.jpg)
George W. Bush. Photo by employee of Executive (Public Domain)
Recently Fox News made its own news with a number of on-air mistakes involving footage shown with various stories they were covering. In two of the stories crowd sizes for conservative events were made to appear larger than they really were. The incidents caused Fox News to distribute an internal memo which implemented a new "zero tolerance" policy for mistakes like those made in its recent past.
Since the zero tolerance policy was implemented Fox News already ran a distorting graphic showing support for Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, and Mitt Romney. Now another error from Fox News contributor Dana Perino has been revealed.
When discussing the Fort Hood tragedy Perino urged people to "call it what it is" which is a terrorist attack according to her. However Perino at least partially disqualified herself from defining what a "terrorist attack" is when she went on to claim that no terrorist attacks occurred during the Bush term. The Huffington Post correctly notes that President Bush took office on January 20th, 2001 before the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001.
In her defense Perino may say that President Bush can not possibly be blamed for the September 11th attacks since he had only been in office for nine months. This argument may be valid but if true it certainly also applies to President Obama who was only in office for ten months before the alleged "terrorist attack" at Fort Hood.
Comments
not a valid comparison, not even close! 911 was well planned, and financed by the islamonazis even during the clinton years. Ft. Hood was an act by a lone islamist; his behavior was well documented, but political correctness prevented proper action to halt the murders.
Sorry Ryan, but you deserve the nitpick award for this one, especially when you take so many liberties yourself.
Did we ever clear up that 'numerous' republicans were invited to the State Dinner claim that you made yesterday. How was 4 out of over 300 considered 'numerous'. You'd never let Fox News get away with that.
You wll have to find me a definition of numerous which does not include four before I argue with you Gigi
Ryan,
You are already arguing with me. You're defending yourself for calling '4' out of 300+ 'numerous'. The definition of 'numerous' is 'many'. If you can live with that as accurate, then that doesn't surprise me one bit.
Let's stick to the topic shall we? A former White House shill who has no problem lying about the Repuglican maladministration yet again. So glad we finally have capable, smart grown ups in the White House. It's really unfortunate Obama inherited the absolute debacle that is the aftermath of 8 long years of malfeasance, criminal activity and incompetence.
Scott,
Obama didn't 'inherit' the debacle, he actively sought the job, claiming he knew full well what the problems were and how he could solve them.
If he is a smart grown up, why is he spending money like a drunken sailor, doing nothing for small business that provides 70%-80% of the employment in this country, and stalling on Afghanistan for 3 months after the military tells him what they need to succeed, and not keeping his campaign promises to:
give 3000 tax credit to businesses for each new hire
allow people to take 15% of the 401K for hardship w/out penalty
not tax seniors who make less than 50,000 annually
have health care debates televised on C-Span
put bills on WEB 5 days prior to signing
no lobbiests in administration, etc. etc. etc.
The gig is up on ACORN and GLOBAL WARMING and his approval rating it under 50%.
In what way is he a capable, smart grown up?
Gigi says:
"...Obama didn't 'inherit' the debacle, he actively sought the job,..."
Gigi, you can both inherit a debacle AND actively seek the job
just because Obama knew it was a debacle and seeked to be the one to fix it, doesn't mean it was he who made the debacle.
if one of your kids gets pregnant out of wedlock and you decide to adopt the child as your own, are YOU the one guilty of giving birth to that child out of wedlock? No, you only agreed to clean up the mess....Bush got the nation pregnant, and Obama decided to adopt and clean up Bush's mess...the mess is so big, that it will take years to fix (not months)...we are in a recession instead of a depression because of what Obama did (and pushed Bush into doing before leaving office)...history will show that Bush was pushed by Obama to start that first stimulus package because it couldn't wait until january 20th...THAT stopped our crash (and the world's crash) that was already in the making.
Fact checking the right seems to be a sport now.
Walrus:
I think YOUR nickname should be WOW!
WOW! You are not only a 'thinking person' who 'knows' what the future would have been like if Obama hadn't spent us into oblivion (while still managing not to help small businesses and individuals with the tax breaks he promised during the campaign as listen in my post); you know that Obama pushed Bush into it during the campaign? Funny none of that was in the news or is documented anywhere, but you just 'know'.
Wow, you guys sure seem to 'know' alot, for which there is no evidence.
