If you’re not paying attention, you may miss this AP story about the American-born al Qaeda spokesperson getting captured in Pakistan. As this development is a major coup for the Obama administration and represents the fact that it is more successful fighting terrorism than the preceding Bush administration, the “liberal media” will probably not give it much attention. After all, the Obama administration is refusing to take the War on Terror “seriously” and anything that indicates otherwise is to be ignored. (F U Cheney!)
The capture of Adam Gadahn by Pakistani intelligence officers indicates that Pakistan is now a cooperating partner in the War on Terror, and not just giving us lip service as they accept billions of our tax dollars to provide the Taliban (and Osama bin Laden) safe haven inside its borders. How many al Qaeda were captured when Shrub was President? And remember all that harsh rhetoric of Obama’s regarding Pakistan that he was criticized for on the campaign trail? You know, the same rhetoric that supposedly showed how “inexperienced” he was to be President? (Meanwhile, his “experienced” rival can’t seem to remember if he is for or against cutting Medicare.) Well, it appears that such rhetoric has had an effect, as Pakistan is forced to work in partnership with the U.S. in the capture of al Qaeda residing within its borders.
But, as I said, as this reflects well on the Obama administration’s efforts to fight terrorism, it will be probably ignored by the media. The inevitable push back by the conservative media has all ready occurred. FOX News, the propaganda wing of the GOP, is claiming that a different associate of bin Laden’s was arrested in Karachi, with limited information available. (What did you expect? An acknowledgment of a job well done to the Obama administration?) I can’t wait for the inevitable post by that retard Sarah Palin’s Facebook writers suggesting that the capture of Gadahn makes our country ‘unsafe’.
It’s like they don’t think such things as the Internet or the freaking LAWS THEY PASS aren’t around to catch them in their mile-high piles of excrement.
When Governor Mitt Romney passes an individual mandate to ensure 98% of Massachusetts has health insurance = totally okay and acceptable, and worthy of Scott Brown voting in favor of.
When Obama proposes a similar individual mandate to ensure 98% of Americans have health insurance = a socialist tool of government take over of Medicare, which Scott Brown needs to cast a vote in opposition to.
I’m sorry, but that is sarah todded!
You just know that if Mitt Romney was currently President, he’d be pushing for an individual mandate to pass a similar health care system as they have in Massachusetts. I know it, you know it, we allknow it….
by Calickizzle Sunday, February 21, 2010 at 01:21am
Once a year at CPAC, a bunch of angry white people get together to yell and complain about things they know nothing about. Granted, I’m not on the ground so I can’t provide first-person eyewitness, but according to Thom Hartmann, who worked radio row at the conference, he spent his time “looking at a sea of white people.”
CPAC has been described by the Washington Post as the “preeminent gathering of conservative activists,” and so I was eager to hear some of this mythical “conservative common sense” I keep hearing so much about, but yet see succeed in any manner. Unfortunately, with the conference now wrapped up, it appears that the amount of substance contributed at this conference could fit into a 140-character post on Twitter.
Nah, scratch that. Probably more like half a Tweet, 70 characters followed by a string of hashtags, such as: #obamasucks #nobama #wheresthebirthcertificate, etc. etc. You know, the extent of wit as provided by conservatives…
by Calickizzle Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 02:50pm
Seriously. Someone want to send Michael Steele a few copies? That way they could look up the word ‘bipartisanship.’
Responding to President Obama’s request to have a health-care summit and hash out legislation that combines preferred ideas from both sides of the ONLY if the President agrees to their demand to withdraw the legislation passed by both the House and the Senate off the table, along with the possible threat of reconciliation?
Yeah, that’s pretty much throwing off any and all pretense of attempting bipartisanship, at least from the GOP side.
Not sure if the GOP is worried about becoming irrelevant due to their political posturing and amandnat refusal to address the pressing needs our country faces. For some reason, I doubt it.
by Calickizzle Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 05:57pm
The Tea Party is just one big, drawn-out tantrum thrown by spoiled children in regards to the results of the last President election which, of course, was “stolen by ACORN.” Conservatives have made the claim- “You guys spent eight years kicking around Bush, now its you turn.” Now its “our turn?” What sort of petulance is that? The fact of the matter is, Americans, for the most part, are gracious losers. If it seems we’ve gotten a fair shake in the deal but come out short, that’s fine. In 2000, the candidate who received the most votes for President somehow didn’t become President. And that’s not me “not getting over it” or “Gore didn’t win Tennessee” or whatever. That’s a simple statement of fact. The candidate with the most votes was denied the White House. A group of nine unelected jurists- actually, let’s make that five- determined the outcome of that election. Simply a fact. How could that possibly be a “fair shake.” It can’t. George W. Bush got handed the White House on the most dubious of possibilities, and preceded to run hard to the right as if he was given a mandate, as if the actual results of the election did not even matter. So, of course we gave him shit. He proved that he deserved all the shit we gave him as well.
