Obama: degrees of lies
So, in President Obama’s interview with Bill O’Reilly Obama mostly bobbed and weaved and evaded answering questions in any meaningful manner. But he also doubled down on his lie on Benghazi, the one that had surfaced with some fanfare in the second debate with Romney.
To O’Reilly:
“When someone is attacking our compound, that is an act of terror and that’s how I characterized it the next day,” Obama said during the live sit-down broadcast from the White House during Fox’s Super Bowl pre-game show.
Obama knows that he will never be fact-checked on this in a way that will matter (bloggers and the right will do it, but the MSM will back him up), and that most people (including those in the MSM) will just allow it to pass into the realm of “things generally thought true.” Wasn’t that settled during the debate, when “moderator” Candy Crowley (who showed a distinct lack of moderation) leapt in to assert that yes, indeed, Obama had called Bengahzi an act of terror the day after it occurred, in his Rose Garden speech?
Anyone who wants a thorough analysis of exactly what Obama said and why it’s the case that he most definitely did not call the attack an act of terror—and just how strange Crowley’s actions in that debate were—please read this, this, and this.
But the larger issue is that we’ve all grown very used to Obama’s lies. Does anyone, including his most avid supporters, expect him to tell the truth anymore? But not all lies are created equal, and most politicians tell lies about something or other, some minor and some major. So what seems different about Obama, besides the volume and variety of his lies?
It’s one thing to lie about something hidden or secret, something that’s hard to ascertain. Is Obama lying, for instance, about how well he knew Bill Ayers back in his Chicago days? Almost certainly, but we don’t know, and we’re almost certainly never going to really know the full extent of their relationship. Is he lying about whether he actually believed that Americans would be able to keep their doctors under Obamacare? A bit easier to ascertain, but not so very easy because we have to assume he had enough knowledge of what was in the bill and how the regulations were going to operate in order to assume he deliberately lied (which he almost certainly did). Did he know about the IRS targeting of the Tea Party? Again, we have to assume that people told him, or that he directed it himself, and that he’s covering up that knowledge. But there’s no smoking gun to implicate him in the IRS offenses (the situation there resembles the speculation about whether Chris Christie knew about the much less important—but still troubling—Bridegate).
But the lie about whether Obama called Benghazi a terrorist act in his Rose Garden speech is of a different order, IMHO. It’s about a matter of easily-obtained public record: his words in a particular speech. And it becomes virtually certain (as I asserted in the posts of mine that I linked to above, where I analyzed the text of the speech very closely), if you look at the words of that speech, that he did not say that. In fact, he pointedly avoided saying it when he had many opportunities to do so.
I can’t recall any previous president, even when lying or shading the truth, saying that he had said something in a public speech when he had not (if you can think of such an incident, let me know). This is what is called a bold-faced lie, an egregious lie—and a lie that depends for its success on the collusion of the press.
And that’s what Obama knows he will get. It’s vitally important. He got that collusion on the first—and most important—time he asserted this particular lie, in that second debate with Romney. I even think there’s at least a 50% chance that the whole thing was arranged ahead of time with Crowley, and you may agree if you actually study the video of the debate.
This is what gives Obama the confidence—the sheer chutzpah—to do this sort of thing without blinking. Because it works for him, and he knows it.
Another egregious lie was Obama’s insistence that he had never uttered the words “red line” about Syria. Yes, the media enables him to lie with impunity.
I liken the interview with O’Reilly to the “Thrilla in Manila.” O’Reilly kept throwing what he thought were his best punches and Obama did the ropa-dope. Then Obama counterpunched with the accusations against Fox news. IMO, Obama won the decision. If we had better referees and judges (the media), Obama could not prevaricate so openly and boldly. It is maddening!
O’Reilly would never have gotten that interview had he had not agreed in front, to let it slide.
That’s how corruption works.
Sarah Palin was attacked by the Left’s air and artillery firepower, but never surrendered or gave up.
I can’t say the same thing for O’Reilly or people like Governor Chris C. On the outside, everything looks okay, to the average analyst or viewer. But on the inside, there are plenty of open source signs that on the inside something is going on.
It’s a tyranny not only of the elite and media but of the dumb in spirit and soul who care not.
