Fleischer criticizes Obama’s Cairo speech as being too ‘balanced.’
Fleischer criticizes Obama’s Cairo speech as being too ‘balanced.’
Today, former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer told CBS that he disapproved of President Obama’s speech in Cairo about the U.S. relationship with Muslim communities around the world. His problem with the speech? It was too “balanced”:
Fleischer bluntly told [CBS's Mark] Knoller, “bottom line — the speech was balanced and that was what was wrong with it. American policy should not be balanced. It should side with those who fight terror.” [...]
Knoller asked Fleischer if he heard much that is at odds with Bush administration policy.
“In part, it was similar to Bush’s constant message that both sides had obligations to fulfill,” he responded. “But Bush always leaned — privately and publicly — in Israel’s direction because they were being hit with terror attacks. Obama really wants to be in the middle. Bush took sides and was sometimes blunt about it.”
The Obama administration has faced criticism for being too balanced in the past. In January, Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League called George Mitchell, Obama’s top diplomatic envoy to the Middle East, too “fair” and “even-handed.” As Matt Yglesias responded, “[N]obody comes out against fairness. It’d be one thing to complain [about being] biased against Israel in a problematic way, but…complaining that he’s too fair and even-handed” is “absurd.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Fleischer is such an idiot. Here’s what Obama said:
June 4th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Ari epitomizes the failure of the Bush White House and its love affair with the Israelis, at our own expense and that of the world. For lack of finding something to criticze in a speech hailed around the world, he says it’s “too balanced.”
Someone needs to take him and his cabal aside and tell them to STFU because they are hurting themselves, their cause, and are engendering hatred and resentment toward them and what they represent.
June 4th, 2009 at 2:33 pmAs Matt Yglesias responded, “[N]obody comes out against fairness. It’d be one thing to complain [about being] biased against Israel in a problematic way, but…complaining that he’s too fair and even-handed” is “absurd.”
____________
As if that would stop conservative gasbags from saying it?
Please. The current crop of absurdist conservative commentators make Kierkegaard look like a two-bit hack.
June 4th, 2009 at 2:34 pmWait — I thought “Fair & Balanced™” was supposed to be a good thing to the Righties?
I guess they want things balanced, just not too balanced.
It logically follows then that they want things fair, but not too fair, huh?
June 4th, 2009 at 2:35 pmY’know, this strikes me as an indication of how competent a politician the President is proving to be. He’s given the right wing so little to latch onto that they’re reduced to complaining about his speeches being “too balanced”.
That’s a formidable politician, folks.
June 4th, 2009 at 2:36 pmFleischer criticizes Obama’s Cairo speech as being too ‘balanced.’
June 4th, 2009 at 2:36 pm– - Ahh, the “low-profile” Ari Fleischer. An African-American President with Muslim roots stands before the Muslim world and defends the right of Jews to a nation of their own in their ancestral homeland, and then denounces in vociferous terms the evil of Holocaust denial, and right-wing Israelis go forth and complain that the President is unsympathetic to the housing needs of settlers. Incredible, just incredible.
Badmoodman Says:
and right-wing Israelis go forth and complain that the President is unsympathetic to the housing needs of settlers. Incredible, just incredible.
June 4th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
____________
Incredible, perhaps. But also highly predictable.
June 4th, 2009 at 2:37 pmWAR! DAMMIT! WE WANT WAR AND WON’T BE SATISFIED UNTIL EVERY BROWN NON XIAN PERSON IS DEAD!@
Secretly transcripted from RNC notes.
June 4th, 2009 at 2:37 pmWhy is Ari Fleischer being given a bully pulpit to promote bullyism?
June 4th, 2009 at 2:38 pmAri’s logic is as pertinent as his WH Presser remarks in the past. Every time one of these wingnuts gets up on their soapbox, they show themselves to be the fools we all suspected.
‘We distort, you decide.’
June 4th, 2009 at 2:39 pmYeah, right, we should have kept with the WAR CRIMINAL Bush’s policies, they worked so well for us.
(Now for some snarkness)
After all being balanced and fair is UnAmerican, we need to be a nation of War Mongering psychopaths, who loot and steal what we want, when we want it.
Fcuk the Republic Fascist Party
June 4th, 2009 at 2:40 pm.
Again, another member of the “opposition Party” who opposes ANYTHING, just to be against it, even if being against it hurts his own interest.
Dear Ari,
I thought your team was against “transnationalist” ideals. Now you want a transnationalist view on Israel?
Oh, I get it, it’s NOT being a transnationalist when you’re an American pining for Israel, YES?
.
June 4th, 2009 at 2:41 pmI thought the Republicans had gone over the cliff trying to come up with new insulting terms to use as invective when they tried to turn “Community Organizer” into a pejorative last summer.
Now the terms “fair”, “balanced”, “even-handed”, etc. are negatives to be hurled as taunts and insults. Does this mean Fox News will change their slogan?
June 4th, 2009 at 2:48 pmThe Right-wingnuts have completely lost it now…there is no way possible to “normalize” them anymore. They know exactly what Pres. Obama was saying and that he is exactly correct, but they don’t want to deal with the fact that his Administration is doing exactly what the BS Bush Administration should have done, been the honest broker and the dealer of tough love, telling it like is while reaching out the hand instead of the fist, in order to be the adult, when it is oh so important to do so and be.
June 4th, 2009 at 2:48 pmI’m an Israeli and i adore this speech. It was stunning. I never heard an American president being so honest about everything. I can’t pray enough for his success, as he really is our last best hope, even if half of the people in my country can’t understand that.
June 4th, 2009 at 2:48 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
Wait — I thought “Fair & Balanced™” was supposed to be a good thing to the Righties?
Damn you! Beat me to it again.
June 4th, 2009 at 2:50 pmi know ari doesn’t know this but bush was the worst president evah….
June 4th, 2009 at 2:50 pmThis is just another case of talking out of both sides of your mouth and therefore not really saying anything, such as when President Obama said the world is better off without Saddam Hussein but in the next paragraph criticized the war that made that happen.
Sometimes you must take a stand for what is right, and that means acknowledging what is wrong.
June 4th, 2009 at 2:51 pmmissmolly,
LOL. Good one!
When will Ari start his campaign against the FOXPRAVDA NETWORK for being “Fair and Balanced”?
.
June 4th, 2009 at 2:52 pmTo the Israel First lobby, “balanced” means “never say anything bad about Israel, never say anything good about Arabs.” And it really is exactly how wingnuts view the media: “fair and balanced” means “propaganda for the Right all the time.” Any media outlet that ever questions the correctness of the Right is “liberal” or “extremist.”
June 4th, 2009 at 2:52 pmI’ve realized now why Bush officials screwed up so much. It wasn’t that they were evil, they’re just plain stupid. They truly are idiots.
Remember that old anti-drug commercial showing this is your brain (egg), this is your brain, this is your brain on drugs (egg frying in a pan). They should have a new commercial showing an egg and then someone throwing the egg in Fleischer’s face.
June 4th, 2009 at 2:55 pmAnd Romartin’s Laughed-At chimes in with another vote for “too balanced”.
Check.
June 4th, 2009 at 2:55 pmRomartin16985 Says:
This is just another case of talking out of both sides of your mouth and therefore not really saying anything, such as when President Obama said the world is better off without Saddam Hussein but in the next paragraph criticized the war that made that happen.
Sometimes you must take a stand for what is right, and that means acknowledging what is wrong.
