Creepy Old Man: They have hired extra cleaning staff to help mop the saliva seeping from the offices of Fox News

June 22, 2010
Gen. McChrystal criticized Obama war management in magazine interview
Thomas Lifson
General Stanley McChrystal's career is hanging by a thread in the wake of revelations contained in a forthcoming article in Rolling Stone, quoting the General criticizing President Obama and some of his team members. Gordon Lubold of Politico writes:

The article, titled "The Runaway General," appears in the magazine later this week. It contains a number of jabs by McChrystal and his staff aimed not only at the President but at Vice President Biden, special envoy Richard Holbrooke, Karl Eikenberry, the ambassador to Afghanistan, and others.

McChrystal described his first meeting with Obama as disappointing and said that Obama was unprepared for the meeting.

National Security Advisor Jim Jones is described by a McChrystal aide as a "clown" stuck in 1985.

Others aides joked about Biden's last name as sounding like "Bite me" since Biden opposed the surge.
McChrystal has already apologized publicly:

"It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened," McChrystal said. "Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles of personal honor and professional integrity. What is reflected in this article falls far short of that standard. I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome."
The White House flacks at MSNBC's "Morning Joe," where they yesterday confessed to "working with the White House" on talking points, focused on the outrage of criticizing the commander-in-chief, not on the substance of the remarks:

"This general has to be fired, he has to be gone by the end of the day," said Joe Scarborough, on "Morning Joe" on MSNBC.

"Gates and Petraeus have to come out and fire McChrystal." They should have already done it - Petreaus and Gates should have already fired McChrystal."

But firing McChrystal could be a problem for Obama. First is the question of a replacement. Is there anyone as qualified as this widely-respected expert on counter-terror? The war is going badly, and a sudden change in command could make matters worse.

Then there is the awkward question of the substance of the General's remarks, especially about a commander-in-chief who doesn't do his homework. Afghanistan is Obama's war, the one he said we must win. His management of the war may be consistent with his inept, lazy management of the Gulf oil spill. The American people will not be reassured by the appointment of a replacement for McChrystal whose principal qualification is keeping his mouth shut about the incompetence he sees around him in the conduct of war.

I suspect the General assumed some of his remarks, and conversations with others, were off-the-record. The "Morning Joe" crew acknowledged that other senior military figures privately criticize Obama. McChrystal's error appaerently was in trusting a free lance journalist working with Rolling Stone, or perhaps in not clarifying what was off the record.

The article isn't yet publicly available. All we know about it comes from other media sources who have seen advance copies.

Gen. McChrystal is on his way to the White House from the Afghanistan theatre. There will be more news soon.

Jim Dandy: Not if you go by the likes of Comic relief and other such charitable organisations.

Am I missing something?
BP is supposed to pay all costs, so theoretically anything CNN donates will be deducted from BP's tab

Thirteen countries offered Obama help. He couldn't get his act together to accept. And things just keep getting worse.

Obama is making a huge mistake taking Arizona to court. We clearly have a problem with illegals in this country. Most Americans support the law. Obama once again goes against public opinion. Now 51% don't want him reelected. Does he NOT understand politics? He's not doing the Dems any favors.

As I understand it, the Arizona law simply mirrors an already existing Federal law. So it will be on to the Supreme Court for this one. I predict Arizona wins. Obama loses either way.

Jim Dandy:

Artful Dodger: Don't get me started on Palin

Jim Dandy: That's very true. As for the subject line above, I totally agree. If an election were held today Obama would still win, that's clear from polls. He'll be hard to beat in the next election but the Dems won't be in power most likely.

I think both the Dems and the Repubs have totally lost their way. Repubs especially. Many have turned on the party values one held firm.

McCain would have been a worse choice than Obama. Palin alone would have been better perhaps.

We need term limits and a Constitutional amendment for balanced budgets. And congress has to be on the public health care and retirement plans.