Is Obama lying, for instance, about how well he knew Bill Ayers back in his Chicago days? Almost certainly, but we don’t know, and we’re almost certainly never going to really know the full extent of their relationship.
One example of a Obama or his spokesman fudging about Obama’s association with Bill Ayers was uncovered by Breitbart.com, which found a blog from a former University of Chicago grad student where Obama was seen at a Fourth of July [2005] barbecue at Bill Ayers’s house
The blogger’s response to Breitbart’s query about the blog entry was to “delete his entire blog from the Internet.” As Gomer Pyle would have said, ” Surprise, surprise, surprise.”
Compare this with what an Obama statesman said about contact between Ayers and Obama.[link from Breitbar.com artilce]
As Breitbart says, this statement is rather “Clintonian.”
“And that’s what Obama knows he will get. It’s vitally important.”
As we’ve said again and again recently, the close air support of the MSM is what enables this president and the Democrats in general. We all recognize it, and we all keep complaining about it.
I wish I knew what the answer is to this tactical problem. We don’t have an air force… well we do, but it’s more like a few old P40’s going up against F-15’s. Somehow their major air bases located at NYT LaT, WaPO, and the alphabet networks need to be knocked out, but I certainly don’t have the strategy to suggest how that would be accomplished.
And yes, I am putting this in war metaphors, because that’s how the other side certainly views it.
You could make an argument that the Bush administration did something similar with how close they got to (saying / not saying) that Saddam Hussein (had / could have / had the capacity to produce / had produced) (chemical / chemical and biological / chemical biological and nuclear) weapons.
I should add: I don’t think there was any direct lie in the Bush administration’s statements, but there was plenty of room to claim that they had both said and not said there were WMD’s. I think foreign policy pronouncements are particularly rich in multiple-interpretation wiggle room.
Another example of this kind of brazen mendacity from Obama concerned his position on born-alive abortion legislation in Illinois. IIRC, he had opposed a bill to require that babies born alive following an attempted abortion be given medical treatment for their injuries. He CLAIMED that he opposed it because of some problem with the bill that in fact didn’t exist (I think it had already been amended to fix the problem Obama was referring to). As with this Benghazi lie, Obama was apparently counting on the fact that only a handful of people would care enough about the issue or be cynical enough about him to get to the truth of the matter.
Even without air support, the Left has legions of zombies, drones, WMDs, artillery support from all directions and ranges.
Air support is not the only part of their military
Nick @ 3:08,
If the Bush administration lied (knowingly told an untruth) then so did all these democrats;
Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Bob Graham, Harold Ford, Tom Lantos, Tom Harkin, Arlen Specter, Madeline Albright, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Barbara Boxer, Robert Bryd, Wesley Clark, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Al Gore, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, Jim Jeffords, Carl Levin, Ted Kennedy, Patty Murray, Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, John Rockefeller and Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter are ALL on record from 1998-2003 as stating that they believed Hussein either already had or was seeking to create WMD’s.
Nick: Suggest you read the documentation at
George Washington University’s National Security Archive.
Nick,
If Bush had fabricated intel the left would have hit him with both barrels after it gained Congress in 2006.
As it was, the best scoop they got was from the “spy who lied” in, IIRC, Vanity Fair. I recall at first thinking “oh shit, Bush DID lie”, until the facts came out, yet even after the left/media was able to spin it to advantage.
physicsguy said…Somehow their major air bases located at NYT LaT, WaPO, and the alphabet networks need to be knocked out, but I certainly don’t have the strategy to suggest how that would be accomplished.
It’s actually worse than that. The dang “millennials,” for example, hardly read those papers or watch TV — for them, it’s Twitter, Facebook, White House emails, the Yahoo homepage, etc.
Somedays it’s hard to not think we’re doomed.
Just for the sake of piling on…. British, French, and Israeli intelligence services believed SH had or was seeking to develop WMDs. BHO’s lies are so easy to spot. His insistence on lying about his lies is infuriating. Most infuriating of all is the MSM covering up his lies.
Bill O’Really: A member in good kneeling of the Fellatio Media.
Nick,
Bush’s problem is not that he misrepresented the intel on Iraq’s proscribed weapons. The problem is Bush misrepresented – and quite possibly misunderstood – the marginal role of intel in the Iraq enforcement procedure he inherited from Clinton.