Binary thinking by the Right: a refusal to understand that there are two sides to any story and that neither is 100% correct. GOPers have to reduce everything to its most simplistic, probably because they lack the ability to understand complexity.
June 4th, 2009 at 2:56 pmConsidering Ari is a dyed-in-the-wool Zionista, it’s not surprising that he chafes at the prospect of any sort of evenhandedness regarding the Middle East conflict.
June 4th, 2009 at 2:56 pmRIP, David Carradine:
David Carradine, who became a TV icon on the early 1970s western series “Kung Fu” and had a long career in the movies, has been found dead in Bangkok, Thailand. He was 72.
Carradine was found hanged in his hotel room today, the Thai newspaper The Nation reported on its website, citing unidentified police sources. He was believed to have committed suicide.
June 4th, 2009 at 2:57 pmTotalitarians hate moderation.
June 4th, 2009 at 2:59 pmIsrael is the greatest threat to America and Ari Fleischer knows it. So do the American people.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:00 pmYou are wrong.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:00 pmAri is like all the rest of the wingnuts who cannot accept their failure while in office. The GOP was a gross failure at governance and they have no place giving their opinion on anything. Who is asking this dirty toilet tissue what he thinks anyway?
June 4th, 2009 at 3:01 pmIn GNOPland, balanced means tipping the scale in their ideological direction, which is why they have no use for the American system of justice. Those balanced scales, being held by a bare-breasted woman no less, are an abomination!
Having a brilliant diplomat (okay, 2 counting Hillary) speaking for our nation is a beautiful thing to behold. Finally.
PEACE
June 4th, 2009 at 3:03 pmRomartin16985 Says:
This is just another case of talking out of both sides of your mouth and therefore not really saying anything, such as when President Obama said the world is better off without Saddam Hussein but in the next paragraph criticized the war that made that happen.
June 4th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
______________
No, it’s not “talking out of both sides of your mouth.” It’s acknowledging complexity. Yes, the world is better off without Saddam Hussein, just as lower Manhattan will be better off with improved traffic flow once the new World Trade Center is completed. That doesn’t mean you have to necessarily like the way either situation came about.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:04 pmDont go away too balanced Ari, just go away.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:04 pm“But Bush always leaned — privately and publicly — in Israel’s direction”
There’s your problem, Ari-head. If GDumbya had really “leaned in Israel’s direction”, he would have realized that peace was in the best interests of all concerned and that the U.S. could best serve that end by being seen as an honest broker.
The crux of Ari-head’s problem here is that neither he nor GDumbya are smart enough to distinguish between “Israelis” and “Zionists”. They are very different.
But, then, GDumbya and Darth Cheney didn’t understand the difference between Sunnis and Shiites, either. And just look at the mess that got us all into.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:05 pmWhy would anyone care what Ari has to say? He’s so last administration. Next.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:05 pmSome things are clear cut – democracy is better than tyranny, and terrorism is not to be tolerated.
President Obama should be asking for peaceful Muslims to join in the condemnation of terrorism by fanatics; continually apologizing for America (without mentioning how we have saved Muslims from tyranny over and over) will not gain us respect, or anything else.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:06 pm“It should side with those who fight terror” . . . and so then naturally when both sides engage in terror, or neither side does much to “fight terror”, then a speech on the subject should be balanced since there’s blame enough to go around.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:08 pmRomartin16985 Says:
President Obama should be asking for peaceful Muslims to join in the condemnation of terrorism by fanatics; continually apologizing for America (without mentioning how we have saved Muslims from tyranny over and over) will not gain us respect, or anything else.
Acknowledging mistakes is something that adults do. “Continually apologizing” is a lie made up by wingnuts and FoxNews. And gaining respect is exactly what he’s accomplishing.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:10 pmspencers mom Says
June 4th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Having a brilliant diplomat (okay, 2 counting Hillary) speaking for our nation is a beautiful thing to behold. Finally.
____________________________________________________________
What? You weren’t impressed by Karen Hughes’ public relations work in the Middle East?
/snark
June 4th, 2009 at 3:11 pmGOP = Goofs on Parade
June 4th, 2009 at 3:12 pmRomartin16985 Says:
Some things are clear cut – democracy is better than tyranny, and terrorism is not to be tolerated.
President Obama should be asking for peaceful Muslims to join in the condemnation of terrorism by fanatics; continually apologizing for America (without mentioning how we have saved Muslims from tyranny over and over) will not gain us respect, or anything else.
…
ah the bush doctrine.
*
ro,
why didn’t you run for vp
instead of sarah? she was stumped
but you have it down cold!
:)
June 4th, 2009 at 3:13 pmThe reptilian brain operates with a simple “fight or flight” process, and is incapable of the more complex thought processes possessed by higher vertabrates .
June 4th, 2009 at 3:13 pmNo, the President is not simply “acknowledging mistakes”. If he was, then lets talk about the rest of the worlds “mistakes” as well.
There was no mention of terrorism towards the United States from Muslim fanatics, just praise.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:13 pmRomartin16985 Says
June 4th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
“…continually apologizing for America … will not gain us respect, or anything else.”
____________________________________________________________
I read the entire transcript of President Obama’s speech, and I saw no apologies anywhere. Did I miss something? Where, exactly, did Obama “continually apologize”?
June 4th, 2009 at 3:14 pmHey Joe,
Whats wrong with what you call the Bush doctrine?
Deal in the world of ideas, not insults, or else buzz off.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:15 pmCause the W doctrine worked so well for us…
June 4th, 2009 at 3:17 pmMiss Molly, he didn’t read it. He just picked up that catch phrase from Fox News. He’s an idiot.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:17 pmYou mean besides the fact that it was a miserable failure?
June 4th, 2009 at 3:18 pmshoeless,
You must have missed the part where the President says the fear and anger towards the United States before 9/11 was understandable.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:20 pmYou must have missed the eight years where the bush doctrine was a miserable failure.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:22 pmAri, Obama is not Bush?
June 4th, 2009 at 3:23 pmI guess you have no response shoeless, as yet again you’ve gone to the liberal fall back position to cry “but but but but….. Bush”!
June 4th, 2009 at 3:25 pmHey Romartin, are you still claiming that you aren’t a Republican? Because for a not Republican, you sure do love you some George W. Bush!
June 4th, 2009 at 3:27 pmRomartin16985 Says
June 4th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
There was no mention of terrorism towards the United States from Muslim fanatics, just praise.
___________________________________________________________
Examples of President Obama condemning terrorism and violence in his speech:
“The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.”
“We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security.”
“Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.”
“But let us be clear: al-Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al-Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.”
“We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.”
“And despite the costs involved, America’s commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists.”
I figure that either you never bothered to listen to or read the transcript of President Obama’s speech, or you believe he should have hung the term “Muslim” on terrorists every time he mentioned them. Since his whole point was to get past scary stereotypes and work together to battle terrorism (a problem that the Muslim world and the non-Muslim world have in common), perpetuating the “scary Muslim” stereotype would not have been helpful.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:27 pmBoy, listen to these apologies and listen to the President ignoring extremism:
…
…
What was that about not addressing terrorists?
June 4th, 2009 at 3:28 pmYes, he should have mentioned Muslim fanatics, and he didn’t. You’re correct.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:29 pmso, Romartin16985, i’ve read the speech. Care to quote you find support for your point that someone “must have missed the part where the President says the fear and anger towards the United States before 9/11 was understandable”? I doubt it, but it’s worth a shot.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:31 pmThat’s because President Obama is doing the opposite of the miserably failed, reptilian, Bush doctrine. He is actually using his higher reasoning centers, something you cannot comprehend.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:31 pmRomartin
You must have missed where he said no such thing.