Panorama tonight on the oil leak.. including talk from an employee on how BP knew that there were problems with the safety equipment before the leak started.

... yet they carried on rather then shut down and fix the problem.

Artful Dodger: If Obama had quit politics election night, he would have rivaled RFK in the "what if" catagory.With some people, less is more.He is in a bad position, he will never be able to excite the public like he did during the campaign, he peaked far too early.His only hope is another lousy crop of Republican opponents, and that's a very real scenario

GKChesterton: He's a huge disappointment to his base. Not a good place to be for sure. His experience is clearly lacking and he will go down in history as a failed experiment. The sooner the better in my view.

GKChesterton: Well I guess the American people thought he was a better choice then McCain and Palin.

Watching this stuff on Tv is like washing your laundry in the tiolet

Anyone who can't see that Obama is an empty suit must have blinders on. He came from nowhere without any real experience and he will most likely go back again

June 18, 2010
The liberal blinders lift on Obama
Tony Gallardo

"......Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Howard Fineman, James Carville, and Maureen Dowd simply cannot believe the incompetence of the man they once deified....."

From what I gather from checking out vids of Keith Olbermann, Tony Gallardo is lying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3ShbO1bJ5o

Jim Dandy:

Artful Dodger: I think Hannity forced him into lower wrung hysteria

Jim Dandy: and he's calmed down a bit. I haven't heard him say "shutup" in a long time.

Artful Dodger: He has learned to pick his battles more wisely.

Jim Dandy: See? Bill is fair and balanced.

Artful Dodger: I watched her discuss it with O'Rielly, I have to side with Bill.

Jim Dandy: Well I agree that they need to take care not to give that perception. Barton should have chosen his words more carefully. Two Republicans have called for him to step down from his committee.

I don't see anything wrong with Bachman's comments. She wasn't supporting BP at all. Her comments were directed at the Constitutional powers of the President. Nothing wrong with that.

I read Barton and those who support him have been disowned by the GOP.

...."only spoke for himself -- that is not mainstream Republican thought."

Artful Dodger: The public perception is that republicans are defending BP, this plays into the public perception that republicans defend the rich, not a wise stand to take in my opinion,especially in regards to the suffering New Orleans has endured.

Artful Dodger: ... you never answered what equipment does the USA keep to deal with oil leaks.

btw... I'm neither left or right I'm me!!

(V): Accepting needed help when offered is not like walking on water. Approving the requests of the governor of Louisiana in a timely manner is not like walking on water. Acting immediately in a crisis and showing leadership is not like walking on water. What is expected of Obama is to protect the US and use the power of his office to do all he can to contain this spill. He had the resources and he squandered every opportunity. He failed completely.

Which is why even the LEFT is highly critical of his leadership.

Artful Dodger: Rubbish.. It's not like he lied (like Bush and Iraq re links to 9/11)

Next you'll be saying the Government should walk on water.

Jim Dandy: I like Bachman and I'd have to see exactly what she said. But I believe she said that the actions the Obama administration took (and is taking) are outside their constitutional powers. Barton, I believed, was misunderstood. He isn't saying that BP isn't at fault nor shouldn't be held responsible. He is saying that the President and lawmakers are vilifying BP and forcing them to set up a fund and this before a full investigation. It's political grandstanding on the part of Obama IMO.

For the record, I believe that BP hurried the drilling and KNOWINGLY put the operation at risk. And I also believe that when confronted with a potential problem, BP management IGNORED the warnings and soon after all hell broke loose (and 11 people died etc). Is BP at fault? I think it's clear from preliminaries that they are 100% at fault. Should they be held accountable for the LEAK? Yes. 100%. Should they be 100% accountable for the cleanup?

no

It's also the job of the US government to protect our shores. Obama totally blew the cleanup. Obama ignored the problem initially. Why did Obama REFUSE foreign help? Why did Obama wait nearly TWO MONTHS before there was any meaningful response? Why did Obama put a 6 month moratorium on further drilling? How many people did he put out of a job with that stupid decision? And because of Obama's failure to handle the cleanup effectively (his Job -yes BP's job too but the cleanup falls in his lap - that's where the buck stops) many more people will be out of jobs - all thanks to Obama's incompetence. Time will show all these things to be the case. Obama is now back-peddling and trying to shift blame and deflect. It's transparent.

