Iraqi ethnic cleansing, a "positive thing"? That's what Barack Obama seemed to say on this morning's "Today." The Dem presidential contender spoke with substitute co-anchor David Gregory on the heels of Meredith Vieira's ill-tempered interview of Condoleezza Rice.
View video here.
DAVID GREGORY: You heard Secretary Rice say there is progress in Iraq that cannot be ignored. She spoke about when, not if, the United States prevails in Iraq. Do you see it that way?
BARACK OBAMA: I think it's important to understand that after two days of testimony [by Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker], here's the bottom line: that having put an additional 30,000 troops in, and continued the same course we were on, we are now back to the horrendous levels of violence that we were back in June of 2006.
So there's no doubt that we've seen some measured progress in Anbar province, primarily because the Sunni tribal leaders made a political decision there that they would work with the coalition forces. We've seen a very modest reduction of violence in Baghdad, partly because entire neighborhoods have essentially been ethnically cleansed. Those are all positive things, but we are now back at the levels of violence we were 18 months ago.
Do I think Obama believes that ethnic cleansing is a "positive thing"? No. But he said it, and made the "positive thing" comment immediately after speaking of the ethnic cleansing. This is yet another Obama gaffe, further proof he's a not-ready-for-prime-time player.
I expect the Hillary campaign to pick up on this. Will the MSM? Can you imagine the woe that would betide a Republican who came within a million miles of suggesting that ethnic cleansing is a "positive thing"?
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Comments Policy
Oh, wow! Now that's a
September 12, 2007 - 14:38 ET by drillanwrOh, wow!
Now that's a FUBAR the MSM would NEVER let a Republican go back and correct/re-define, but would NEVER let a Republican EVER be forgotten for it.
Will MSM Notice?
September 12, 2007 - 14:39 ET by Michael M. BatesIn a word: No. They like Barry way too much.
They like Clinton more. But
September 12, 2007 - 15:19 ET by motherbeltThey like Clinton more. But they won't rough him up over it at this point because he isn't really a threat to her. They can afford to be generous; so why cause a problem for a Democrat if it can be avoided?
Mathews, on Obama?
September 12, 2007 - 14:45 ET by Gary HallMark. One can only imagine what Chris Mathews would have done with that ethnic comment this afternoon, had it instead been a Republican candidate that had slipped up.
Precisely, Gary. MSNBC and
September 12, 2007 - 14:47 ET by Mark FinkelsteinPrecisely, Gary. MSNBC and CNN might have broken into their regularly-scheduled programming for an Emergency Bulletin ;-)
He would've swallowed his
September 13, 2007 - 06:55 ET by Sergeant ROCKHe would've swallowed his tongue in a stammering fit of rage.
Barack on Ethnic Cleansing,
September 12, 2007 - 14:50 ET by NBFWe all know the answer to this. Media bias is much worse than anybody realizes.
Obama's Other Gaffes:
September 12, 2007 - 14:51 ET by Daniel BakerPresident of Canada
10,000 killed in a midwest tornado
Learn about the best choice for people of faith
http://www.evangelic...
love your link
September 12, 2007 - 16:36 ET by TruthMongerlove your link
With every passing day
September 12, 2007 - 15:03 ET by Conservative_in_mass.With every passing day Obama demonstrates he is a "not a ready for prime time" player. As for how silent the MSM will be, I would say they are going to have to at least give the appearance of curiosity with this gaffe, as it is so obvious and damning.
Also, the media will soon have to take its collective place on Hillary's lap for good, as the alternative (Obama), is a candidate they cannot make excuses for forever.
In closing, this should dispell any doubt that Obama is indeed an IDIOT.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
What exactly are this
September 12, 2007 - 15:27 ET by Gat New YorkWhat exactly are this man’s qualifications to be President, or Vice President, (or Senator)? OMG.
gat... I know, I
September 12, 2007 - 15:44 ET by Clear thinkergat...
I know, I know......Ummmmm....Uhhhhhh.....Mmmmmmmm......Ohhhhhhhh......Eeeeeeeee.
Dang....your going to have to give me some time on this one!
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
My list is: He's Black
September 12, 2007 - 16:20 ET by Gat New YorkMy list is:
You forgot to mention that
September 12, 2007 - 16:36 ET by motherbeltYou forgot to mention that he was just elected to the Senate. There is no glory in doing the job you've already got. As soon as you get it, you go for the next rung on the ladder.