To comment on a speech, it’s best to actually be familiar with the speech, as opposed to taking a talking point or two from Rush and Faux Snooze and pretending that it’s the Cliff’s Notes of presidential reporting.
What he said was (direct quote from the speech):
And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable. But in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals.
He’s talking about OUR fear and anger, not their motivations for the attack. Never once in the entire speech did he express any understanding for why that attack took place, and to claim he did isn’t just disingenuous, it’s an out-and-out bold faced LIE.
In fact, he rebuffed any possibility that there is a justification for the act, or that there is some level of understanding that can take place, when he said the following (another direct quote):
I’m aware that there’s still some who would question or even justify the offense of 9/11. But let us be clear. Al Qaida killed nearly 3,000 people on that day.
The victims were innocent men, women, and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaida chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach.
These are not opinions to be debated. These are facts to be dealt with.
Why do you find it so difficult to tell the truth?
June 4th, 2009 at 3:31 pmSo to recap, shoeless, I said that yet again the President was apologizing for America. You disagreed. I said that he said the anger and fear towards America prior to 9/11 was understandable.
Is this another apology or not?
June 4th, 2009 at 3:34 pmPssst smidget, it’s because he didn’t read the speech. He just picked up sound bite lies from fox News and regurgitated them here.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:34 pmHE DIDN’T SAY THAT YOU FCUKING MORON.
READ THE GOD DAMN SPEECH, YOU IDIOT.
Sorry about that. Involuntary reaction. I’m allergic to stupid this strong.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:34 pmRomartin16985 Says:
Yes, he should have mentioned Muslim fanatics, and he didn’t. You’re correct.
He used the word “extremists.” You simply cannot read, can you?
June 4th, 2009 at 3:35 pmJust because Romartin16985 says something, doesn’t make it true. As smidget points out, Romartin16985 is wrong. Move along, little one, move along.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:36 pmThat’s not what he said dumbass.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:37 pmAnother example of just wanting him to admit it, shoeless.
He has no leg to stand on. The speech was documented, and the fact that he didn’t bother to read it before criticizing it is really really obvious to anyone with internet access, five minutes on their hands, and an IQ equal to or greater than that of mayonaisse (that, of course, excludes our friend Romartin).
June 4th, 2009 at 3:37 pmI’m new here. Can I ask a pretty basic question? Why, when a question is asked to someone like “Romartin16985″, do they avoid the question and make blanket statements or change the subject instead of healthy debate?
June 4th, 2009 at 3:39 pmPotus words:
And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals.
Romartin16985 Says:
shoeless,
You must have missed the part where the President says the fear and anger towards the United States before 9/11 was understandable.
You’re a liar
June 4th, 2009 at 3:41 pmgo cheney yourself.
smith.bluedog – romartin16985 is likely what is called a “troll”. His / her sole motivation for being here is to sidetrack the “discussion” and to make those that bite deal with him rather than the subject at hand. It is not to engage in “healthy debate.” He has no interest in debating, only annoying. It’s best if people ignore trolls, but it’s oh so difficult.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:41 pmOne big difference between Obama and Bush’s speeches was when they were done Obama was greeted with applause and Bush had to duck a shoe (two actually).
June 4th, 2009 at 3:48 pmBack to insults I see.
I did read the entire speech before commenting, maybe you’re projecting.
I see that I did remember the wrong sentence, but my opinion stands, as the President says that some try to justify or question what happened on 9/11, without immediately indicating that there is absolutely no justification.
And he WAS apologizing again!
June 4th, 2009 at 3:49 pmRomartin16985 Says
June 4th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Yes, he should have mentioned Muslim fanatics, and he didn’t. You’re correct.
____________________________________________________________
Ah, so you DO think President Obama should have hung the Muslim label on terrorist extremists at every mention.
This makes about as much sense as my going to a Christian church, making condemnations of the KKK, and referring to them as “Christians” at every mention of them. Most Christians do not consider violent extremist behavior by groups like the KKK to be Christian, and most Muslims don’t consider the acts and ideology of groups like Al-Qaeda to be consistent with Islam — no matter what claims are made by these groups about their beliefs.
Furthermore, the CIA under the BUSH ADMINISTRATION called for a cease and desist on conflating Islam with terrorism — it was not helpful because it was giving legitimacy to terrorist groups and enabling their recruiting efforts.
So perhaps you can explain why Obama should have referred to terrorists as Muslims, when his audience didn’t see them as representative of their faith? And how, exactly, this would have been better?
June 4th, 2009 at 3:52 pmYou didn’t read the speech. You watched Fox News and they told you what to say. Aren’t you mad at Fox for making a fool of you?
June 4th, 2009 at 3:54 pmNo, see, that’s what Republicans do, on those rare occasions when the acknowledge making mistakes — they admit error, but then excuse it by pointing to mistakes others have made.
An adult admits a mistake and then works to correct it, focusing on his own behavior, not on others.
We can understand how this is a foreign concept to you.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:54 pmRomartin16985 Says
June 4th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
I see that I did remember the wrong sentence, but my opinion stands, as the President says that some try to justify or question what happened on 9/11, without immediately indicating that there is absolutely no justification.
And he WAS apologizing again!
____________________________________________________________
Well, at least you’re admitting it’s your opinion. But if you expect anybody to take you seriously, you’ll need to provide a quote.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:54 pmRomartin16985 Says:
I see that I did remember the wrong sentence, but my opinion stands, as the President says that some try to justify or question what happened on 9/11, without immediately indicating that there is absolutely no justification.
And he WAS apologizing again!
You really are nuts.
Either nuts or functionally illiterate. Your interpretation is utterly and completely backwards and wrong.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:54 pmiamwhoiam Says:
I’m an Israeli and i adore this speech. It was stunning. I never heard an American president being so honest about everything. I can’t pray enough for his success, as he really is our last best hope, even if half of the people in my country can’t understand that.
I was also struck by how relatively honest and straightforward he sounded.
There were so many good lines, but I liked this one:
and this one:
Good stuff.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:55 pmDon’t be so hard on him. That wasn’t his interpretation. He heard it on Fox News and repeated it here.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:56 pmSo Fleischer would rather President Obama go out there and call countries “the axis of evil”, or perhaps he should be saying “bring them on”.
Personally I’m very happy to have a “balanced” President who doesn’t ascribe to the “shoot first and ask questions later” mentality.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:59 pmCan’t expect mentally unbalanced Fleischer to understand President Obama’s speech.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:00 pmOh misscoleopteramolly, I’m guessing your question below will not get answered by Romartin16985 – much, much too difficult…
So perhaps you can explain why Obama should have referred to terrorists as Muslims, when his audience didn’t see them as representative of their faith? And how, exactly, this would have been better?
June 4th, 2009 at 4:00 pmsmith, Romartin is off watching Fox News so he will know what to say next.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:03 pmInsult away, as this is what liberals do best.
But the President of the United States should be speaking of how we as a country have time and again saved Muslims from tyranny. He should not be afraid to talk about what America has suffered at the hands of Muslim fanatics.
Define the terrorism problem; being vague so as not to offend is ridiculous. The majority of Muslims are peace-loving, are against terrorism, and we need to directly ask for their help in condemning those of their own faith who wish our country harm.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:03 pmRomartin, you should go to a Christian church and tell the Christians about what America has suffered at the hands of Christian terrorists. You need to ask them for their help in condemning those of their own Christian faith.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:07 pmRomartin16985 Says:
Yes, he should have mentioned Muslim fanatics, and he didn’t. You’re correct.