BTW, NONE of that 20 Billion can be caimed by people who's income is affected by the lack of cleanup. The man in charge of the 20 Billion just said that on the tube. Why? Because you can't penalize BP for the government's failure to act. And it's completely clear that Obama failed to act in a timely and efficient way. Other countries, who offered help, have expertise and needed equipment for such cleanups. Obama will have to answer as to why he turned them all away. That's just ONE example of how Obama screwed up big time with regard to this cleanup.

Artful Dodger: So, it falls on Obama, but at the same time Barton,Bachman,and a few other republicans are saying he was too hard on BP?........this was a battle I was sure the republicans would take a pass on.To see certain republicans say Obama has been too hard on BP is not a wise public position.

(V): The leak = BPs problem

The cleanup = US government responsibility + BP. But the US government is mandated to protect our shores. The fault for the lack of cleanup falls directly on Obama.

Jim Dandy: I don't think there is any technology that could stop oil being blown inland under such conditions.

Realistically.. I cannot understand why BP cut safety, it's not as they don't make enough money already in profit that a few million extra, to have installed the full safety equipment as they were advised to would have made any difference.

Is Capitalism turning into (as some church figures feel) the aNti-ChRisT????

(V): Hurricanes are the nightmere scenario, it would be raining oil. not men.

Artful Dodger: I think there has been a lot of confusion over the nature and size of the leak. I also think that much of the real effort to seal the leak is through BP and other oil experts. I hear that no matter what when the hurricane season starts those relief oil wells better be in place as no booms or skimmers are gonna make a damn difference.

Jim Dandy:  Not all of the right wing did.  But too many.  And yes, <span>Olberman and Maddow and others do get props for this one.  

Artful Dodger: Obama was SUPPOSED to be better than that, he aint,and buyer remorse has set in........you do have to give the Olberman's and the Maddow's credit though, the right wing press backed GW no matter what, at least the left is showing objectivity

(V):  You think Obama has handled this oil spill in the right way?

Jim Dandy: I fully agree with that.

Artful Dodger: Um.. how? All I see is C&P conspiracy bloggers on overload.

re:"He may pontificate about holding BP to account but Obama and his leftist cronies fully intend to exploit this crisis to sneak liberty-stealing cap and trade legislation past the American people."

He could have taken lessons from the Bush admin,they milked 9/11 to the extreme.The Patriot Act is a good example of legislation that was pushed through using 9/11 as leverage,and it is a fine example of removing certain liberties.Heck, Rudy Giuliani can hardly get through a pargraph without invoking 9/11. it reached parody levels.

(V): Perhaps not a conspiracy but then it's a show of complete incompetence.

.. conspiracy theory.

The bloggers dream.

Is the Obama administration intentionally scaling back clean-up efforts in the Gulf in an attempt to maximize the damage so Democrats in Congress will have an excuse to take effective control over yet another major sector of our economy and impose crippling and draconian new taxes on the American people?

Sher Zieve who wrote in the Canada Free Press: "Obama is doing the bare minimum so that destruction will be at an all-time maximum -- in order to shove his Cap and Trade bill (which will complete our destruction) down our throats."

"The BP oil disaster was custom-made for The Obama. The effective oil-skimmer systems utilized by the Saudis and others would work to greatly minimize the damage being caused to the US Gulf Coast. But, The Obama continues to drag his heels as States and lives are destroyed."

When the Dutch government offered to help us clean up the oil spewing from the leaking BP oil rig, Obama initially turned them down cold. Norwegian and Dutch firms offered to help us too, but Obama said no.

