Well, my retirement portfolio looks one heck of a lot better now than it did at the end of Bush's second term and the value of my house went up this year. It's still worth less now that it was at the peak of the bubble, but they don't call them bubbles for nothing.

Obviously I don't give Obama all the credit for this but a lot of people like me, not entirely unreasonably, think things could have been a lot worse. When we were in the real free fall stage I was planning our backyard vegetable garden.; 9/22/12, 10:26 PM
sakredkow said...: The big one for me is that as far as I can tell he prevented the complete collapse of the economy on taking office.; 9/22/12, 10:27 PM
Michael K said...: Howard said...

"Michael K

It was way (way!) before 1979. It's been like 1,000-years, dude. That's before even Althouse was born. The problem got bad when we helped kick the Turks off their necks back in WWI. "

Fair enough although they didn't even have printing presses, let alone know how to fly or nukes.; 9/22/12, 10:30 PM
Synova said...: "You're seriously saying Obama hasn't solved any problems since leaving law school?"

I don't think that's an outrageous claim.

Of course he's solved problems that anyone going through life has solved. But I don't know if a person could even say that he's *solved* anything as President either.; 9/22/12, 10:31 PM
sakredkow said...: I'll get the second round.

What a wench. :-); 9/22/12, 10:33 PM
yashu said...: creeley, I was something of a neocon too, and like you have moved toward a more "realist" (or "Realpolitik") view of the M.E.

There's still a tiny spark of idealism or hope left in me, though. There are all sorts of jostling forces in the M.E., and some of them are pro-liberalization. Look at the history of early modern Europe: epochal shifts like that take centuries (often bloody centuries).

Of course, fully modern and democratic Europe was not thereby inoculated against just as much (or worse) awfulness and blood.; 9/22/12, 10:36 PM
chickelit said...: phx said...
The big one for me is that as far as I can tell he prevented the complete collapse of the economy on taking office.

It's too hard to give credit to someone for something which didn't happen. This also reminds me of the specious promise to stop the tides from rising. Again, he can't take credit for something which didn't happen.

I've probably got my eye on what constitutes a "complete collapse" as much as you or the next guy. To be honest I'm more worried about the future than how close we were to collapse. Also, you personalized what steps were taken, much as you personally credit Obama with taking out bin Laden.; 9/22/12, 10:40 PM
sakredkow said...: I did want to believe that neocon dream of establishing a shining beacon of democracy in Iraq - an exemplar for all MENA to aspire to. That didn't seem unreasonable. So I wasn't quite against the Iraq war from day one.

But the way the administration went about so ineptly, alienating everyone with that unnecessary swagger and arrogance. I just felt I knew where the seeds of failure were from when it turned out so badly.; 9/22/12, 10:42 PM
sakredkow said...: It's too hard to give credit to someone for something which didn't happen.

I agree nobody can ever really know, at least I don't think they can. That's why I did say "as far as I can tell".; 9/22/12, 10:45 PM
Chip S. said...: phx, I will tell you flat out that to the extent that the economy was saved from catastrophe that was accomplished by TARP 1, b/c the big threat to the economy was from a massive credit crisis. That was accomplished by Bush, not Obama.

Nothing Obama has done has had any effect other than to weaken the recovery.; 9/22/12, 10:48 PM
Cedarford said...: phx - The big one for me is that as far as I can tell he prevented the complete collapse of the economy on taking office.

=================
Bush and Paulson did the heavy lifting, with Bush just a little redeemed from largely ignoring real growing fiscal and economic problems to play American Chuchill and focus on his two wars and "The Heroes".

Not that a few more trillion were not needed as mismanagement going back to Carter and Reagan days blew up in our face...but when you look at Black Messiahs stimulus..you see it largely went to money down the rathole things rather than create new, permanent jobs.
Fed money to prop up state and municipal union workers at present levels of pay and benefits, money to private industry workers for the same - not money to create new private sector jobs.
No shovel ready jobs with Obama unwilling to buck EPA green nazi permitting procedures...and simultaneously he launched his war on coal and other evil carbon energy sources costing jobs while doing his useless Green Energy and cash for clunkers stimulus. More money to bankers..largely to prop up housing prices in overbuilt parts of the country so all the get rich quick speculators would not take a bath.