The Hasan case gets a lot less clear when you realize at least 16 of his victims were fellow mental health workers - not just random targets.
I suspect in the end we will learn it was a lot less about religion and a lot more about psychosis.
Wow (the real one):
There was enough out there on Hasan to be concerned about his 'terrorist sympathies and rhetoric'.
Why do you want to believe that it WASN'T Islamic radicalism when the evidence is heavily in that direction?
It seems obvious; if you didn't care one way or another; that if a person had been in contact with the worst of the radicals over the internet, said radical anti-American things to peers who had reported it, and shouted the 'Islamic radical war-cry' as he shot people to death, (including many who were not fellow mental health care workers) that he is a radical Islamic terrorist.
Why do you care where the evidence points? Why do you want to believe he isn't a terrorist? I don't get it.
Not that I don't think all radical Islamic terrorists are CRAZY,(being suicidal, murderers and all) because I do. Though I hear alot of libs (like their defense attorneys) sympathize with their cause and say it's our fault!
I sure wish Olbermann, Schultz, Matthews, or that Maddow fellow could clear up this scandal once and for all on the "place for politics", MSNBC, but that channel stops reporting news on holidays and weekends and instead plays shows about prison life and child molesters.
Gigi,
They "know a lot for which there is no evidence", cause they have the secret decoder ring. Whereas we don't eat that kinda "cereal" anymore
Welcome back Jaime!
I hoped you might just be on vacation and that you would return with your wisdom and (I'd say 'wit', but under the circumstances, ha) charm.
I'm convinced 'we' need a 'secret decoder ring' to understand our progressive friends. Wonder where they buy their special Captain Crunch....
Even with strained attention and ample supplies of Pre-Christmas Holiday cheer......one wonders at the point of this Article.
Not to invoke Rip Van Winkle, but asleep"one "( that's Code for you Ryan), asleep one must indeed be to not know that the reference to 'No Terrorist Attacks during Bush's Term' refers to events a postiori 911. In the 21st Century 911 is thr UR event upon which all others have become tied to and thus measured buy. Thus the mohammedan Hasan becomes measured by a different standard. As America should have been better prepared. Instead we find that this Major was on a list of the "transition Team"for Homeland security put together by Osama the Messiah's team.
And we wonder why the Pres wanted everyone to "not come to any quick conclusions."
Hola Gigi,
I have indeed not 'Had my 'wits' about me' of late. But the games afoot and the Commies are Commin. (Remember Ryan says people can vote other peoples rights away). Happy Thanksgiving Gal!
it's a matter of determining the placement of the cart and the horse, gigi.
Was Hasan an Islamic fanatic bent on violence? Or was he a head case on a downward spiral who embraced aspects of Islamic fanaticism in a psychotic breakdown?
Best evidence so far is for the latter - including especially the failure of his fellow pshrinks and supervisors to act on their beliefs he was a danger to his patients and shouldn't BE a pshrink.
Incorrectly defining the problem is a certain road to adopting the wrong solutions, something we've seen time and time again from the last several administrations.
WOW says:....."Incorrectly defining the problem is a certain road to adopting the wrong solutions, something we've seen time and time again from the last several administrations."
The same statement could be used for the opposite WOW. Incorrectly defining Hasan as a "mental Patient" and not seeing his (and thus potentially others) connections to Organized Islamic Terrorism can and WILL lead to wrong solutions.
The defining of the FIRST WTC bombing in 1993 under Clinton, as well as the Bombing of the Cole, the Bombing of the Embassies in Africa etc...as Police issues, as crimes, lead up to 911. Obama and his Liberal/Socialists are now trying to go BACK to that play book. The Trials in NYC, the White-Wash of the REAL importance of Hasan the Muslim Murderer, are indeed going down the path of "Wrong Solutions"....These "NEW" Obama-Emanuel-Wesly Clarke-GeneralCasey solutions will lead to another 911. IMVHO.
But....maybe they actually know that. Think??
Non of which explains why Hasan targeted mental health workers, jaime.
Don't start with assumptions and try to twist the evidence to fit.
Please don't twist the facts Wow. A female police officer was targeted as well as a 19 year old girl just back from her tour in Iraq. There are others amongst the over 40 shot having nothing to do with Mental Health.
Please TRY to show some decency for those killed and maimed in this Terrorist attack. Especially by not twisting the evidence to fit the Politically Correct stance of "Hands off all Muslims".