Bush fastidiously carried forward the enforcement procedure on Iraq he inherited from Clinton.
Yet when Clinton enforced on Iraq, Clinton notably did *not* include a claim of affirmative, detailed knowledge of Iraqi possession of proscribed weapons. Instead, Clinton based his assessment of Saddam’s danger on Iraq’s demonstrable non-compliance, which was the same trigger for Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Clinton did not include an affirmative claim of Iraqi possession of proscribed weapons because it wasn’t an element of the Iraq enforcement. Curing our ignorance was Saddam’s central (though not only) requirement in order to release Iraq from the Gulf War ceasefire and UNSC resolutions. Saddam failed to fulfill that duty from beginning to end.
Here’s the thing: Clinton’s intel was Bush’s intel. When Clinton declared Saddam’s non-compliance was a “clear and present danger”, bombed and sanctioned Iraq, and made Iraq regime change the US policy, Clinton had no more affirmative knowledge of Iraq’s WMD than Bush had.
The intel, whatever its quality, didn’t matter because there was no requirement for the US and UN to show Iraq was in possession. The opposite was true. Iraq’s guilt was established and presumed from the outset. Iraq was required to prove its rehabilitation on weapons and other, non-weapons, issues to clear the enforcement.
So, what to make Bush’s emphasis on the intel?
One, by procedure, the intel could not be a cause for war with Iraq because it wasn’t an element of the Iraq enforcement procedure, which Bush correctly followed.
If Bush had simply followed Clinton’s precedent and made no claim of knowledge on the status of Iraq’s weapons, the result would have been the same: regime change triggered by Iraq’s demonstrated non-compliance.
Two, Bush’s emphasis on the intel in his public case is especially frustrating because there was no apparent advantage to be gained by it. Clinton had established a public case against Saddam that closely matched the enforcement procedure. Bush followed Clinton’s procedure, yet for some reason, deviated from Clinton’s public case for enforcing that procedure.
Bush’s mistake opened the door, which Clinton had carefully kept locked, for propagandists to falsely claim we went to war with Iraq over ‘cooked intelligence’, when by procedure, the trigger could only be Iraq’s failure to comply. Not the intel.
So with Iraq, Bush did it right, by fastidiously following the enforcement procedure he inherited from Clinton. But Bush didn’t say it right in his public case and thereby muddied what should have been a clear process.
That’s different in kind from the Obama administration’s response to the Benghazi consulate attack.
Add: I can excuse anti-American and terrorist propagandists for propagating the ‘cooked intelligence’ narrative on the Iraq enforcement. Our competitors and enemies will do to us as they are supposed to do. That’s the competition in the arena.
But I cannot excuse Democrats for validating and propagating the false narrative, most of all those Democrats who know the truth from having taken part in the Iraq enforcement during the Clinton administration. If they can lie about the Iraq enforcement they were part of, that means they can lie about anything, including the Benghazi consulate attack.
Eric,
I certainly agree that Bush made mistakes, despite the very best of intentions.
However Clinton absolutely claimed to have affirmative knowledge of Iraq’s WMD’s.
“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” – Bill Clinton in 1998 [my emphasis]
IMO, Bush deeply misunderstood the reality of Islam (as did I at the time) and M.E. societies and that misunderstanding led him to the mistakes he made. Including not fully laying out the entire situation, due to I suspect, being swayed by the plausible argument that a too complicated explanation would be both too hard for the public to grasp and too easily twisted by the left.
Which was indeed the reality he faced with the American public.
As far as Bill O’Reilly, he didn’t impress me when he and I crossed paths. Not directly – he interviewed some of my colleagues. The interview showed he had only a popular, superficial understanding of the issue. Which is not abnormal by itself.
What struck me about O’Reilly in the interview was he didn’t try to expand the discourse with nuance from my colleagues’ input. Instead, he stuck to the generic talking points with which he entered the interview and shoehorned my colleagues into them.
For an incisive interview of President Obama, O’Reilly wouldn’t be my 1st choice.
O’Reilly wasn’t interested in getting truth out. He just wanted to put his mug on the tube and put the interview in his trophy case — he almost came out and said exactly that when he announced it. Like an excited school boy who finally gets the date with the cute girl.