We are confronted with right wing religious fanatics here at home. Should he have mentioned them also? Some Muslims who act like terrorists are a concern, but we have our own American terrorists that we should be concerned with also.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:07 pmRomartin16985 Says:
But the President of the United States should be speaking of how we as a country have time and again saved Muslims from tyranny. He should not be afraid to talk about what America has suffered at the hands of Muslim fanatics.
Please explain to us how the USA has time and again saved Muslims from tyranny. You keep using that phrase, so perhaps you can provide some proof. Otherwise you really do need to STFU.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:10 pmgummble-bee-itch Says:
Romartin16985 Says:
Either nuts or functionally illiterate. Your interpretation is utterly and completely backwards and wrong.
gummble – I seriously doubt that it has listen to or read the speech. It simply went to the local RNC talking points site to pick up what it should say about the speech. It is incapable of independent thought. It is the Borg.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:12 pmYeah, that’s the way to win over a Muslim audience — tell ‘em how grateful they should be to you.
Like maybe he could remind ‘em of that time in ‘53 when we saved Iran from the tyranny of democratic rule and constitutional monarchy led by Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh by installing the Shah and saving the petroleum industry from being nationalized.
let us know how that works out for you, Laughed-At.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:13 pmBilbo,
Now you’ve switched topic. That’s why liberals never actually solve problems, its the old but but but (fill in the blank – Bush, Cheney, we have our own terrorists…).
Deal with this idea – how about actually asking Muslims for their help in condemning those of their own faith who have been terrorizing us for years and would like nothing better than another 9/11?
June 4th, 2009 at 4:13 pmRomartin16985 Says:
But the President of the United States should be speaking of how we as a country have time and again saved Muslims from tyranny. He should not be afraid to talk about what America has suffered at the hands of Muslim fanatics.
The United States has, in fact, supported undemocratic Islamic countries far more than they have ever “saved Muslims from tyranny.” Perhaps he should have spoken about how Cairo sits at the core of a highly-undemocratic nation, how the US supported Saddam for years, how the US supported the Shah, or the house of Sa’ud. . .
The fact is that he spoke about every issue you claim he didn’t — more evidence that you didn’t actually read his speech. Or if you did, you clearly did not comprehend it.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:15 pmInsult away. It’s what regressives do best.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:16 pmRomartin,
Finally something you’ve said rings a bit true: “The majority of Muslims are peace-loving, are against terrorism, and we need to directly ask for their help in condemning those of their own faith who wish our country harm.”
What the hell do you think our president is doing? Do you not think that he is reaching out to get further cooperation?
Also, are you so unbelievably blind to think that we have only suffered at the hands of Muslim terrorists? If so, what rock have you been living under? Does the name Tim McVeigh ring any bells with you?
Oh, and one last thing… Going into another country/region and telling them about how we’ve time and time again saved their asses is not going to win over any already strained relationships.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:16 pmRomartin, read the fcuking speech. You clearly didn’t, and still haven’t.
The condemned the actions of a few radicals, while expressing hope that the rational majority (the vast bulk of Muslims aren’t strapping bombs to their children or hijacking planes, you know) could engage in some healthy diplomacy and help the US to weed out those that do, and intend to do, harm.
Seriously. If you really did read it (which you so obviously didn’t, you effin liar), then you are more pathetic than I originally thought, as 2nd graders have better reading comprehension.
Just admit it. You’ve been caught in the lie. Man up and admit that your comments are unfounded because you have no knowledge of what you speak, and are too lazy to take 5 minutes to read it for yourself.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:17 pmOh my “teh stoopid” is strong in this one…
Romartin, when Obama speaks of terrorism, he speaks of all terrorists, including our own right here at home…
…go watch more fox, your daily dose of brainwashing propaganda is not used up yet.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:19 pmRomartin16985
You still haven’t told us how time and again the US has saved Muslims from tyranny. I guess you can’t. So, like I said before, STFU.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:21 pmwhatsamatta romo? you can’t handle more than 0 or 1, a or b, with us or against us?
how about acknowledging that BOTH sides have been wrong
terrorism is wrong when arabs do it, when israelis do it, and when cheny and bush did it
terrorism only works on the terrified, which is why it works on you right wing cowards
June 4th, 2009 at 4:21 pmI didn’t really think either of you’d actually have a substantial response.
You just keep blaming all the ills of the world on whatever Bush did, or Cheney did, etc. And you refuse to see what good the United States has done in the world.
Locust,
June 4th, 2009 at 4:23 pmOur President shouldn’t be there to “win them over”. They don’t respect weakness. Unfortunately it seems he believes as you do.
Romartin16985 Says:
Yes, he should have mentioned Muslim fanatics, and he didn’t.
Really? What do you call this?
He talked about them quite specifically. How do you maintain you can get away with not saying what he clearly said?
.
Romartin16985 Says:
You must have missed the part where the President says the fear and anger towards the United States before 9/11 was understandable.
Ahem:
Nope, just said he was aware of it.
It is, however, understandable. I don’t see why you would have a problem with that.
.
Romartin16985 Says:
But the President of the United States should be speaking of how we as a country have time and again saved Muslims from tyranny.
Like when, the Crusades? World War I?
.
Romartin16985 Says:
Define the terrorism problem; being vague so as not to offend is ridiculous. The majority of Muslims are peace-loving, are against terrorism, and we need to directly ask for their help in condemning those of their own faith who wish our country harm.
Sure. But in order for that to work, we also need to avoid making blanket accusations of all or most Muslims as being terrorists, which is what the wingnuts would like right now. In fact, you just said right there that we should go ahead and offend them all. That’s counterproductive to what you’re claiming to be about.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:23 pmRomartin16985 Says:
Bilbo,
Now you’ve switched topic. That’s why liberals never actually solve problems, its the old but but but (fill in the blank – Bush, Cheney, we have our own terrorists…).
And how did I “switch topics”? You wanted President Obama to speak only of Muslim terrorism, so I suggested that he could speak of our own home grown terrorism. Since this topic is about President Obama’s speech and addressing terrorism, our home grown terrorism is just as germaine to the topic as your baseless contention that the US has saved Muslims, time and again.
So, are you saying that we don’t have our own terrorists to worry about?
June 4th, 2009 at 4:23 pmRomartin16985 Says
June 4th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
“But the President of the United States should be speaking of how we as a country have time and again saved Muslims from tyranny. He should not be afraid to talk about what America has suffered at the hands of Muslim fanatics.”
– Time and time again? Perhaps you have a list of all the times we have ’saved’ Muslims from tyranny? If our track record of saving Muslims from tyranny runs anything like our effort in Iraq, then President Obama will look rather foolish comparing our suffering to what Muslims have had to put up with as a result of our ’saving’ them.
“Define the terrorism problem; being vague so as not to offend is ridiculous. The majority of Muslims are peace-loving, are against terrorism, and we need to directly ask for their help in condemning those of their own faith who wish our country harm.”
– If President Obama had been so vague nobody knew what he was talking about, that would be one thing. But I’m pretty sure the audience knew exactly who he was talking about when he mentioned Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. That wasn’t vague. And calling for mutual cooperation to fight the terrorism threat was mostly what the speech was about. In case you haven’t noticed, we NEED the cooperation of the Muslim world to fight terrorism, and your approach would do nothing but alienate.