Wow,
The fact that several of his victims were mental health workers does not discount the fact that most of them weren't, and that he had connections with Islamic terrorists and made radical anti-American terrorist supporting rants; perhaps he was angry with fellow mental health workers the most because they ratted him out about his crazy terrorist talk. That doesn't mean he wasn't a terrorist.
Like I asked before, why do you not want to believe he was a terrorist?
And the fact that he was ratted out about his terrorist talk should have been enough for someone to intervene before he killed people. I know at least one coworker said he wasn't surprised and tried to worn those who could have done something, but did nothing at all.
What was the Patriot Act all about if we're just going to be spied on, but nobody's going to do anything to protect us?
Great post Gigi!! I love what you asy about the "Patriot Act". That is Postor Board concise and to the point.
But have no fear darlin it will be lost on bow WOWzer and his friends barking up the Pc Tree.
gigi/jaime, again you fail to comprehend, so I'll try to keep the words smaller.
wow not ready to say Hasan nuts, Hasan terrorist, or Hasan terrorist nut UNTIL MORE EVIDENCE IS IN.
Rushing to judgment is usually both dumb and counter-productive.
All of which still puts aside the argument about whether targeting a military installation and military workers should be considered "terrorism."
Considering you oppose civilian terrorism trials for 9/11 culprits and want them tried in military tribunals, you seem to have a subjectively flexible definition of "terrorism."
It is not your words that are small WOW, it is your Ideas.
And attack on Americans on American soil in the name of allah is terrorism.
Then why object to putting them on trial for terrorism - a criminal offense?
You use a military tribunal to prosecute war crimes.
And was Tim McVeigh a terrorist? He claimed to be doing it for Christ, not Allah - does that let him off the hook?
So far, the public 'evidence' that Hasan was motivated by Islam is circumstantial at best. I have enough trust in the system to expect that a more complete picture will be forthcoming - and am willing to wait to make judgment.
No....What you and the rest of the Liberal dismantling machine are trying to do is politicize domestically an issue of Outside attacks on the US. An act of war. Further an officer in the US military (On Obamas'Homeland security transition team by the way), fires on and kills members of the military. A treasonous act, one which would normally be dealt with in Military courts. What you actually WANT is a venue for the Islamist Terrorists to be able to spout their venum in Public. You blame the US for the failures of Islam and their terrorists as does Obama as does Rev Wright. It is a very CLEAR picture of what you WANT. And in so far as your TRUST in the system...then why not let the system work as it has....why the need to CHANGE the system and put terrorists in civil courts??? Because you DON'T trust that the Terrorists will be allowed to verbally continue terrorizing without this change of venue.
Smooth talk Komrade WOW. But Conservatives ain't buying it. Hasan condemed himself
Wow,
When I asked you to comment on what I said about the military, I was speaking of the fact that politicians vote to send our sons to war and then refuse to give them what they need to succeed (and also refuse to let them come home). They villainize our soldiers and sympathize with our enemies. That's what conservatives hate!
Jaime,
Any bets that WOW will NEVER think there is enough EVIDENCE IN for him to:
call a "terrorist" a "terrorist".
admit the globe is not warming
acknowlodge that ACORN is a criminal front organization
believe that Obama is lying about "jobs" in the stimulous bill
that socialism creates more poverty and death than capitalism
that if we go to war we should fight to win
that foreign terrorists don't have constitutional rights
that liberal policies haven't raised the poverty levels
that crime decreases when good citizens have guns
that the main stream media is biased, etc, etc, etc.?
No facts, videos, evidence or logic will convince him, but hopefully someone who reads this might give it some thought....
Wow,
My comment to you below (2 posts down) was supposed to be for Walrus!
Gigi,
I think the odds are near on 90 to 1 !!!
what b.s. gigi/jaime.
First, Hasan will be properly tried by court-martial, regardless of his motivations. I've seen a few courts-martial; I have no doubt that we will get to a fairly complete picture of what he was all about there, if not before.
As for the rest, I want CONSISTENCY: IF you consider it an act of war, then treat it as such across the board. On the ohter hand, if you are going to insist they are terrorists and not subject to the International Laws of War, then you need to use the criminal prosecution processes.
Set down a legitimate process with legal justification, convict them and execute them.