He’s Fox’s number 1 blowhard –lecturing everyone on how you need to treat the president, and bragging that he got the interview because he show’s proper respect – translation, “I’m going to be used and ask tough questions he agrees to beforehand, and then let him off the hook no matter what he answers”
In fact the worst thing that could have been done was to give Obama a captive audience of millions so he could tell more lies. The best thing Fox could have done was decline the interview, and keep BO out of our living rooms, and ruin an otherwse good day.
Instead, the only nationally conservative media outlet volunteered to be used by Obama, and O’Reilly once again got spanked. Maybe the Republicans can help their own cause by telling Fox if they want to be helpful, stop helping him get his message out.
Media collusion gave The Light Bringer the chutzpah to run for president in the first place. When it became obvious that only Fox News would vet him, he knew he was on third base looking at home plate.
And of course the media wanted all in on a candidate they knew they could insulate from criticism and accountability by playing the race card. Perfect storm.
The proof that on September 12, 2012 President Obama was NOT referring to the Benghazi attack of the previous night as a terror attack, and instead was making allusions to the Mohammed video spoof, we just have to look at the transcript of his remarks.
President Obama’s reference to terrorism related to the observance of the anniversary of the 9/11/2001 terrorist attack.
I’ve bold-faced the most relevant parts.
Note that the transcript was issued by the White House, and the paragraphing of President Obama’s remarks I believe are self-serving, particularly in the third section of remarks that I bold-faced. I’ve added bracketed dashes and the word “paused” (i.e., “[–paused–]”) to show where an additional paragraph break should be. Watching and listening to President Obama’s speech (see http://www.forextv.com/forex-news-story/full-transcript-of-obama-s-rose-garden-speech-after-sept-11-benghazi-attack) will show that he paused at that point-as one would do when going from one paragraph to another.
From
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya
“…the situation there resembles the speculation about whether Chris Christie knew about the much less important–but still troubling–Bridegate).”
Bride gate??
I didn’t say Bush lied – although I should have said it more clearly. I was only saying that his administration’s statements gave him wiggle room.
Geoffrey Britain,
Clinton saying “kind of threat Iraq poses” is different than posing a summation of intelligence, which is questionable by nature, as verified, particular knowns.
1998 Clinton had the same quality of intel as 2002 Bush. Their CIA director’s assurances notwithstanding, we no longer possessed any certainty about the status of Iraq’s weapons by the mid 1990s, let alone 1998. We still had intel, but not affirmative knowledge.
Our last point of certainty was in 1995 when Saddam’s son-in-law General Hussein Kamel al-Majid revealed the hidden cache that was undetected by Western intelligence.
GEN al-Majid’s intent was for Iraq to come clean in order to clear the enforcement, especially the sanctions. However, like many others, GEN al-Majid misunderstood that the enforcement was based on Saddam’s compliance, not Iraq’s demonstrated possession.
So what happened? The opposite of what GEN al-Majid intended. Rather than clear the enforcement, the incident caused US and UN officials to raise the standard of proof required of Saddam – in part because the limit of Western intelligence tracking of Iraq’s weapons had been exposed.
The 1995 incident showed we could not trust our intel to tell us whether Iraq’s guilt was cured independent of Iraq’s claims. Only Saddam’s total compliance to a sufficiently high standard could assure us of that.
What did Clinton possess ‘affirmative knowledge’ of in 1998?
Clinton knew Saddam’s established and presumed guilt was the basis of the enforcement procedure. Clinton also knew about Saddam’s misbehavior, threats and belligerence, and record of non-compliance, ie, material breaches, across a range of issues on Clinton’s watch.
Operation Desert Fox, the peak of Clinton’s Iraq enforcement, wasn’t triggered by any demonstrated possession, but rather by Saddam’s behavior and failure to meet the mandated standard of compliance and accountability.
Nick, no, I caught your elaboration before. So I understood the point as you made it about Bush’s WMD speeches.
Nick,
You completely missed the point. Obama can lie with impunity (no wiggle room needed) because he knows that the media will give him a pass (ignore, misframe, dismiss, attack the questioners, etc.). We’re talking about easily documented lies here, not ambiguities.
O’Reilly is a man of good intentions. He does his best to not get personal with Obama. He tries to respect the office. He also doesn’t realize how venal progressive politicians are. He still has the 50s mentality that both parties have the best interests of the nation at heart.