It’s pretty obvious you never read the speech, and you’re just getting talking points from some wingnut source — I’m only drawing that conclusion because of the number of times I (and other posters here) have had to bring you up to speed on what was actually said. And you’re disappointed that Obama didn’t spend this opportunity bashing Muslims, even though he no doubt made far more progress by not doing so — which tells me a great deal about you and your views.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:24 pmBilbo,
Go re- read your history yourself, and then buzz off.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:24 pmRomartin16985 Says:
Our President shouldn’t be there to “win them over”. They don’t respect weakness. Unfortunately it seems he believes as you do.
Well, since you conclude that President Obama is “weak”, the fact that he is the most respected leader in the world must be because they do respect weakness.
Your thought process is so convoluted, it is nearly impossible to follow. I suspect you are either on drugs or really drunk.
BTW, when are you going to answer the question I asked you?
June 4th, 2009 at 4:25 pmromo is just scared
typical frightened little pansy
too lazy to take the time to tell which threats are real and so has a cowardly “kill em all” reaction
obviously, romo is a pussy
June 4th, 2009 at 4:26 pmRomartin16985 Says:
Bilbo,
Go re- read your history yourself, and then buzz off.
Can’t make a list at all, can you?
You’re the one making the claim and fall back on the “do your own research” excuse because you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:26 pmRomartin16985 Says:
Bilbo,
Go re- read your history yourself, and then buzz off.
So typical of a useless factless troll. They say something that they can’t prove is true and then they challenge you to go find it yourself.
I have no need to go research your baseless statement. But if you expect us to pay any attention to what you say, you really do need to provide proof. Otherwise we are all going to think that you are dumb as a post and a liar.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:27 pmI’m glad that Obama believes America is strong enough to protect herself without resorting to war and torture
why are you so scared, romo? did you never receive a spine?
June 4th, 2009 at 4:27 pmPlease please please, I beg of thee, please.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:28 pmCan we get an opponent who can actually DEBATE, and not parrot Republic talking points???
So sad…I remember when Rowan & Martin were funny.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:29 pmRantingTommy Says:
I’m glad that Obama believes America is strong enough to protect herself without resorting to war and torture
why are you so scared, romo? did you never receive a spine?
It is scared because it’s lord and master has told him to be scared. It has no ability for independent thought. It just regurgitates right wing talking points and when challenged to prove a point, it tells us that it’s up to us to figure it out.
I’m done playing whack-a-troll with this one. It’s no challenge and therefore no fun.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:30 pmAh, but the right-wing Christian domestic terrorists are on Romartin’s side, so he will cover for them.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:30 pmYou’re Ranting,
No, I didn’t say we need to attack everyone.
I said we need our President to understand that the threat to our country comes from Muslim fanatics.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:30 pmI said we need our President to understand that the threat to our country comes from Muslim and Christian fanatics.
No charge, pard.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:32 pmbarfly Says:
I said we need our President to understand that the threat to our country comes from Muslim and Christian fanatics.
No charge, pard.
Good one barfly – it just lost another round. It isn’t really up to playing the game because it cannot think independently.
I agree with the previous poster, can’t the RNC send us a challenging troll. You know, one who can actually put forth an intelligent comment that it can back up with proof.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:34 pmMaybe we’re being too hard on Romartin, guys.
I mean, clearly he has some serious cojones, since he came to a gun fight armed with only a knife. He actually thought that those on this thread hadn’t read the speech, or would at least be stupid enough to think that he did, based on some ridiculous assertion he heard on Faux sometime since it was made. That either requires a MAJOR ego or an incredibly puny intellect. It’s far more likely that the true scenario is the latter, so it’s not surprising that when confronted with reality, he curls into a fetal position in the corner, weeps for him mommy (or at least Glen Beck), and refuses to answer for his own obvious lies.
A litter compassion for the clearly mentally challenged, that’s all I’m suggesting.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:35 pmbarfly Says:
I said we need our President to understand that the threat to our country comes from Muslim and Christian fanatics.
Personally, if I was prone to being frightened, I would be more afraid of our own home-grown christian terrorists than I am afraid of some Muslim terrorist.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:36 pmShoeless,
Yes we do have our own fanatics right here to worry about.
You suggested the President discuss them in Cairo, which doesn’t seem appropriate.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:36 pmI like backup’s responses. He’s so whipped by circumstance, and the failure of his ideology, that he actually sounds apologetic, when debating.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:37 pmRomartin16985 Says:
No, I didn’t say we need to attack everyone.
I said we need our President to understand that the threat to our country comes from Muslim fanatics.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
______________
But the threat to our country does not come from Muslim fanatics.
Terrorists are a nuisance to a country, not an existential threat. The only true threat they present is an economic one, in that we can easily bankrupt ourselves with an ill-concieved response, such as the war in Iraq.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:37 pmsmidget Says:
Maybe we’re being too hard on Romartin, guys.
I mean, clearly he has some serious cojones, since he came to a gun fight armed with only a knife. He actually thought that those on this thread hadn’t read the speech, or would at least be stupid enough to think that he did, based on some ridiculous assertion he heard on Faux sometime since it was made. That either requires a MAJOR ego or an incredibly puny intellect.
I vote for the puny intellect. That’s all it has displayed thus far. It has no critical thinking skills and no ability to form independent thoughts. It also has no ability to prove the ridiculous rhetoric that comes out of it’s mouth. That’s a display of a puny intellect to me.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:37 pmStandard right-wing response. Anything but threats of military action is “weakness”.
Honesty is weakness. Even-handedness is weakness. Recognizing the truth of a situation is weakness.
No wonder you guys left the world in such a mess.
The muslim world is populated by people just like you and me. I know you don’t believe that, but it’s true. Human beings tend to respond to threats only to a point. Threats are only effective in shaping behavior as long as the threat is maintained, and all the while, resentment builds beneath it. Thus a constant military presence is necessary. This is expensive and ultimately exhausting for any government that seeks to maintain its influence this way.
The wise path is to promote justice in the region. Self-interest is a much more reliable motivator than threats of force, and peace and prosperity are in the self-interest of everyone in the region. This requires trust on all sides where there is none right now. Arabs trust neither Israel nor the US. BUsh destroyed whatever trust Clinton had built up, and Obama must try to replenish that empty account. The continued existence of the state of Israel will always depend on its continued military investment (using largely US aid dollars) unless a lasting peace is forged in the region. Wingnuts like you don’t believe trust can ever be established between Israel and its neighbors, yet you ignore the example of Egypt. The peace brokered by Jimmy Carter in 1979 between Egypt and Israel is still strong, and serves as a model for the rest of the region.
But of course, peace is not good for business at places like Hallburton, Xe, or the Carlyle Group.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:39 pmNo, I suggested that you go to a Christian church and tell the Christians about the threat to America by Christian terrorists.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:39 pmtoasterhead,
You do live up to your name.
Tell that nonsense to those who lost loved ones on 9/11 and see what they think…..
June 4th, 2009 at 4:39 pmIt doesn’t appear so, Doc.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:41 pmRomartin16985 Says:
You suggested the President discuss them in Cairo, which doesn’t seem appropriate.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
__________
Sure it does. It’s that whole thing about removing the splinter from your own eye before trying to remove one from your brother’s.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:41 pmVery good analysis. but of course Romartin’s laughed-At will completely miss the point:
Nothin’ but air!