This back & forth, are they or aren't they crap just destroys any credibility we have that we will treat them fairly before we get to those executions.
Wow,
My point was that there is plenty of evidence that Hasan had radical islamic religious reasons for his attacks. Those are CONSISTANT with the terrorism we've been fighting against for decades!
Your arguments are just typical liberal semantics we are all so fimiliar with. Your refusal to call a duck, a duck unless it fits your political agenda. Disgusting...
As for the rest, gigi:
I've certain not hesitated to either call or kill terrorists back when that was my job; I've studied enough to know that the Earth IS in a long-term warming trend; I doubt ACORN will meet the legal standard of 'criminal front organization' although it certainly has problems; I've never commented on the stimulus & jobs; I've never espoused socialism, despite my criticisms of CERTAIN ASPECTS of capitalism; I've never gone to combat without the intent of winning; foreign terrorists have the right to get in front of my gunsight UNLESS and UNTIL they become prisoners - in which case, the Geneva Accords apply; I've seen poverty of a kind the US hasn't experienced in centuries - and no political philosophy has a monopoly on causing it; I've owned guns all my life and had a concealed carry permit long before most states allowed it - and have twice stopped a crime in progress; and I find the media overall to be much more incompetent than biased.
No gigi; so far, it is NOT clear which came first: Hasan's descent into violent fantasies or his embrace of Islamic fanaticism.
And the does make a difference, whether you are willing to see it or not.
WOW,
It is CLEAR unless you do not want to see. It is CLEAR to me.
Never let data interfere with a preconception, right, gigi?
What matters is that people DIED by a Mohammedan Terrorist firing a gun while yelling a muslim terrorist chant.
What matters is that Liberals/Progressives like you dismiss their deaths in favor of an avowed Murderer #1 and a Terrorist #2. And in so dimissing them in favor of your relentless attempts to undermine everything that makes America different; in such dimissal you are showing those victims and their families the grossest of disrepects.
The genesis of this persons hate and antisocial terrorist tendencies is irrelevent. His actions are HIS not OURS. As you are trying to imply. This is out of the Liberal/Democratic Playbook, it is old news made current with this marxist takeover of the government since Nov '08.
Wow,
You won't call Hasan a terrorist, though he meets the definition according to several credible witnesses, & you condemn those who do.
The globe has been cooling since 1998.
ACORN has revealed itself sufficiently for even the most liberal to denounce countinued federal funding
Many 'fact checks' prove falsehoods in 'jobs' claims in 'stimulus'.
I hope you like socialism cuz that's where we're heading with people you support (according to the definition)
US has never legally bound itself to the Geneva Accord and foreign terrorists don't have constitutional rights.
I said nothing of a 'monopoly' only that socialism has caused more poverty and death than 'capitalism" (which cannot exist without freedom)
I think lib politicians voted to send our sons to war and now do not give them what they need to succeed, villianize the soldiers, and sympathize with the enemy! I say in that case BRING THEM HOME! What say you?
Media is biased which proves incompetence.
gigi/jaime, you again demonstrate your proclivity for knee-jerk assumptions - and inability to READ, apparently - in your responses.
I would prefer to prevent a future Hasan - so understanding how he got to that point IS extremely relevant.
As for "dismissing their deaths" - kiss my ass, jaime - were YOU at the memorial service? I WAS!
Who EXACTLY do you think are the people I support? You are almost certainly wrong, from the rest of your statements.
And gigi - the US adopted the Geneva Accords as US treaties - they ARE the law of the land - and they cover EVERYONE in one way or another, including the non-existent terms the previous administration attempted to apply to prisoners.
and gigi - a decade is not 'long-term' in Earth science, although I'd dispute your claim as disingenuous anyway. Might want to check into the decreasing land ice in Greenland and Antarctica - and ask yourself where that new water is going.
Wow,
Who is it you support ,you ask. Wow, Every single thing you menton on this comment board from Climate Change to mohammedan terrorists to putting down Rush Limbaugh etc, etc etc.. everything is out of the Liberal PlayBook EVERYTHING. So it is very obvious who you support. You were at the service? SO WHAT...I say again SO.....WHAT!! So was Michelle Obama. And the Messiah himself has officiated at such as well. What matters is what you do ,what you support and how that support eventually effects those victims and their families.