O’Reilly is a cultural conservative. He works hard at trying to expose all the moral drift in our pop culture. He’s especially into defending children from abuse and is very pro-choice. However, he doesn’t believe deeply in conservative fiscal and foreign policy, although he occasionally comes down on the right side of those things.
He considers himself to be master of the no-spin interview. He likes to interview VIPs, considering them as trophies he can display in his den and add to his “legacy.” He’s very high on himself in that regard and it’s a bit of a turn off. At least for me. I hope that he will see how he was spun like a top in this effort. He thought he was going to raise issues that Obama would have to address honestly. It didn’t happen. I hope this will give him a small dose of humility and help him to understand that no matter how pointed your questions, if the interviewee lies smoothly, there is not much you can do to bring him/her up short. Especially not in a short time period.
To sum up; O’Reilly thought he was going to get some answers to questions that the “folks” have been asking. Instead he provided the Prevaricator-in-Chief a platform to attack Fox News. Sigh!
I’m sorry Eric but I find no ambiguity in Clinton’s statement, specifically; “a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists”. Pray tell, how do we misinterpret that unequivocal declaration?
J.J.,
I’m mostly in agreement with your view of O’Reilly.
However regarding, “He’s very high on himself in that regard and it’s a bit of a turn off. At least for me. I hope that he will see how he was spun like a top in this effort.”
IMO, O’Reilly is a bit of an egotist and in my experience, egotists do not willingly admit, even to themselves, that they have been ‘spun like a top’.
There’s a bit of similarity between an egotist and a narcissist and neither suffers criticism lightly.
Geoffrey Britain,
“the very kind of threat Iraq poses now”.
Again, from the outset, Saddam’s guilt was established and his guilt was presumed as the basis of the enforcement.
There was no need in 1998 nor in 2002 to prove Saddam’s guilt anew. Because Iraq wasn’t presumed innocent. Iraq was presumed guilty.
By 1998, Saddam had not cured the presumption. If anything, he had exacerbated it.
Until Iraq proved to the US and UN it was rehabilitated, the possession of proscribed weapons was a fact in a legal sense, whether or not we held immediate real-time, verified, particularly detailed, ‘smoking gun’, affirmative knowledge.
It wasn’t Clinton’s job to prove Iraq was a threat. That fact was established before Clinton, let alone Bush, was voted into office. It was Saddam’s duty to prove Iraq was no longer a threat.
I just came across of a photo (shopped) of BHO about to throw a football at PJM. Its a lie of another sort.
http://tinyurl.com/mc5q7r9
JJ,
Obama needs to be interviewed by someone with a trial background and who’s prepared to navigate through the pop-surface layer of issues.
O’Reilly isn’t that guy. He’s not a lawyer and only brings a superficial playbook to his show.
Nick,
The best point of reference is “President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat”, October 7, 2002:
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
It’s all in there – most of Bush’s speech explains the Saddam problem and accords with the Iraq enforcement procedure that Bush inherited from Clinton.
But Bush’s speech also contains the statements used by propagandists as jumping-off points.
There really isn’t much wiggle room to them. Bush uses strong words like ‘know’, ‘reveal’, ‘evidence’, and ‘clear evidence’ when characterizing the intel, a pitfall from which Clinton had steered clear.
To be fair, given the contours, presumptions, and stakes of the Saddam problem, Clinton and Bush officials were obligated to view intel on Iraq in the least favorable light for Saddam.
However, as Clinton the Yale JD understood, but Bush the Harvard MBA apparently failed to grasp, intelligence – however compelling – is not the same thing as evidence.
Equating intelligence to evidence, which put the audience in mind of Anglo jurisprudence, mischaracterized the operative Iraq enforcement procedure. Propagandists exploited Bush’s misguided metaphor to full effect.
At the same time, the intel was not the center of gravity in Bush’s speech. It wouldn’t be since the intel, by design, could not be a trigger for OIF.
The compliance test for Saddam was the center of gravity of Bush’s speech. Bush emphasized that passing the compliance test was Saddam’s path to avoid regime change while the failure to comply would trigger the credible threat of regime change.