June 4th, 2009 at 4:42 pmRomartin16985 Says:
Tell that nonsense to those who lost loved ones on 9/11 and see what they think…..
June 4th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
______________
Will do. What country do they live in?
The United States? You mean it’s still here – even after 9/11?
Well, then, I guess my point is correct. Terrorists are not an existential threat to a country.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:42 pmRomartin16985 Says:
toasterhead,
You do live up to your name.
Tell that nonsense to those who lost loved ones on 9/11 and see what they think…..
Romartin16985 Says:
Insult away, as this is what liberals do best.
Pot meet kettle.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:43 pmI’d go further, smidget. I’d say he came to a gunfight armed with only a spork.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:43 pmYes, this one claims to be a Libertarian, and has no idea what the Libertarian party platform says. It never really knows what it is talking about.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:45 pmBilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
Romartin16985 Says:
toasterhead,
You do live up to your name.
———-
Insult away, as this is what liberals do best.
———-
Pot meet kettle.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
______________
Hey wait a minute… Did you just call my name an insult to myself? ;)
June 4th, 2009 at 4:47 pmlocust,
As you say, honesty is not weakness. So lets be honest. Our country is threatened by Muslim fanatics. You don’t want the President to define the threat as being from Muslims, but this is the truth. This is recognizing the truth of a situation, as you say also.
Even handedness may work in many situations but not in fighting terrorism. You need to know who exactly wishes your country harm, and do what you need to protect yourself. You just don’t have the backbone to recognize this.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:50 pmRomartin16985 Says
June 4th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
I said we need our President to understand that the threat to our country comes from Muslim fanatics.
____________________________________________________________
I believe our president has a very clear understanding of all the threats to our country, and where they are coming from — and that would be ALL threats, foreign and domestic.
Are you suggesting our president is less informed about threats to our country than you are? How presumptuous!
June 4th, 2009 at 4:53 pmNo, I’m sure he’s aware mis whatever.
I would just like for him to say so. Get it now?
June 4th, 2009 at 4:55 pmRomartin still hasn’t read the speech!
June 4th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Speak for yourself gummble.
If you disagree with me fine, but I have read the speech.
I would like the President to make very clear exactly where the threat comes from.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:00 pmgummble-bee-itch Says
June 4th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
___________________________________________________________
We’ve already pointed that out to Romartin in several posts. That’s not the point he’s making, and he’s chosen to ignore it.
What he wanted President Obama to do in his speech was to make as many references to MUSLIM terrorists as possible. It’s the fact that Obama didn’t say “MUSLIM TERRORISTS” that’s the thorn up his a$$.
He believes that not saying “MUSLIM TERRORISTS” is a sign of weakness, and we won’t be respected unless Obama says “MUSLIM TERRORISTS” — over and over.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:02 pmOkay, let’s be honest. As CTH pointed out, the threat to our nation from “Muslim fanatics” is not an existential one, unless it is responded to poorly, as the Bush administration responded. It appears that you don’t really know what “existential” means in this context, so i’ll explain: Muslim fanatics do not threaten the existence of this nation.
The vast majority of Muslims on this planet are NOT dangerous fanatics. Therefore, to put outsized focus on that small fringe element risks alienating the very people we need to help mitigate that threat.
Please point out where I said this. As such, you are not recognizing the truth.
The truth is the primary source for resentment in the muslim world towards us is our favoritism toward Israel. We see reports on the news about arab terrorism in Israel, but they see reports of 300 Palestinian dead to 1 Israeli. Yet you on the right keep insisting that they have to see things the way we see them, and that any acknowledgment that their perspective has some validity is “weakness”.
Except Obama is not speaking to terrorists. He’s speaking to citizens and leaders of the Muslim world, people whose help we need to reduce the threat from terrorism. These people, like all people, appreciate even-handedness.
Which is why good intelligence is critical, and the cooperation of Muslim nations and populations is vital. An official speech to a nation and a region that is so important to that effort must be calculated to achieve those objectives.
Fu(k you. You don’t have the brains to think your way out of a wet paper bag.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:02 pmralph
A spork?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
June 4th, 2009 at 5:04 pmHe can’t read the speech while watching Fox News.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:05 pmRomartin16985 Says
June 4th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
I would like the President to make very clear exactly where the threat comes from.
____________________________________________________________
He did. He mentioned Al Qaeda, the group that was responsible for 9/11, the group we are battling in Afghanistan/Pakistan, and the terrorist group who remains a threat to us now. That’s far more exact and specific than if he had just conflated the terrorists with Islam.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:06 pmRomartin, why do you still watch Fox News after they just made an a$$ of you again?
June 4th, 2009 at 5:09 pmWe need the help of peaceful Muslims, they need to be encouraged to condemn the terrorist activities of their fanatic fringe.
Surely you understand this, as liberals love to point out ANY case of a conservative who hasn’t condemned ANY right-wing fanatics actions.
And locust,
I understood what was meant by existential threat. The comment just seemed a bit heartless, wouldn’t you agree?
June 4th, 2009 at 5:09 pmDRxJapanese Beetle Says
June 4th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Please please please, I beg of thee, please.
Can we get an opponent who can actually DEBATE, and not parrot Republic talking points???
___________________________________________________________
You go with the trolls you have, not the trolls you wish you had…
June 4th, 2009 at 5:09 pmAnd toothless, I mean shoeless,
You seem to be a lot more familiar with Fox News than I am.
How many hours DO you watch a day?
June 4th, 2009 at 5:10 pmI’ve boycotted Fox News since the Republicans stole the 2004 election. I hear what they are doing by listening to Air America.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:14 pmHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Sure you do.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:17 pmRomartin16985 Says:
I would like the President to make very clear exactly where the threat comes from.
I get the feeling romo would like the President to be specific in the manner in which O’Lie-ly was about Dr. Tiller…
June 4th, 2009 at 5:21 pmLiz Cheney and Ari Fleisher don’t like President Obama’s speech. Well neither one of them ever have or ever will support him so who gives a sh#t. Why don’t they get jobs and STFU.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:21 pmPoor Romartin cannot conceive of the idea that someone does not watch Fox News. How sad.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:21 pmRomartin, are you paid to act so stupid or does it come naturally?
June 4th, 2009 at 5:21 pmAnd telling them how much good we’ve done them is the way to accomplish that, you figure?
Yeah, and opposition sure has made a difference, huh?
No, I wouldn’t agree. CTH made a sober assessment of the threat this nation faces from Muslim extremists. 9/11 was a horrible day and a terrible blow to the nation. But it did NOT come anywhere close to destroying this nation.
Your insistence on seeing it as “heartless” points to an unwillingness to actually process the argument for what it says, a desperate attempt to seize on anything that you think might undercut the force of the analysis.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:22 pmdoodlebug,
I wouldn’t call you stupid, as that would be an insult to stupid people.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:23 pmShoeless,
No, just you. I laughed at the thought of YOU not watching Fox News, as you seem to be very familiar with what’s being discussed.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:23 pmRomartin16985 Says:
We need the help of peaceful Muslims, they need to be encouraged to condemn the terrorist activities of their fanatic fringe.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
____________
Who says they don’t already?
See, here’s the error in your logic. You seem to believe that the rest of the people in the world are as stupid as you. You believe that they’re incapable of being told about the sum of two and two and understanding that we’re discussing four.
It’s exactly why you’re ranting about the President speaking to Muslims and discussing the dangers of extremism without explicitly referring to Muslim extremism.