This much is certain -- in spite of what Obama told the American people during his Oval Office address to the nation, he did not adequately respond to this crisis. The administration has clearly failed in terms of organization and the use of resources available to the federal government.

Moreover, it's now indisputable that statists on Capitol Hill are attempting to exploit this disaster to push so-called cap and trade legislation. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell recently revealed: "At the same time as Americans wonder when this gusher will ever be plugged, we hear word that the administration and my good friend the majority leader want to piggy back their controversial new national energy tax -- also known as cap and trade -- to an oil spill response bill that could and should be an opportunity for true bipartisan cooperation. So here again, we see the administration using a crisis, in this case the disaster in the gulf, as an opportunity to muscle through Congress another deeply unpopular bill that has profound implications for small business and struggling households."

(playing politics with a tragedy)

Obama declared a moratorium on off-shore drilling and to make matters worse, Obama wants to institute a massive new energy tax, masquerading as sound energy policy (so-called cap and trade), that will dramatically raise the cost of just about everything you produce or consume, deprive you of income, control your behavior and repress your liberties.

Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, once said that you should never let a good crisis go to waste and Barack Obama and Democrats on Capitol Hill aren't about to let this crisis go to waste. He may pontificate about holding BP to account but Obama and his leftist cronies fully intend to exploit this crisis to sneak liberty-stealing cap and trade legislation past the American people.

On June 9, President Obama announced a $400 million aid package to the West Bank and Gaza, which are currently two separate entities; the West Bank under the control of Mahmoud Abbas, a moderate by radical Islamic standards, and Gaza, which is run by the democratically-elected Islamic Resistance Movement, better known as the terrorist group Hamas.

Whatever else you can say about Obama, at least he never forgets his friends. Thanks to the investigative work of Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs, we know that in 2007, Obama’s campaign received over $30 Thousand in illegal donations from Hamas-controlled Gaza.

he United States has, since 2001, listed Hamas as a “Specifically Designated Global Terrorist.” In the world community – or what passes for it – this is supposed to mean that the penalties for providing support to a SDGT are harsh.

Even the New York Times, which is, as a rule, sympathetic to terrorists, declared that, “the details of how the aid would be used in Gaza remained unclear. Nor was it immediately clear how Mr. Abbas, who has authority in the West Bank but not in Gaza, a would be able to administer it.”

Obama and his liberal pals here always tell us the most evil crime in the world is racial discrimination. And yet, they take our money and give it to people whose sole objective for their existence is to exterminate a race of people. Welcome to Obama’s world.

I reported before the 2008 election that Obama had been endorsed by Hamas leader Ahmed Yousef, who himself had been a Hamas operative inside the United States for years. He used several aliases, until I confronted him and informed him that I knew who he was. He denied that he worked for Hamas, and then promptly fled the country. Two years later, he turned up in Damascus, Syria as a senior Hamas leader.

President Obama is either completely ignorant of the war Islamic terrorists such as Hamas are waging against us, or worse. Until we know more, I have the unfortunate task of reporting to you that we are now, officially, a state sponsor of terrorism.

Buckley Carlson is a Washington-based political consultant.

Hell has frozen over! The far-left in America is turning on their guy Barack Obama. After his speech on the oil disaster a few days ago, the crazy left Greek chorus on MSNBC hammered the president. He wasn't specific enough, he was too weak, I don't sense "executive command," they wailed.

On the oil spill, a clear sign that Obama is not fit for the job:

Why did he not waive the Jones Act (he still hasn't) to allow foreign vessels to ply our waters to clean up the spill? Not because he was against it. He couldn't have been against so obvious a course as waiving it. It was likely because nobody told him about it, and he never knew to ask.