Geoffrey Britain,
“given the contours, presumptions, and stakes of the Saddam problem, Clinton and Bush officials were obligated to view intel on Iraq in the least favorable light for Saddam.”, from my comment to Nick, goes to answering your question, too.
The night before the first election for the Obama win, I was watching the O’Reilly factor. Chris Wallace, and I think, Brit Hume were on with him. O’Reilly had the last word, and the last sentence out of his mouth was VERY pro Obama, although I do not remember exactly what he said. I was almost shocked to hear it, and the look on the faces of both Wallace and (I think) Hume, spoke volumes. As the camera panned the faces, it was plain they were both surprised as if broadsided, shocked and disgusted at once. The credits rolled. I’ll bet that statement brought a million votes to Obama.
I have not watched the O’Reilly factor since that night. When Peggy Noonan came out for Obama first time around, I wrote her column and asked her what the hell is wrong with her, and have not read her column since. I did not believe a word way back then, couldn’t understand for the life of me how anyone could, and can’t believe he was elected a second term.
gpc31: “Obama can lie with impunity (no wiggle room needed) because he knows that the media will give him a pass (ignore, misframe, dismiss, attack the questioners, etc.).”
Yep.
One way to understand the difference is the ‘most favorable light’ vs ‘least favorable light’ lens, though the air cover for Obama goes beyond the former and the vilification of Bush goes beyond the latter.
On the other side of the media acting as agents for Obama, the Iraq enforcement was long established and mature by 2002. Bush followed the course of Clinton’s Iraq enforcement, with only one step, to its logical resolution of the Saddam problem.
The Iraq enforcement had been a lead story for over a decade. And not 3, 2, or 1 decade removed from current events. It was a current event that media had reported on, none of which required an FOIA request to learn about.
Yet despite all that current exposure, the false narrative dominated popular understanding, anyway, even among putative Bush supporters.
Now keep in mind, leading Democrats were part of Clinton’s Iraq enforcement. So they understand best of everyone the gulf between the open-source, just-happened truth of the Iraq enforcement they were part of and the dominant false narrative of Bush’s Iraq enforcement. They get it.
It’s clear the Democrats have applied that understanding of The Narrative to their advantage in the partisan contest. The success of their false narrative of Bush’s Iraq enforcement taught the Dems that The Narrative is not limited by the truth. It’s only limited by Marxist-method activist capability, which the Dems have and the GOP needs to learn, urgently.
‘close air support’ is better than ‘air cover’, since ‘close air support’ implies an offensive component more than ‘air cover’ does.
Yep, Your Infantile Majesty, your truthfulness running up to the election was doubled down with the malignant Susan Rice appearing on 5-Sunday Talk Shows. Right..? Hellooooooooooooo, Mr.Prezdet..!!
Or, as your hideous shill, Nancy Pelosi, responded to Jon Stewart’s query about the Obam-Bamcare website disaster: “I don’t know. It’s not my responsibility.”
LOATHSOME. You and your whole sleazy, lying crew.
Eric:
Obama needs to be interviewed by someone with a trial background and who’s prepared to navigate through the pop-surface layer of issues.
Remember in his first term, when he had a sit-down with members of Congress and a then-unknown Paul Ryan read him the riot act?
Personally, though, the confrontation I’d like to see would be President Obama answering questions from Ted Cruz.
It seems BHO was focused like a laser beam on IT shovel ready jobs in Belaruse:
http://freebeacon.com/the-belarusian-connection/
And nothing will happen.
Obama will skate.
“Personally, though, the confrontation I’d like to see would be President Obama answering questions from Ted Cruz.”
I’d like to see BHO and Reid tag teamed by Ted Cruz and Nigel Farage. 😉
Eric: “Obama needs to be interviewed by someone with a trial background and who’s prepared to navigate through the pop-surface layer of issues.”
So true. But even then, it might take some waterboarding to get him to tell the truth – if he can even recognize it. (The best liars convince themselves that they are telling the truth.) I thought Clinton was a smooth prevaricator. Obama makes him look clumsy.
1. Bill O’Reilly is an entertainer, not a truth-seeker.
2. Barry O is a mentally ill puppet and a pathological liar.
Well, Nick, just imagine you are the President. The Director of Central Intelligence, appointed by your Democrat predecessor, comes to your office, pounds his fist on the table, and says “Mr. President, it is a slam dunk that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.”