Plus,once he realized how MANY people are "hungry for a new kind of politics" he knew he was "the one" (Just like Anakin Skywalker) and had no choice but to run.
this is the best the DNC has
September 13, 2007 - 12:28 ET by TruthMongerthis is the best the DNC has to offer right now...very sad...
A Black man saying that
September 12, 2007 - 16:22 ET by Gat New YorkA Black man saying that ethnic cleansing is a good thing. I'm sorry but he is plain ignorant.
ethnic cleansing
September 12, 2007 - 19:44 ET by ts88well isn't ethnic cleansing just People of color taking a bath????
You should get a job as his
September 12, 2007 - 20:05 ET by Gat New YorkYou should get a job as his spinmeister! LOL
Osama's Qualifications for Pres. are...
September 12, 2007 - 16:31 ET by JayTeeA long list of Accomplishments, similar to Hillary's........He's as accomplished as Hillary,
Like Hilliary, He's never been on his knees in front of Bill.....After 20 + years of marriage, this has been a very very difficult task of avoidance by Hillary.
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
"What exactly are this
September 12, 2007 - 16:32 ET by Conservative_in_mass."What exactly are this man’s qualifications to be President, or Vice President, (or Senator)? OMG."
...or town selectman, polling district officer, dog catcher...but he does qualify as the village idiot.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
MSM will cover Obamarama
September 12, 2007 - 15:18 ET by Mica the MagnificentWhy . . of course Obama didn't mean what he said . . . how could you think he meant that? What are you . . a racist??
Obviously a semantic error, However...
September 12, 2007 - 15:24 ET by mattm....that is a bit hard to figure coming from someone who is so clean and articulate...
. . . . and stupid. To
September 12, 2007 - 15:29 ET by Gat New York. . . . and stupid.
To review his qualifications to have the high poll numbers he does have: he is kind of Black, he is articulate, and he has a lot of "hope." He's going to need a lot of the latter to survive this race.
Stinky
September 12, 2007 - 15:41 ET by Mica the MagnificentDon't forget his wife said he was 'stinky.'
I guess we could dismiss the 'clean' and 'articulate' observations.
Shrinking qualifications.
September 12, 2007 - 19:19 ET by NBFSo for the first time in history, a major candidate for president has the predominant qualification of having a certain skin color.
Well, at least that's one more qualification that what Hillary can claim.
So I guess it is safe to
September 12, 2007 - 15:39 ET by bassndudeSo I guess it is safe to assume Obama is Shi'i?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
No problem here?
September 12, 2007 - 16:08 ET by general companyIt's a kinda Dem type of Ethnic Cleansing, you know the clean articulate and humane kind of ethnic cleansing.
gaffe part II
September 12, 2007 - 15:42 ET by LionKing"We've seen a very modest reduction of violence in Baghdad,... Those are all positive things"
So, does he see the very modest reduction of violence as positive thing?...I guess if you are Dem Prez hopeful, the answer would be yes. The real question is does he want it to be successful.
Not yet
September 12, 2007 - 16:10 ET by general companyThe real question is does he want it to be successful.
Not yet, not untill the Dems figure out how to claim creadit
Gaffes that draw attention from the real cluelessness
September 12, 2007 - 15:47 ET by KC MulvilleLet's be careful. When Obama makes gaffes like this, we all pounce on the more obvious of his mistakes. But we then fail to challenge his other misconceptions.
If we measure progress in Iraq by numbers alone, we allow the terrorists to control the debate by inflating those numbers through violence. (Suppose you set the "benchmark" at 300 deaths in Baghdad for September -- all that does is give the terrorists a clear target, and condemns 300 people to death.) Second, the surge was a case where the military was on the offensive, and the casualties are likely to be higher ... but that doesn't mean the surge made no difference. You can't measure such a human situation by mere numbers. It's simpler, but it's wrong.
Excellent point,
September 12, 2007 - 16:16 ET by general companyExcellent point, The Iraqi people are my biggest measuring stick
Biraq Obomba
September 12, 2007 - 16:02 ET by Lame CherryI really am starting to like this guy Barak Obama, because his dunce act is apparently having a good rub off from Oprah's stupid to make this guy a real comedy routine.
How nice the mad invader of Pakistan with bombs all a blazing now considers ethnic cleansing a good thing. In dark of that wonderful revelation, I propose that the guy with three wandering names, BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA officially change his name or at least have bloggers refer to him in honor of genocide, genocide and more genocide:
Biraq Hitler Obomba, man what a deal democrats got in affirmative action with this joker.