Now, here is Obama, who received a plurality of the votes, a decisively large margin of victory in the electoral college, and the other side hasn’t stopped braying about it since November 6th, 2008. The Republicans can’t sign on to anything- not one thing- that Obama supports, because they will be attacked from within their own party and be cannibalized as a result. Perhaps its time to move past the primary system, leave the ballot as wide open as possible with multiple candidates from each party on the general election. Because what this country needs is centrists, and not ideologues. What the current situation is is that we have a centrist in the White House up against a determined pack of ideologues, who would even reject legislation they sponsored themselves if it even looked like the President might be acceptable to it. Over the next twelve months, there is going to be no plausibly rationale, middle-of-the-ground legislation presented by the Republicans, because in all honesty, they don’t want Obama signing something they pass, otherwise they might get cast in a similar light as Charlie Crist who, as a Governor know s first-hand the fiscal plight his state- as pretty much all states- are in, and gave the President a quick hug for the fiscal lifeline tossed to Florida through the stimulus. That hug is now being used by his opponent in the Douchebag, I mean Republican primary. I’ve posted something similar before, but recently my constituional law professor said, “We reward cowardly behavior, and punish principled behavior by politicians A politician can take a courageous, principled stance, and voters will show them the door.” That’s a fact, jack.
by Calickizzle Thursday, January 21, 2010 at 11:01am
If there is one thing to take away from the Massachusetts result, it’s this: People like to whine.
Voters granted huge Democratic gains in the 2006 and 2008 elections because they were whining about how the Bush administration was ignoring certain issues, issues that festered and only got worse on its watch. Buried under Obama’s rhetoric of “hope and change” was an underlying promise: the federal government was no longer going to sit on its hands and ignore the problems our country faced, a course of (in)action that the Republicans proved all to good at. So Obama- implausibly- secured the White House, and promised an era of responsive government.
So, now voters are whining that the government should not be as responsive as the Obama administration has- haltingly, it could be asserted- been in its first twelve months. The pattern could be broken down as thus: You’re ignoring my problems? I’ll elect leaders that respond to them. You’re responding to my problems? I’ll elect leaders that will ignore them.
As to be expected, just like clockwork, after the failed Christmas Day attack by the Underwear Bomber, the former Vice President submitted a statement to POLITICO in which he makes the claim- try imagining him mumbling it out of the side of his twisted sneer- that President Obama is trying to “pretend we’re not at war” with terrorists.
This claim is odd, and one can only imagine stems from a place of jealousy, as it’s quite clear that the current administration has an anti-terror record that would’ve had Cheney “doing chest bumps with Bill Kristol on the South lawn of the White House” if the events of the last twelve months had actually occurred in 2008 and not 2009. POLITICO’S Michael O’Hanlon- who opposed Obama during the Democratic primary process in 2007-08 for fears that he would be “soft on national security”- had to admit that, when it comes to foreign affairs, Obama’s first year ranks with the top three or four since World War II.
by Calickizzle Wednesday, December 16, 2009 at 07:21am
Regardless of how you personally feel about Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Fed who is being targeted by vocal activists both from the left and the right. In its article explaining why it chose Mr. Bernanke as Person of the Year, TIME magazine succinctly sums up how the economy has been saved by the efforts of the Obama administration:
“[Bernanke's] creative leadership helped ensure that 2009 was a period of weak recovery rather than catastrophic depression…”
Its such s shame that the average layman on the street who is busy bellowing at tea-bags and telling “morans” to get a brain can’t understand the obvious fact that our economy would be in much, much worse shape if their beloved Sarah Palin was sitting in on White House meetings. At least TIME magazine gets it…
by Calickizzle Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 10:46am
What’s funny is that conservative critics actually claim that the Obama administration is “incompetent.”
With Department of Justice officials busting over 30 people in three states charging the federal government over $60 million in fraudulent Medicare costs, the Obama administration is certainly taking an efficient and competent stand against Medicare abuse.
These efforts by the Justice Department indicate how abuse of the Medicare system is rampant, as it is targeted by unscrupulous individuals looking at this federal government-run program as a cash cow. When Republican Senators rail against the planned decreases in Medicare spending as proposed by the current health care reforms, it needs to be asked: Are they arguing in favor of the fraudulent practices performed by those busted by the DOJ, which causes overspending by Medicare and puts it on insolvent ground?
Oh, that’s right, Republicans have always been against Medicare for ideological purposes. Why would they support efforts to ensure the programs solvency? Little wonder they oppose the efforts taken by an obviously competent Obama administration. Can’t have a solvent Medicare program now, can we?