Then, convinced he had stopped the oceans rise and the planet was healing...Obama stopped all jobs efforts to focus away from the economy - to Obamacare.

I considered John McCain fucking clueless on the economy and financial matters. After he was burned in the Keating 5 he stayed as far away as possible, thinking a man with his gravitas would be fit for nothing less than the higher realms of the military and national security.

But I think even McCain would have done a better job than Obama..and if Hillary or Romney had been in the Oval Office - the economy and the jobs picture would have been vastly, vastly better.; 9/22/12, 10:52 PM
sakredkow said...: You lost me at "Black Messiah."

tl at that point. dr; 9/22/12, 10:55 PM
Chip S. said...: You lost me at "Black Messiah."

tl at that point. dr

No problem; I gave you the executive summary.

But if you just skip down to the line starting with "No shovel ready jobs" you'll get some useful details.; 9/22/12, 10:59 PM
sakredkow said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/22/12, 11:02 PM
Chip S. said...: You're seriously saying Obama hasn't solved any problems since leaving law school?

I can't let this question go by w/o discussing its logical fallacy. It's a personal failing of mine.

Consider the set of all problems Obama has solved. Now consider the set of Obama-solved problems that ARM is aware of, and which provide the basis for his view of Obama as a "pragmatic problem-solver." The latter is a subset of the former.

SInce the subset of problems solved by Obama that I'm aware of is empty, I was curious to know what are the elements comprised by the subset ARM is aware of.

To wonder if that subset is empty or nonempty is not equivalent to stating that the complete set of problems Obama has solved is empty. The reason for this is that the complete set comprises acts that are not in the public domain as well as information that is publicly available.

Shrieking, overly defensive responses to simple questions--"How can you possibly say Obama has never done anything useful!!"--are among the least attractive features of Obama supporters.; 9/22/12, 11:16 PM
Sammy said...: "The big one for me is that as far as I can tell he prevented the complete collapse of the economy on taking "

So you got nothing, and what stabilized the economy , because it was a finanical bubble bursting was TARP under Bush... But keep thinking on that one.

I will love to hear how the stimulus that passed 4 months after coming into office and wouldn't take effect until months after, long after the ecomny was" free of collapse " would keep the unemployment below 8 % and by 2011 would be at 6.4% and by 2012 at 5.4% , and would be full of shove ready jobs or how Obamacare would lower healthcare insurance rates, or Dodd/Frank would ensure the banks were never too big too fail, and open up leading.

See what all these predictions have in common with your answer,, is they all full of shit like your evidence free statement that Obama supposedly stopped armageddon, but the only piece of legistion that directly corresponded with the crisis was TRAP and the Feds easy money and buying up our debt and their overnight leading at 0% to half the world.; 9/22/12, 11:22 PM
Sprezzatura said...: C4,

Don't be sloppy.

Bush/Paulson were in favor of tarp w/ no accountability and a blank check--just as they gave to the autos.

The spending (i.e. not tax cuts) portion of the stimulus was a blip compared to the wars, tax cuts, and part D. And, you can't overstate the fact that Ronnie created the non war time concept of more than doubling th debt and deficit.

Obama's overseen the loss of more than 600,000 gov jobs. Cons like W saw these numbers increase.

Obama has overseen a massive increase in domestic energy. Coal is going broke because the massive amounts of cheap gas make more financial sense.

You can't logically credit W's no strings strategy for saving the financial system at the same time you complain about BHO's strings attached stewardship of tarp and the auto bailout.

Fixing our spending on healthcare is overdue. The sooner we can identify and regularize the best practices (i.e. advisory panel, aka death panels), the better.; 9/22/12, 11:29 PM
Jim Howard said...: Also, I didn't know anyone on the left fantasizing about assassinating Bush.

For an interesting look in to history before BO, ask google for images related to Kill Bush.; 9/22/12, 11:46 PM
Chip S. said...: You can't logically credit W's no strings strategy for saving the financial system at the same time you complain about BHO's strings attached stewardship of tarp and the auto bailout.