(PS "in dark" is not a reference to his multi ethnic background so the witch hunters can forget that attack, but is in grammar, the opposite of "in light" which all intelligent people will understand as genocide is a dark force that is not good.)
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Let's see: he wants to bomb
September 12, 2007 - 23:07 ET by MikeBLet's see: he wants to bomb our allies and talk with our enemies, and he thinks ethnic cleansing is a good thing. Does this mean he wants to commit U.S. troops to the UN "peacekeeping" mission in Darfur? Hey, Barry, is rape as a part of ethnic cleansing a good thing too? If ethnic cleansing is a good thing, would the U.S. deciding to ethnic cleanse all Muslims from our shores also be a good thing? Or should we only get rid of Sunni Muslims? Or, perhaps Shi'a? Or, maybe even the Sufi? I think he may have been watching too much Martha Stewart and parroted her at an inopportune moment.
This yoyo has demonstrated fully that he is unqualified for any postion of leadership.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
It seems to me the
September 12, 2007 - 16:18 ET by SportPoliticsbigger problem is taking his comment at face value.
Since the Batthe sunni's led 20 years of Bagdad shia opression, one could expect retaliation for a number of years.
It seems to me Patreaus has a plan that is actually working and the troop embedding seems to be the key.
I quite understand the old idea was "don't show a presence" and you won't be "considered an occupier" - which of course allowed AQ to be the real occupier....
Im' SO SICK of lib psychobabble freudian mind control CRAP.
Mark - did Gregory have any
September 12, 2007 - 16:25 ET by Gat New YorkMark - did Gregory have any reaction to that remark at all?
Nope; Gregory let it slide.
September 12, 2007 - 16:27 ET by Mark FinkelsteinNope; Gregory let it slide.
"Nope; Gregory let it
September 12, 2007 - 16:45 ET by chessplayer"Nope; Gregory let it slide."
No surprise, there. I hope FoxNews pounds away on this, because the msm will give O-bomb-a a complete pass on it.
Listening to John Gibson on
September 12, 2007 - 17:18 ET by chessplayerListening to John Gibson on FoxNews. He`s busy talking about Rosie O`Donnells new book and Southwest airlines kicking a woman off the plane for dressing too provacatively. No mention of Obama.
Mark must have skipped grammar classes
September 12, 2007 - 18:30 ET by ToomObama's statement is grammatically correct.
"Those are all positive things" refers to "there's no doubt that we've seen some measured progress in Anbar province" and "We've seen a very modest reduction of violence in Baghdad". The comma, and the word "because", clue you in to the fact that the second half of both sentences are modifiers of the first half of the sentence, not separate thoughts.
The only "gaffe" here is your post, and your lack of ability to understand the English language.
You gotta be kidding me.
September 12, 2007 - 18:46 ET by NBFIt's a gaffe.
Imagine if a country was nuked and nobody survived. Now imagine Obomba saying, "Now there is no crime in this country, and that's a positive thing".
strawman
September 13, 2007 - 11:41 ET by ToomYour example is another failure of a liberal arts education.
A correct example would be more like this...
Imagine if a country was nuked and some survived. Now imagine Obama saying, "Many people survived, partly because they ate the dead. That's a positive thing."
Then the moron brigade comes running out "Obama says eating the dead is a positive thing" The problem is, that's not how the english language works.
Obama's "mission accomplished?"
September 13, 2007 - 12:30 ET by TruthMonger...I remember well the shit Bush had to put up with over "mission accomplished"
AND HE DIDN'T EVEN FRACKIN SAY IT!!!!
Yes exactly
September 13, 2007 - 12:51 ET by Toomfinally someone showing some rational though, instead of just beating the drum. This is a liberal tactic, and it saddens me to see conservatives embracing it.
your welcome:)!
September 13, 2007 - 12:56 ET by TruthMongeryour welcome:)!
Nice try, Toom,
September 12, 2007 - 18:50 ET by RJbut Mark didn't say anything about Obama's grammar. That's you trying to re-frame the argument.
Like it or not, "ethnically cleansed" is, clumsily, part of "all" in Obama's "those are all positive things" statement.
Nice try?
September 13, 2007 - 11:32 ET by ToomYou must have gone to a liberal arts school. I would think that people who claim to be conservative would be interested in protecting the English language, not supporting manipulations.
Like it or not, the English language has rules, and the simple fact is that "those are all positive things" cannot refer to a modifier of one of those positive things.
Just more proof education is going down the tubes in this country.