Considering that most of the victims of acts of terrorism are other Muslims, I think it’s safe to say that peaceful Muslims ALREADY condemn terrorism and ALREADY condemn acts of violence committed against them and other people. It’s written in the Qur’aan. It’s something they’re well aware of.
I think the real issue is that they’re just not explicitly telling you. You will only be satisfied if you receive a postcard from each of the 1.5 billion peace-loving Muslims in the world saying “Dear Romartin16985, I hereby denounce Muslim terrorism. Also, Muslim terrorism is bad, in case that was not already clear by my prior denunciation of it. Signed, A Peaceful Muslim.”
June 4th, 2009 at 5:25 pmI’m sure much of it is genetic. After all, how stupid do you have to be to allow Fox News to make a fool of you time after time with their misinformation.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:26 pmTo further understand my opinion that Israel is America’s greatest enemy, I refer you to Paul Craig Robert’s article “Who will stand up to America and Israel?” You can begin the article from my blog:
http://alanfolsom-joethephilosopher.com/joe/joe.html
Thank you.
republicanSScareme, aka Joe the Philosopher
June 4th, 2009 at 5:27 pmNo toasterhead,
Muslim groups have NOT spoken out strongly against terrorism from fanatics. I’m sure they are against it, but it needs to be heard strongly and often.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:29 pmshoeless,
See, you DO know an awful lot about what’s going on at Fox!
June 4th, 2009 at 5:30 pmRomartin16985 Says:
I understood what was meant by existential threat. The comment just seemed a bit heartless, wouldn’t you agree?
June 4th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
___________
Sure, perhaps it was a bit heartless. I admit that. Despite the fact that I actually witnessed it firsthand rather than watching it on television, 9/11 fails to be provocative for me.
Not surprising really. You all have cited 9/11 as justification for so many things so many times over the past eight years that I’ve just become desensitized, I suppose. Good job!
June 4th, 2009 at 5:31 pmRomartin16985 Says:
No toasterhead,
Muslim groups have NOT spoken out strongly against terrorism from fanatics.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
_____________
Really?
June 4th, 2009 at 5:33 pmRomartin16985 Says:
Muslim groups have NOT spoken out strongly against terrorism from fanatics. I’m sure they are against it, but it needs to be heard strongly and often.
They HAVE spoken out against terrorism. It’s not their fault you don’t live THERE in the Middle East, where they are constantly suffering from terrorist attacks.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:34 pmGood to see our friend Ro is willing to live by the standards he sets for others.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
toasterhead,
So now my remembering what happened is cause for you’re becoming desensitized to it?
That’s rich, though a new and original tact for liberals to take!
June 4th, 2009 at 5:36 pmHey Romartin – how about a few dozen Fatwas against terrorism? Will that suffice?
June 4th, 2009 at 5:36 pmRomartin16985 Says:
No toasterhead,
Muslim groups have NOT spoken out strongly against terrorism from fanatics. I’m sure they are against it, but it needs to be heard strongly and often.
Do you spend a lot of time in the Mideast? Northern Africa? Indonesia? Read a lot of Arab newspapers? Yes? No?
How would you know whether they’re speaking out or not? Did you think Sean Hannity would be reporting on it?
June 4th, 2009 at 5:37 pmDo you suppose there’s any room in that Critical Thinking class at the JC that someone recommended for C4Pee earlier today?
Ro could sure use it.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:38 pmlocust,
Again you have problems with my insults. If you care to look you’ll see doodlebug threw the first insult…….
June 4th, 2009 at 5:38 pmSo do you still believe that Muslims never condemn terror?
June 4th, 2009 at 5:39 pmAnd gummble listens to Hannity!
June 4th, 2009 at 5:39 pmNah, the problem I have is with someone whop assails others for throwing insults and then engages in the same behavior he just condemned.
Seems a bit hypocritical to me. Not you?
June 4th, 2009 at 5:40 pmCTH, you’re doing excellent work providing Ro with the opportunity to educate himself.
What do you think are the chances our friend here will acknowledge that his “Muslims need to denounce terrorism” meme is misguided and uninformed, but that now he knows better?
June 4th, 2009 at 5:42 pmNot really, because I do believe in defending oneself against idiots.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:42 pmgummble-bee-itch Says:
Do you spend a lot of time in the Mideast? Northern Africa? Indonesia? Read a lot of Arab newspapers? Yes? No?
June 4th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
____________
I was wondering that, too. Which Arabic newspapers do you read, Romartin? Al-Hayaat? Ash-Sharq al-Awsat? Al-Ahram? An-Nahar?
You’ve obviously done a lot of research to come to the conclusion that Muslims and Muslim groups have not spoken out against terror, right?
June 4th, 2009 at 5:44 pmRomartin16985 Says:
Not really, because I do believe in defending oneself against idiots.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
____________
So do you spend hours punching yourself in the face every day or what?
June 4th, 2009 at 5:45 pmSo that whole insults are what liberals do best idea, that was said in admiration, right?
I mean, clearly, you don’t have any problem with flinging insults. So why did you have a problem with liberals insulting you?
June 4th, 2009 at 5:55 pmThe problem with your theory is, I am not the one who is constantly making a fool of myself by repeating the misinformation supplied by Fox News. That would be you.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:58 pmRomartin16985 Says:
And gummble listens to Hannity!
Your skull hosts some very interesting processes, but I hesitate to call them “thinking”. They certainly have nothing to do with reality.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:01 pmhates facts,
Please, the level to which you will stoop has been made very clear, and you have no moral high ground to stand on. You are a lightweight, and your rant shows you for what you truly are.
shoeless,
Ah I see, you say I’ve been made a fool of by first listening to FOX news for all my thoughts and then presenting them here. But of course you don’t actually listen to FOX news, you are taking it second hand from NPR.
YOU ARE THE FOOL!
June 4th, 2009 at 6:50 pmRomartin16985 Says:
I would like the President to make very clear exactly where the threat comes from.
Your curiosity is a bit late; six years too late, to be exact.
If only you guys had said that before we invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Over four thousand American soldiers might be alive today, if you guys had stood up to Bush,and hadn’t become such cowards.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:55 pmEven though Romartin has offered nothing but falsehoods and questionable opinions — claiming, for instance that “there was no mention of terrorism towards the United States from Muslim fanatics, ” in Obama’s speech when several posters have proved otherwise — and shoeless has made no such embarrassing errors, and corrected Ro on several fronts, somehow Ro insists that shoeless is “THE FOOL”.
This maintains a pattern of non-reality-based commenting from our friend Romartin.
Now back to our regularly scheduled blogging.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:59 pmRomartin16985 Says:
You really have no credibility to say anything related to the safety of this nation. You squandered that, by being such servile lackies to your ideology, and by pushing to invade a country that had nothing at all to do with 9/11.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:00 pmAmerican policy should not be balanced.
… says the unbalanced guy.
.
Romartin16985 Says:
I said we need our President to understand that the threat to our country comes from Muslim fanatics.
That is one of the very important threats. He clearly understands it well, and addressed it specifically in his speech.
If that’s not good enough for you, then clearly your agenda is for him to act as if that’s the only threat to our country. So, who else are you trying to cover for? Furthermore, you’re trying to get him to overreact to that threat by goading him to insult a large portion of the world and inflame further passions agaisnt us, thus strengthening the terrorists’ recruiting efforts. Why do you want to help the terrorists?
As Obama might say, we already tried that and it didn’t work. Now we’re going to try something else.