There's no logical contradiction involved at all. The difference is analogous to the distinction b/w acute and chronic disease.

I happen to know a couple of fund managers, each of whom has told me what the credit crisis of '08 looked like to Wall Street insiders. They both said that they truly feared that the drying up of credit would bring the economy to its knees. It was a question of liquidity, not solvency.

Issues like the federal debt or General Motors are matters of solvency. In "saving" GM, all Obama did was suspend the normal rules of bankruptcy in order to redistribute wealth from bondholders to workers. Nothing about GM's basic economic functioning has changed for the better, AFAIK. I don't think I need to say anything about Obama and the federal debt.

As for those public-sector job-loss figures, let's be clear that all of that has occurred at the state and local level--mostly local. Federal-government employment--which is what can reasonably be attributed to Obama--has risen.; 9/22/12, 11:52 PM
Tarzan said...: NEVER APOLOGIZE FOR YOU ART.; 9/22/12, 11:54 PM
Sprezzatura said...: Chip,

You are wrong. Giving the gov a blank check, as Paulson/W wanted for tarp and the auto bailout, would be unwise.

The GM bond holders were paid a discounted value for their bonds. This discounted pricing (around ten cents on the dollar) was inline w/ the market pricing for the bonds before the gov decided to pile in a bunch more dough. It would have been criminal if the gov paid out 100 cents on the dollar to the owners of these garbage bonds. Are you in favor of the gov paying a trader 100 cents on the dollar for a bond that he bought for 10 cents on the dollar? And, don't forget that a majority of the GM bond holders voted to accept the gov offer.

C4 was talking about both state and federal workers. And, to be totally clear even the federal workers are almost flat if you take out the new jobs in defense, veterans affairs and homeland security. Romney is promising to increase the military, so he's in favor of even more of these jobs.; 9/23/12, 12:18 AM
Chip S. said...: Giving the gov a blank check, as Paulson/W wanted for tarp and the auto bailout, would be unwise.

I am not endorsing every use made of the TARP funds, and particularly not the auto bailout. However, I am also not saying that TARP had no beneficial effects. In particular, if anything staved off economic armageddon it was TARP 1, not anything that came along later.

As for GM bond prices, you know that the government got involved well ahead of the final settlement. So what you're saying is that the market correctly forecast what the feds were going to do to bondholders. I don't dispute that, but the argument remains that GM bondholders got less than they would have gotten in a normal bankruptcy procedure. Where they ended up relative to a world in which there was never any federal bailout and there was a normal bankruptcy procedure is a question I don't know the answer to, and would presumably require an involved analysis.; 9/23/12, 12:47 AM
Anonymous said...: I am shocked---SHOCKED!---that AllieOop, aka oola, hasn't posted a ringing defense of Obama's burning of the 1st Amendment to cover his administration's failings.

P.S. Notice how we haven't heard a peep from the ACLU on this? It's like they actually don't give a whit about the 1st Amendment at all, but instead are a fascist front group.

Nah, couldn't be.; 9/23/12, 12:55 AM
Rusty said...: pbAndjFellowRepublican said...
Chip,

You are wrong. Giving the gov a blank check, as Paulson/W wanted for tarp and the auto bailout, would be unwise.

The GM bond holders were paid a discounted value for their bonds. This discounted pricing (around ten cents on the dollar) was inline w/ the market pricing for the bonds before the gov decided to pile in a bunch more dough. It would have been criminal if the gov paid out 100 cents on the dollar to the owners of these garbage bonds. Are you in favor of the gov paying a trader 100 cents on the dollar for a bond that he bought for 10 cents on the dollar? And, don't forget that a majority of the GM bond holders voted to accept the gov offer.

Instead.
How about an orderly recievership where ALL contracts are renegotiated including union contracts and the bondholders can participate or not as the choose.
How come all pensions were gauranteed except non union pensions?
Delphi; 9/23/12, 7:09 AM
sakredkow said...: Shrieking, overly defensive responses to simple questions--"How can you possibly say Obama has never done anything useful!!"--are among the least attractive features of Obama supporters.