But you, being a cautious fellow, say, “Well, George, maybe so, but have you checked this out with our allies?”
And he replies, “Yes, Mr. President, here are reports from the British, French, Russian, and Israeli intelligence agencies confirming it.”
So tell me, Mr. President, what do you do?
When Barry lied — “I never heard any of those sermons” — about something that he had written (in his own book!) — “Rev. Wright has been the greatest spiritual influence on my life” and got away with it, I knew the zombies had won.
Everyone knows about Hitler saying that the people will believe a big lie more readily than a small one, because they can’t conceive of telling such a whopper themselves; therefore, they can’t believe the politician would, either.
But Margaret Mitchell had the insight earlier. Rhett Butler told Scarlett O’Hara, re Melanie: “There’s too much honor in her to conceive of dishonor in anyone she loves.”
That, too, is what Comrade Zero is counting on.
Bullspit. O’Really is a knobslobbering sycophant. The only good intentions a sycophant has is for themselves, nobody else.
O’Really? Then why didn’t the clown call out President If You Like Your Plan on his obvious and blatant lies? No IRS scandal? Oh, right. Access and face time. And ol’ Bill is all about the face time.
My thoughts, too. Jeanine Pirro would have been my pick of Fox News ‘talent’ to do this interview.
O’Reilly might be just an entertainer, if it wasn’t for that no spin zone claim of his. That reaches into land of hypocrisy.
Anyone Hussein has an interview with, is corrupted. That’s the pov of why they gave the interview to begin with.
Everyone knows about Hitler saying that the people will believe a big lie more readily than a small one
I believe that was one of Hitler’s henchmen rather.
I did not believe a word way back then, couldn’t understand for the life of me how anyone could, and can’t believe he was elected a second term.
My view is rather simple on this matter.
They found their Deus Ex Machina God and Messiah. And they were going to worship it, no matter how many enemy towns and villages they would have to raze for their god.
Pingback:News and Commentary for February 4 | Palo Verde Republican Women
Pingback:News and Commentary for February 4 | The Joke's On Us
Richard Saunders,
The key feature of the Iraq enforcement that is difficult for people to grasp is the Iraq enforcement did not pivot on the intel.
Intel only colored the argument. Intel was not a required element.
The Iraq enforcement pivoted on Saddam’s compliance to a mandated standard on a range of requirements, including but not limited to accounting for proscribed weapons and related.
Within the operative enforcement procedure, it didn’t matter whether George Tenet had said, ‘Mr. President, it is a slam dunk that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction’ or ‘Mr. President, no one has known for sure since 1995’ – because the US and UN held no burden of proof on Iraq’s weapons.
The entire burden of proof was on Saddam.
Within the operative enforcement procedure, Saddam was guilty until Saddam proved he was no longer guilty.
Within the operative enforcement procedure, until Saddam fully accounted for his proscribed weapons and related, Saddam was presumed to possess them – regardless of whether Iraq’s possession was demonstrable by intelligence services.
The notion that the CIA and other intel services held a responsibility to prove Iraq’s WMD, when Iraq’s WMD had been an established fact at the basis of the Iraq enforcement since 1991, is a false premise foundational to the false narrative.
If the CIA had said, ‘We don’t know’, that would not have changed the Iraq enforcement procedure, because anywhere Iraq lacked account of proscribed weapons meant possession.
The comments here of Bush and OIF supporters clinging to the false-narrative framing of the intel controversy demonstrates the sweeping and enduring victory of the false narrative.
Rick Z: “Bullspit. O’Really is a knobslobbering sycophant. The only good intentions a sycophant has is for themselves, nobody else.”
Show me anyone in the media who isn’t self-absorbed, or narcissistic. He may not be a true conservative, but I know he’s not in favor of the way our pop culture has morphed over toward the libertine. Therefore, he’s much more on our side than any of the ranters at MSNBC. Does he want to get eyeballs? Of course, that’s the name of the game – just like Richard Sherman wants to get pick sixes. I don’t denounce him because he is trying to increase his audience. I do criticize him for being as naé¯ve as he is.
Here’s what I e-mailed him after the interview: “Sorry, Bill, the President ropa-doped you. You kept punching but none of them landed. He wins by effectively demonizing Fox News on Fox. Ugly!”