Sorry, Toom, even your arrogant self-importance
September 13, 2007 - 12:29 ET by RJdoesn't make you right. (You must kiss the mirror every morning.)
Again, though, you're just trying to re-frame the argument.
Obama's statement was clumsy, and that's what he's being called on, not rules of grammar.
The point is
September 13, 2007 - 12:38 ET by Toomthere is nothing clumsy about what he said. It's not about my importance, it's about the importance of the English language, and it saddens me to see Conservatives, defending a Clintonesque manipulation. I just don't get it, you are all just so desperate to attack Obama, you want to throw the rules of our language out the window.
Toom, if you really believe your posts aren't about your own
September 13, 2007 - 12:51 ET by RJself importance, I suggest you re-read your contributions to the thread and do a little reflecting.
P.S. Being gramatically correct doesn't protect one from being clumsy.
Umm
September 13, 2007 - 13:20 ET by Toomactually it does, because only people who can't understand simple sentence construction would interpret it as being clumsy.
I know what I said in my posts, and they are not about me, they are about manipulations of the English language, something I consider far more important than myself. If you are truly a conservative, you should too, and you shouldn't be supporting liberal tactics, just because they do it doesn't make it right.
Thanks, Toom
September 13, 2007 - 13:33 ET by RJThanks, Toom, for letting me know what I should believe "if I am truly a conservative." And you say it's not about you? haha!
When you kiss yourself in the mirror, I bet you also say: "I'm good enough, and, darn it, people like me." :^>
P.S. I understand the construction, and I still think he was clumsy. Where does that leave me, Toom?
I'd say
September 13, 2007 - 15:50 ET by Toomthat leaves you as the self-absorbed one, because you claim to understand the construction but still want to pretend it's clumsy. To me, that sound like you think your opinion is more important than the rules of the English language, something I would expect to see on HuffPo or from one of the Kos kids, not here.
haha, Toom, you're a funny guy
September 13, 2007 - 16:43 ET by RJYou claim to be the authority on what a true conservative should think, and each of your posts claims no one but you can decide if Obama was clumsy, yet I'm the self-absorbed one? haha.
Do you wink at yourself in the mirror before or after you kiss yourself?
Thanks for putting words in my mouth
September 13, 2007 - 17:20 ET by ToomI never said no one but I can decide if Obama was clumsy, the rules of the English language decide that, my opinion has nothing to do with it. If I was going to interject my opinion, I would say Obama is a fool and isn't qualified to be President, but my opinion doesn't matter, the English language trumps me. Go ahead and pretend it was clumsy if that makes you feel better about yourself, just don't expect anyone in the MSM to talk about it, because they are definitely self-absorbed enough to not want to look like they never made it past a 5th grade education.
Sure you said it, TOOM
September 13, 2007 - 22:30 ET by RJ"the rules of grammar decide (what is clumsy)." haha. You just might be the funniest poster ever.
Just for kicks, how about if you provide a quote or link to that effect....it should be easy for you, TOOM....unless just a brand new rule that you've invented or intuited in your position of Grand Custodian What Is Clumsy And What Is Not. ;^>
Sure, here's two
September 14, 2007 - 14:19 ET by Toomhttp://en.wikipedia....
or more specifically about adverbial clauses, which is what we are talking about. http://www.arts.uott...
and, yes, it is easy for me to provide a link, and I can provide about a thousand more links if you want. It's easy because it's a rule of the English language, it's not open to interpretation, it's how our language works.
Now, if you will excuse me, I have to go to TP and rip into them for doing it to Boehner. Of course, they won't listen, because it's one of their preferred slimy tactics, something I didn't expect so much support for here.
Non-responsive, TOOM
September 14, 2007 - 15:00 ET by RJUm, as I said, I understand the construction of Obama's sentence, and I understand what he intended to say.
But, as I suspected, you're unable to back up your declaration that "the rules of grammar decide (what is clumsy)." Nowhere in your links is there anything about how the rules of grammar decide what is, or is not, a clumsy turn of phrase.
Clearly, you're following your interpretation that it's not clumsy....just as you use your interpretation to decide what constitutes a "real" conservative. In both cases, you demand that all others must bow down to King TOOM's exclusive interpretation. ;^>
So Toom, If a
September 12, 2007 - 18:53 ET by JerrySo Toom,
If a conservative presidential hopeful had said...
".. the number of cases of Aids is declining, partly because homosexuals are dying in mass. These are all positive things.."
You think this would be overlooked by the MSM due to comma placement??