That answer is just bullshit. If you want to discuss Obama's problem-solving abilities or lack of problem-solving abilities it's simple, assuming you know anything about the topic. If you don't know anything about it, you can still weigh in with your belief that he has none (if for example you apparently think he's too stupid to be any kind of a problem-solver).

You can ask questions such as

"phx, let me put this in terms even a liberal can understand: What problems faced by any person or persons has Obama solved since he left law school?"

and that's fine, too. But when someone like myself asks honestly, assuming you to be sincere in your implied question, "You're seriously saying Obama hasn't solved any problems since leaving law school?" you go into a fatuous undergrad explanation of set theory to demonstrate how that person has tripped himself up on a logical fallacy, is "shrieking"(!) a defensive response...

Yes, you weren't questioning Obama's problem-solving abilities at all, were you? It was all an academic exercise.

Comments need their own tags, and yours should be tagged with "unmitigated horseballs". You consistently argue poorly for your side, IMO.; 9/23/12, 8:17 AM
Paco Wové said...: "...yours should be tagged with "unmitigated horseballs". You consistently argue poorly for your side, IMO," he shrieked defensively.

Chip's response made perfect sense. He asked what great problem-solving skills Obama had demonstrated, and you responded by saying, in effect, "He solved the problem of dressing himself and making himself breakfast!" Sorry, lots of people have figured that out. Some of us have higher standards for the Presidency than that.; 9/23/12, 8:32 AM
Chip S. said...: Yes, you weren't questioning Obama's problem-solving abilities at all, were you? It was all an academic exercise.

When someone claiming to be "reasonable" describes Obama as a "pragmatic problem-solver," it is not an "academic exercise" to ask for examples. I only asked for one, but you misinterpreted or deliberately misrepresented my question, which you continue to do.

If clear examples of Obama's problem-solving skills were available, you could just present them. The fact that you don't do that, and instead attack me for my impertinence, speaks volumes.; 9/23/12, 9:41 AM
sakredkow said...: Deliberately misinterpreting my opponents is not a form of gamesmanship I engage in, whatever other flaws or dislikable polemical traits I have. Whether you explain yourself poorly or I comprehend poorly may be worth debating, but I'm not always sure I'll win that one.

@Paco Wové - When ChipS asked "What problems has Obama solved, not just as president, but in his adult life?" I believed he was so disrespecting and underestimating the President that his question implied that Obama couldn't even solve his personal problems, figuring ChipS must have something specific in Obama's personal life he was referring to. Or ChipS was saying that Obama was so ignorant he just couldn't solve any problems whatsoever.

IMO I now believe ChipS was just being disingenuous with his question, it was just a rhetorical device, although it indeed was intended to throw disrespect on the President.

Of course, reasonable people do know that whatever Obama's problem-solving skills he obviously successfully solved not only problems in his adult life, but many problems associated with the presidency.

Anyone may think he's not a great problem-solver, but let's get off the "What problems has he solved?" nonsense and just tell us why you think he isn't a good problem solver. "Because I can't name any problems he solved" is an answer I'm okay with ignoring.; 9/23/12, 11:31 AM
Chip S. said...: let's get off the "What problems has he solved?" nonsense and just tell us why you think he isn't a good problem solver. "

Easy. The "stimulus" failed. Obamacare isn't going to improve health outcomes or reduce the cost of health care. An ambassador just got killed in a country where we supported regime change, and we learn subsequently that the president has skipped over 60% of his intel briefings. Afghanistan, which Obama said was his No. 1 priority in the WoT, is a complete disaster.

Now, it's true that Osama's dead, but then there's the unfortunate fact that the intel source who provided the critical info for that bit of problem-solving was compromised by the administration's determination to squeeze every drop of political gain from it.

My question was completely sincere, and stated in such a way as to minimize the burden on those it was put to. You got to tell me about any of his successes as a lawyer, as a community organizer, as a state legislator, or as a U.S. senator. You didn't have to spin any stories about his obviously failed presidency. And still you have offered nothing.

Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nothing but "How dare you question Obama's problem-solving skills!" All the while overlooking the fact that the person who first raised the issue wasn't me, but an Obama supporter.

This has become theater of the absurd.; 9/23/12, 1:31 PM
sakredkow said...: Propping up the collapsing economy at the time of inauguration (your objections notwithstanding), the killing of OBL (again, your objections notwithstanding), the specific problem of the Libyan uprising under Qadaffi, the transition in Burma, the rescue plan for the auto industry, passing a comprehensive health bill, Lily Ledbetter fair pay act, commitment of US to 'no torture' policy, killing and capture of many Taliban leaders, removing "abstinence only" funding in budget, many many more problems solved and accomplishments achieved.

Don't tell me - you don't think any of them are problems solved. Go figure.; 9/23/12, 1:56 PM
Chip S. said...: Don't tell me - you don't think any of them are problems solved. Go figure.

What I think it means to solve a problem is that the particular thing that was problematic is no longer causing trouble.

Example:

The Salt Lake City Olympics heading for bankruptcy is something I'd consider a problem. I consider that problem solved if the SLC Olympics end up not losing money. Just one example out of many to be picked from Romney's adult life.

Killing OBL solved the problem of OBL being an active resource for al Qaeda. Of course people are going to argue about how much of that solution is attributable to Obama, but at least that's potentially a rational discussion.

To argue that Obama "solved" the "problem" of the Burmese transition to democracy is such a stretch it seems intended to prove your assertion that I'd dispute your entire list of solved problems.

But here's one I'd give you: A problem for Obama was that he dared not follow through on his prominent campaign promise to close Gitmo. He solved this problem by first making sure to kill suspected terrorists rather than capture them, thereby pushing Gitmo into the category of old news. That is indeed a solved problem. People may or may not like it, but it's definitely a pragmatic solution. Whether it's the best solution to that problem is arguable.

So after untold hours you finally came up w/a list that could be discussed rationally. Good. It helps me understand what people see in a guy who strikes me as a complete failure.

Was that so difficult?; 9/23/12, 5:11 PM
sakredkow said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/23/12, 5:33 PM
sakredkow said...: Was that so difficult?

If I misread your intention behind asking an example of a problem that Obama solved, you also misread my intention in this thread.

AReasonableMan said that Obama was a pragmatic problem solver. You said that was bizarre, and challenged him to name a problem he had solved, not just as president but in his "adult" life.

I thought that was kind of a crappy response of yours. A good response would have been why you didn't think he was a pragmatic problem solver.

I never got into this to tout Obama's skills as a problem-solver, that's never been my argument. I was making a point that IMO you were being unfair in your assessment that he hadn't solved any problems, as I saw it.

I think you see me as you see yourself, as an ideologue. You couldn't be further from the truth.; 9/23/12, 6:07 PM
sakredkow said...: ...which is not to say that I don't see Barack Obama as a practical problem solver. I certainly do.

I also suspect that he's pretty good at it.; 9/23/12, 6:10 PM
Chip S. said...: I don't know what you mean by an "ideologue".

If you mean someone who has a totally predictable, knee-jerk response on all topics, then I take offense, and believe that a trip through the Althouse archives will show otherwise.

If, OTOH, you mean someone who believes that certain propositions are sufficiently well-established by both logic and evidence that they constitute highly reasonable a priori positions, then I'll accept the description.

But for the nth time, "in his adult life" was supposed to lower the bar sufficiently as to allow a non-controversial answer.

To conclude my participation in this discussion, I will say that I'm glad that ARM raised the issue, b/c I think that your list of problems solved by Obama and my (or anyone else's) response to them offers the basis for reasoned disagreement.; 9/23/12, 8:17 PM
chickelit said...: I also suspect that he's pretty good at it.

Highly suspect. He needs that Valerie Jarrett person who lives behind an opaque wall to guide his most important moves. Is she his true "decider"?; 9/23/12, 8:21 PM
Known Unknown said...: as far as I can tell he prevented the complete collapse of the economy on taking office.

How? Show your work.; 9/23/12, 9:21 PM