IMO, we can’t effectively combat the progressive tide if we keep trying to kill those who are useful to our cause because they aren’t pure enough.
I don’t understand why Fox did that segment at all. All the Low Info voters will see is Bill O’Reilly trying to beat up Dear Leader Obama during what should be Happy Time – The Super Bowl. The situation wasn’t there for Bill to really grill Obama. Obama gave his pat answers, ducked and weaved, and in my opinion won the interview.
So, ugly, mean Fox attempts to bully Obama and doesn’t land a glove as far as the low information voters are concerned. We can discuss the lies and dodges Obama spoke til we’re blue in the face, but Low Information Voter won’t see any of that.
If there was ever a time for lobbing softballs to the president, it was Super Bowl time.
Lose/Lose Fox and Bill.
Mark in Portland,
Maybe Fox News isn’t the rebel it’s portrayed to be. Maybe it’s just a foil filling a prescribed function for the Establishment.
As I keep saying, the solution – the *only* solution – is a proper Marxist-method activist popular movement.
Stop looking for GOP candidates to be messianic saviors in some kind of fantasy of a campaign. Stop looking to Fox News. Stop looking to social entities other than The People.
Organize and lead The People, rise up and spread out through all corners of our country, seize and change The Narrative. Define The Zeitgest. Become a social-political-cultural force that politicians join, conform to, and depend on.
The Marxist-method activist game is the only social-political game there is, and the origin point for winning that game is a proper movement. Not candidates. Not news-supplying corporations.
Show me anyone in the media who isn’t self-absorbed, or narcissistic.
Isn’t Meg Kelley on Fox News?
Organize and lead The People, rise up and spread out through all corners of our country, seize and change The Narrative.
You intentionally go out of your way to fire in the backs of the Tea Party taking the frontal load of the Left’s artillery and air support.
You are in no position to talk about leading anyone. You think those fighting on the front lines are going to trust their whatever to a Marxist method actor? It’s not going to happen.
Ymasakar: “Isn’t Meg Kelley on Fox News?”
Why yes, she is. And you’re telling me she isn’t self-absorbed or narcissistic? Not exactly what I see. Ask Greta, Gretchen, Monica, Harris, or many other Fox News gals if Meg Kelly is a humble, team player.
An old axiom of journalism was ‘to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable’. Now, with so many journalists having their mega-million dollar contracts, they are the comfortable, and will not afflict those with whom they share drinks on the cocktail circuit.
Calling out a blatant and shameless liar for being a blatant and shameless liar is never going to happen much again, not with non-judgmental political correctness taking root throughout every aspect of our society. And the Country will continue to suffer the worse for it. It is not indelicate to call a blatant and shameless liar a liar; it used to be considered ‘the truth’. We live with so many lies today that we are fast becoming a Potemkin society, a movable house of cardboard built on airy lies.
Generally speaking, neither Obama nor the MSM have “gotten away” with their lies.
The problem lies in the expected outcomes of the right. Obama hasn’t been removed from office or resigned (which any previous administration would’ve done by now). The MSM haven’t gone out of business (as should happen to media that refuse to report the truth).
Instead, both of their credibilities have eroded. Obama’s poll numbers are at the lowest of his presidency. The MSM’s ratings are in the toilet (especially compared to Fox) as they hemorrhage viewers.
This is why Obama has to go on Fox to disseminate his lies. His problem now is that most right-thinking people have already given up on him.
Ymarsakar: “You think those fighting on the front lines are going to trust their whatever to a Marxist method actor? It’s not going to happen.”
That is why they lose.
Ymarsakar: “You intentionally go out of your way to fire in the backs of the Tea Party taking the frontal load of the Left’s artillery and air support.”
I want the Tea Party to succeed in their original promise as a popular movement. That is where their difference-making power lies.
However, the Tea Party shot themselves in the back and dispelled their threat to the Dems and Left as soon as the Tea Party switched to a campaign and elected office orientation from their original promise to the GOP and social-political game-changing value as an insurgent Marxist-method activist popular movement.
Because the Tea Party changed course and lost the momentum of their movement, the Dems now use the self-defanged Tea Party as a useful foil.
The Tea Party movement can be restored, it’s not too late, but they need to return to their original Marxist-method activist promise to America.