We’re done cowering under our beds from Islamist bogeymen who are all unstoppable and super-powerful without extreme measures that would end in half of the Earth scorched to hell and all of our own population under a totalitarian police state. Not gonna happen any more. They’re just criminals, and criminal investigation methods have proven, and will prove, far more efficient and appropriate than bombing countries at random in the hopes that we finally “get” one.
Obama’s speech appriopriately touched on every thing you wanted him to say. Your only issue appears to be that he didn’t shriek in fear and bellow in anger enough for your tastes.
.
smidget Says:
I mean, clearly he has some serious cojones, since he came to a gun fight armed with only a knife.
A butter knife, at that.
.
Romartin16985 Says:
Tell that nonsense to those who lost loved ones on 9/11 and see what they think…..
OK. Maybe you people should stop trying to think for them and listen for a change.
.
Romartin16985 Says:
Not really, because I do believe in defending oneself against idiots.
Let me guess, your defense is to blend in with them?
June 4th, 2009 at 7:02 pmbarfly,
“You guys” would include Congress and many Democrats. Probably some you even voted for, so sorry you can’t exclude yourself from whatever you disagree with now, years later.
Liberals and Democrats are not innocent bystanders, free to blame everyone else.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:02 pmRomartin16985 Says:
barfly,
“You guys” would include Congress and many Democrats. Probably some you even voted for, so sorry you can’t exclude yourself from whatever you disagree with now, years later.
Sure we can, if we disagreed with them then. I think you’ll find that most of us here at TP would fall into that category.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:21 pmgum, that might be a bit too complex a thought for Ro to process.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:27 pmbarfly,
“You guys” would include Congress and many Democrats.
Based upon cherry-picked intel, with the caveats — about the unreliability of the intel, and it’s sources — conveniently removed. In an election year, when the media had already chosen sides and backed the administration’s viewpoint, and their remedy for the problem. An election that saw democrats lose seats, even though embracing the hyperbolic administration rhetoric. Your side had quite a party for two terms, and got almost everything it wanted, including wiretapping and torture. Now the morning after has risen, and suddenly you’re worried about the bill. Don’t sweat it. We’ve got the check, and once you’re in a more sociable mood, we’ll let you know what it cost. Until then, sit back, and enjoy the ride, remembering all the good times you once had, showing the world time and again who had the biggest Dick (Cheney).
June 4th, 2009 at 7:47 pmRomartin16985 Says:
Liberals and Democrats are not innocent bystanders, free to blame everyone else.
You’re absolutely right. To our shame, we did not do enough to put a halt to the horror that was the Republican era. We allowed Republicans to get into government positions. We allowed Republicans to influence foreign and domestic policy. We allowed Republicans to be taken seriously by the American electorate.
I assure you, we will see to it that never happens again.
June 4th, 2009 at 8:23 pmI know it’s difficult for lightweights such as yourselves when you can’t blame others, but Congress had the same information as President Bush.
FIne if you disagreed then , but Democrats in Congress were NOT all innocent bystanders, crying that they disagreed. Yeah that evil, dumb President Bush fooled everyone, go figure.
You are ridiculous.
June 4th, 2009 at 8:30 pmRomartin16985 Says:
I know it’s difficult for lightweights such as yourselves when you can’t blame others, but Congress had the same information as President Bush.
Exactly the same information? And did they have the same information as VicePresident Cheney?
June 4th, 2009 at 8:37 pmReally? Then what were all those classified briefings with select Congressional leaders all about? Did the administration intel staff hand over all of the info in occasional briefings, to four Congressional leaders? Or did they perhaps “condense” it into digestible-sized packets for delivery?
The administration controls intelligence gathering, not Congress. The President shares intelligence with Congress, not the other way around, and it’s not inconceivable that a President who wants to “fix the facts around the policy” would shape the reports shared to reflect that policy.
You don’t really make a very good case, Ro. But calling us all “lightweights” really helps give you credibility. Especially after your claims have been smacked down repeatedly.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:00 pmI’ve never heard or seen a story in America’s “Main Stream Media” that was favorable toward Palestinian, Muslim, and Arab men, women, and children. I hear nothing but hatred from right wing conservatives, 24/7.
If anyone could prove me wrong, please provide a link.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:44 pmHigh Five, Mr. President, sir! Thank you.
BTW, the recommend that RoMart has can be explained by a head injury. I don’t even read his post, much less bother to form and opinion on them.
The sesli recommend is a sight gag.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:03 pmI’m not convinced that Ari Fleischer knows what “normal” sounds like. After all, he was press secretary for a President that had difficulty speaking the English language.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:41 pmRomartin16985 Says:
Congress had the same information as President Bush.
Prove it. I have seen not one shred of proof for this claim, only anonymous sources saying it. Show me some documentary evidence of it. Anything. At all.
June 4th, 2009 at 11:05 pmFleischer the spokesmen for the Traitor’s that blew up the World Trade Center after crashing robot controlled plains into them, wants to keep making his war profits.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:46 am911 Facts:
A Bush at the Airport
A Bush at the Tower
A Bush on the insurance board
and a Bush in power.
Can you spell Occam’s razor?
Romartin16985 Says:
Congress had the same information as President Bush.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are a liar and a fool. What is it about being so stupid that appeals to you? That LIE has been debunked dozens of times you moron. No they DID NOT have the same information only the intelligence comittee had access to the classified information. You are stupid and you are brainwashed and you dont have the first CLUE what you are talking about. I KNOW the rightwing screechmonkeys and liars that TELL you what to think keep saying that but ANYONE even marginally informed on this issue knows your statement is an outright LIE
June 5th, 2009 at 4:29 amThere is no Jewish conspiracy. But, American Jews are EXTREMELY (relative to population) overrepresented in American media organizations.
Whether it be film, television shows, news, etc… non-Jews, with special emphasis on Muslims, are (sometimes) portrayed in the most vicious and demeaning possible light. You see swipes at Jews here and there but, only very rarely, the kind of really nasty and stereotypical ways that non-Jews are portrayed.
My intent here is not to increase anti-Semitism, which is a very legitimate problem that should be fought against in the United States. My intent is just to be very clear about the bias that exist and suggest that hoping for an accurate portrayal of Israel in main stream American media is about as useful as hoping to live off an income generated from $1 gas station scratch-off cards.
The more Obama stands firm with Israel, the more hit pieces you’ll see on him in the American media. The President is gonna go through hell trying to make a fair two-state solution a reality.
June 5th, 2009 at 6:56 amThank You
June 5th, 2009 at 8:42 amseslisohbet seslichat sesli sohbet sesli chat
eugene,
You are a spittle machine. Go “discuss” with someone else, I’m not interested.
June 5th, 2009 at 7:04 pmthank you seslisohbet seslichat sesli sohbet sesli chat
June 6th, 2009 at 4:22 amfilm izle
June 6th, 2009 at 3:38 pmonline film izle
sinema izle
film seyret
film
internetten film izle
porno film izle
porno izle
sex izle
porno
porno film
sex
sikis
filim izle
filmler
izlesene
izle
okey
oyna okey
giyim
yazlik giyim
kozmetik
film izle
klip izle
müzik
I knew he would still be wallpapering this thread. I take the Holocaust seriously enough not to wear it out. I am not nor have I ever been anti-semitic. I’m agnostic. Why in the world would I be anti-semitic? The assertion that I would “forget” or approve of any persecution and systematic murder is anti-social.
June 7th, 2009 at 12:07 pmSesli Chat
Sesli Sohbet
SesliChat
SesliSohbet