Obama saluted troops who HE was responsible for getting killed because of HIS new rules of engagement as supported by General Casey and Wesley Clark. Going to "services" is a paltry substitute for policies that protect the US from Terrorist attack or our troops from undue harm because of Liberal philosophy of soft engagement of the Enemy.
The failure to review security, not the mental sate of Hasan, is what should be being investigated.
PS WOW,
You can also go Kiss.....
Which policies of Obama and Casey are getting troops killed, jaime? I'd love to hear the chickenhawk explanation.
As for supporting the troops and their families, try spending time at BAMC and the Center for the Intrepid demonstrating rehab - and how it improves your quality of life after you've seen the elephant a little too closely.
The new rules of engagement Wow, you know very well which policies. You are the Chickenhawk (are you Jake, he used to throw that term around too.), the Men and Women facing the enemy under ANY circumstances are Brave and are Patriots.
The folks back home that want to read maranda rights to enemy combatants and refuse air or artillary support to infantry in the heat of battle, who want to "understand" the motivations and not jump to conclusions about who is an enemy who is a terrorist who want reach out to the muslims because The USA is what has caused them to be so hateful........The folks who are demanding all of this while our military fights...they are the chickenhawks.
Let's see, have I described some here whose handles start with 'W'???
Wow,
I'll just repeat the most important statement I made previously.
I think lib politicians voted to send our sons to war and now do not give them what they need to succeed, villianize our soldiers and sympathize with the enemy.
I also think the comment Chris Matthews said about Obama being in 'enemy camp' at West Point was a 'lib slip' which was an unguarded truthful moment and represents many leftist's feelings about the military. It makes me sick that they now have power over them!
Matthews is a dolt - not surprised he said something like that.
But the folks who sent your kid and the rest of us weren't much better: Bush ducked the draft using political clout to get a Nat Guard slot; Cheney was the ultimate chickenhawk, as were most of the Defense Department civilians under Rumsfeld - Rumsfeld who created the 'hollow Army' the first time he was Sec Def and trashed the military AGAIN in his second tour.
No one is being denied support - the idea is to use it SMART and not create more problems than you solve. And what's being planned in Afghanistan is not that much different from what finally had some success in Iraq.
Try reading the counter-insurgency manual Petraeus and company wrote.
jamie, you obviously have no clue what the actual ROE are.
Wow,
I'm sorry, every lib but one in the House and every lib senator voted to go to war in Afghanistan.
I hold them responsible as well as Bush. Bush is irrevelvant now!
These Lib politicians voted to sent these soldiers to war and now villianize them and sympathize with the enemy. What don't you understand about that? I think you do understand it, because you keep ignoring the point!
Not only that, they are going after the CIA for doing exactly what they were asked to do by the members of 'both' parties.
Obama was asked for 40,000 minimum and as many as 70,000. He sent less than the minimum requested. I'd say that is quite a bit different than the 'surge' that was successful in Iraq (which Obama opposed!) How do you figure????
Also he said when campaigning that "we had to win" in afghanistan, but he takes 3 months! as deaths' of soldiers reach record numbers! But his ridiculous domestic policy bills need to be done immediately, no time to bother reading
Nope, your numbers on McChrystal's request are wrong - and he said he couldn't use them until 2010, so he's getting what he wanted when he wanted it.
sorry, gigi, but Bush is ESSENTIAL to the discussion, because if they had not screwed it up in the first place, we wouldn't be dealing with the mess we have now.
We were SCREAMING for troops to come to Tora Bora and secure it - and Rumsfeld and Tommy franks blew it off and let bin Laden and most of al Qaeda's top leadership slip away.
Then when there was a follow-up plan, the JSOC elements were pulled out of Afghanistan to prepare for Iraq - missing another opportunity.
We shouldn't BE fighting in Afghanistan now - but we are, because of the massive failures of the previous administration.
No WOW the "actual ROE" are what got marines killed in Afghanistan recently. I'm speaking of Air and Artillery support close to civilian targets....but then you knew that was some of what I was refering to.
Just more Liberal "Double-speak" while American kids are killed.
Thanks WOW...
Burning the village to save it has never worked, jaime.
And the current ROE is only slightly different from what the Iraq Surge used: properly ID your targets and avoid killing uninvolved civilians.
I thought you were griping not long ago about Obama not immediately doing what McChrystal asked - this is McChrystal's ROE.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!