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
It would be overlooked
September 13, 2007 - 11:50 ET by Toombecause "these are all positive things" can only refer to "the number of Aids cases is declining" it cannot refer to the modifier "because homosexuals are dying in mass". You can't just break the rules of English because you want to interpret something someone said the way you want to. That's why it would be overlooked, because it's a misinterpretation, it has nothing to do with who said it.
Wow Toom, U must are
September 12, 2007 - 20:40 ET by OIFveteranWow Toom,
U must are really smart. I iz not. Pleeze tell me what the defeneshun of "is" is. I are stil wayting to no becuz Bill Clinton said there wur moar than 1. Now u tell me that "all" don't mean all. Wow so much i are not knowing.
Ok, thanx.
Buy.
Obambi either made a mistake or said what he means. If the media were the media and not press agents for the Dhimmicrat party they would ask Odumbdumb if he really thinks ethnic cleansing is a good thing or he mispoke.
<insert something clever>
LOL OIF, Ewe our two fun
September 13, 2007 - 06:44 ET by JerryLOL OIF, Ewe our two fun knee!
I shore wish we wuz az edjumacated az dem libruls. I rekon that be why we get stuk in irak.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment
vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any
President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Again
September 13, 2007 - 12:03 ET by ToomObama did not make a mistake. Your interpretation of what he said is the mistake. He said what he means, and he said it properly. He simply did not say ethnic cleansing was a good thing, no matter how much you wish he did.
Interesting how you bring up Clinton, someone who manipulated the English language, to defend someone else's manipulations. "All" does mean all, it just can't refer to a modifier.
Your interpretation of
September 13, 2007 - 12:08 ET by Jack BauerThat's the funniest (albeit, unintentionally) thing you've written, in a frankly, tedious and myopic series of posts.
As a matter of fact, it is the responsibility of the messanger to make sure the message is communicated correctly and unabiguously.
Not the other way around.
Sigh
September 13, 2007 - 12:16 ET by ToomObviously there is no point trying to educate you. There is nothing ambiguous about his statement, he said what the meant and he said it properly.
Obvioulsy there is no point
September 13, 2007 - 12:27 ET by Jack BauerObviously there is no point in trying to educate you. There is clearly something ambiguous about his statement, he said what he said and left it open to interpretation.
The very definition of miscommunication.
haha
September 13, 2007 - 12:34 ET by Toomthat's funny. Did you work for the Clinton Administration? I'm trying to defend the English language, and if you were a true conservative, you would understand why, instead of trying to use Clintonesque manipulations to redefine what Obama said. I don't care who said it, someone blatantly misinterprets the English language, I'm gonna call them out on it.
Yawn.Please keep up
September 13, 2007 - 13:34 ET by Jack BauerYawn.
Please keep up proving you are a myopic pedant who created a bogus defense to a simple thread proposition that Democrats get a verbal gaffe pass that is never applied to conservatives and Republicans.
I have no idea whether you are truly a "conservative," and I would not dream of making unprovable accusations...except for this observation...
For a conservative, it seems rather odd that you seem to delight in attacking actual NB conservatives, maligning them and their character... and all in order to faux defend an empty space suit called Barack Hussein Obama.
I don't agree that his comment is unambiguous as you claim. But so frackin' what., except your immediate response is to claim that anyone who deosn't agree with you is not a conservative. and is a Clintonesque.
Odd behavior indeed.
I have a lot of respect
September 13, 2007 - 15:21 ET by Toomfor this site and the people who post here, but it bothers me when I see people who should be taking the high ground instead of taking cheap shots that are completely manufactured. That, in my book is a liberal tactic and beneath the posters here. It's a disappointment.
Please provide an example of how I defended Obama, I couldn't care less about Obama, I don't like seeing the English language maligned. Maybe if they were teaching Spanish in the schools I was growing up in, I'd be less sensitive about trying to protect our language, but I wasn't, and I think Americans should be a lot less tolerant of people manipulating the language to support their views.
I did not create a "bogus" defense, the only thing I am trying to defend is respect for the English language, something apparently no one here cares about, they would rather pretend Obama screwed up, when he clearly didn't. I don't understand how someone can claim a bias when there is nothing there to be biased about. It makes us look foolish, and I don't understand why we suddenly care less about the truth than having fodder to attack someone with.
Mark knows I'm right, which is why he began the post with "That's what Barack Obama seemed to say". He knows that isn't what Obama said, and it's not what Obama meant, but he can pretend that's how Obama meant it, and that's just shady, like the Clintons.