Incompetence

Why did he let the bureaucracy use only U.S. contractors to dredge the Gulf and build the berms that Lousiana wanted? Why did he spurn the offer of Dutch assistance (half the country has been dredged from the sea and is below sea level)? Not because he wanted the jobs to go to Americans. That would have been an insane consideration in the face of this crisis. It is probably because he never realized that our capacity for dredging needed augmentation. Because he never asked.

in competence

June 18, 2010
The liberal blinders lift on Obama
Tony Gallardo
There is a lot moaning, groaning, and gnashing of teeth coming from the lefties these days. They are battering Barack Obama like a piñata; but just a few months ago they proclaimed him to be the Messiah, a Savior, a combination of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King, a sort of god, and even, according to Chris Matthews, "...the last Kennedy brother." (Why Matthews thinks this is a compliment is mystery to me, but there you have it.)

This is mostly just about the oil spill, but at least the scales seem to be falling from their adoring eyes.

They are stunned to learn that the man they told us would heal the world, end all wars, restore America's image in the world, unify us as a kind of Disneyland where the meerkats, hyenas, lions, monkeys, and crocodiles would all live side by side in harmony singing "It's a small world after all" is in reality just another average, run of the mill political hack who doesn't know his "you know what" from a hole in the ground.

Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Howard Fineman, James Carville, and Maureen Dowd simply cannot believe the incompetence of the man they once deified.

I have a question for you people. There are those of us who questioned and criticized Obama in the past, and we were routinely characterized as Nazis, racists, rednecks, and worse; now that you enlightened people are joining the chorus, does that make you Nazis, racists, rednecks, etc? If not, why not? Please defend yourselves, preferably in writing, and be specific in your answers.

I also have a suggestion; buck up and brace your selves. He has two and a half years left to screw more things up to a royal fare thee well.

Things are likely to get a whole lot worse.

June 18, 2010
BO poison
Thomas Lifson
Barack Obama now has negative coattails for candidates: an endorsement by him causes more voters to reject the candidate endorsed than support the endorsee. Variety, the showbiz newspaper, refers to unpopular actors as "BO [Box Office] Poison." The President with the same initials is voting booth poison. Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling notes:

PPP's most recent national survey found that while Obama had a positive approval rating at 48/47, only 33% of voters were more likely to vote for a candidate endorsed by him while 48% said support from Obama would make them less likely to vote for someone. That's because only 64% of voters who approve of the President say his endorsement would make them more inclined to vote for a candidate, but 91% who disapprove say Obama's support makes it less likely they would vote for one of his preferred candidates.

To put into perspective the perils of having Obama out on the campaign trail, consider the numbers in his home state of Illinois. Even there just 26% of voters say they'd be more inclined to back an Obama endorsed candidate while 40% say his support would be more likely to turn them against a candidate.

As the realization sinks in among Democrats that their president is leading them off a cliff, those interested in political survival may seek to rehabilitate their voter appeal by turning on his policies and voicing criticisms more openly. This also heightens the chances of an internal challenge to him for re-nomination. Perhaps the announcement of such a challenge will take place on Ecuadorian TV.

Jim Dandy: I think you're spot on. I'm guessing the cold shoulder has several factors. For one, I don't really think Obama tried very hard to include the ideas of the Right in his policies. I think more he tried to convince them to accept his ideas and support them. The other factor is the arrogance of some on the left (Pelosi for one) and how they simply excluded the Right from participating in meaningful ways. Then there is always the loyalty factor. Loyalty to the party line (not necessarily a bad thing but certainly doesn't promote bipartisanship). When you hold the majority, you don't always have to give and take and in this case, the Dems held the majority and the Right was powerless. There goes our checks and balances.

Artful Dodger: No-one thought it was as bad as this... first the oil leak was little, the more and then the current leak size .. ... ...

I don't think it is at all possible for Obama to ignore that a well was leaking. It was in the news enough.

The rest of your post is just spin.

Jim Dandy: I think most of the "rest of the world" has the same thoughts. He isn't looked upon favourably here either...some politicians are right up his.....but the general population hasnt much faith in most of his"promises"