I think the gaffe here is
September 13, 2007 - 07:08 ET by Jack BauerI think the gaffe here is your failure to understand that the transcriber of Obambi's comments into written English, was the person who inserted the punctuation marks.
There was no "comma," unless you are claiming Obambi said "comma."
Fine
September 13, 2007 - 11:53 ET by Toomtake the comma out, the word because is still a modifier. At least the transcriber understands English enough to have a comma in the proper place.
Why are you continuing to
September 13, 2007 - 12:10 ET by Jack BauerWhy are you continuing to play dumb? The thread is highlighing a spoken, verbal gaffe.
Your misdirection to grammatical points of what you think Obama meant is... besides the point. I have no idea whether the empty space suit thinks ethnic cleansing really is a good thing or not.
President Bush (and most Republicans) are hammered mercilessly whenever they make what is perceived as a verbal gaffe... despite the fact that everyone knows they didn't mean it to sound the way it came out.
The point is not whether Obama did or did not mean what he said. The point is that he gets away with it because he is as Democrat.
Wait until Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson expresses a thought that can be read another way, or is interpreted as "dumb."
no sense in nonsense
September 13, 2007 - 12:11 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsJack, don't you know you can't win an argument with an idiot?
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Trollbuster -- I do now
September 13, 2007 - 12:35 ET by Jack BauerTrollbuster -- I do now dude!
"mission accomplished"
September 13, 2007 - 12:39 ET by TruthMonger"mission accomplished" right Jack:)?
TM -- That's what the banner
September 13, 2007 - 13:08 ET by Jack BauerTM -- That's what the banner on my stationary deck says!
I'm playing dumb?
September 13, 2007 - 12:12 ET by ToomYou can't properly understand a few sentences in English and I'm playing dumb?
Interesting how you try to turn it around on me "what you think Obama meant is". I am the only one here interpreting exactly what he said according to the rules of the English language, everyone else is trying to hear what they want to hear.
Obama meant what he said and he said it correctly, he is not "getting away with it" because he's a Democrat, he's "getting away with it" because the issue is only with the people who can't understand simple sentence construction.
"mission accomplished" toom
September 13, 2007 - 12:40 ET by TruthMonger"mission accomplished" toom - give it up...
you will live to blog another day...
Yes!!!
September 13, 2007 - 12:53 ET by ToomThis is exactly my point, why lower yourselves to liberal tactics.
...to prove a point...Even
September 13, 2007 - 13:01 ET by TruthMonger...to prove a point...
Even Jesus descended into Hell once in a while...
Do you remember all of the outrage over something Bush never even said?
Contrast that with the complete lack of any coverage whatsoever regarding what OBAMA ACTULLY SAID...
Yes I do remember
September 13, 2007 - 13:11 ET by ToomThat is why I have such a problem doing the same thing to Obama. Especially since there is nothing wrong with what Obama said, he meant what he said and he said it properly. The reason it's not getting any coverage is because it is such an obvious misinterpretation. The MSM may be idiots, buy they usually try to avoid looking like one.
toom i don't think you quite understand this thread...
September 13, 2007 - 13:38 ET by TruthMongerIf Obama was an (R) it would be all over the "news" ad nauseum...that's what they did to Bush with their distortions regarding the Navy crew's "mission accomplished" phrase - still doing it actually on the odd occasion...
As a (D) the MSM will ignore it and feverishly cover for him if we can possibly gin up the possibility of some honest coverage on it...
I do understand the thread
September 13, 2007 - 15:43 ET by Toomthe problem is the controversy over Obama's statement is completely manufactured, there is nothing to cover. Taken at face value, according to the rules of the English language, there is no gaffe in Obama's statement. Libs can pretend Bush claimed "Mission Accomplished" because that is exactly what the banner said. By their logic, he doesn't have to say it, because it's implied that he agrees or he wouldn't be standing in front of it. I'm not saying they are right (they aren't), but it's also not the same situation. Obama very clearly stated what he thinks, and he stated it properly, you are saying that doesn't matter because we can pretend it's a gaffe even though it simply isn't, and curse that darn MSM for not pretending also.
B. Hussein Obama
September 12, 2007 - 18:33 ET by BlondeMan, this puppy is too stupid to be let into the show ring without a handler.
Not to mention...his facts were a little, um, odd.
Just think what great clips these will make when strung together....Bombing Pakistan a la Dr. Strangelove, Ethnic Cleansing (maybe it's because he's so cleeeeean) is positive. Hillary, or maybe one of ours....is going to have a good time with that!
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive