
It's been a week since Attorney General Eric Holder announced that five terror suspects will be transferred from Guantanamo Bay to New York City to face trial. There are still a lot of questions to be answered about logistics, and it will likely be months before the first suspect sets foot in a federal courtroom.
Republicans have already told us what's going to happen, though: If you let President Obama have his way, you will die.
The GOP has returned to a familiar line on Obama and national security in the days since Holder's announcement. It's time to be afraid again, they say, hearkening back to the days of duct tape and Orange alerts even some Republicans thought they left behind on Election Day 2008.
So grab an assault rifle and keep the phone number for Operation TIPS close -- here are the four ways Republicans say Obama is putting your life at risk.
4. Surrendering In The War On Terror
According to the GOP, Obama has abandoned the war on terror to appease his left-wing friends. On a conference call yesterday, Rudy Giuliani said he welcomed the return of the word "war" into the administration lexicon. Giuliani said that before Holder used the word the other day, he was afraid that Obama had forgotten about all that 9/11 stuff Giuliani made sure was a part of the GOP primary for president last year.
"I was under the impression that the Obama administration thought this was just an unfortunate situation we're dealing with," he said.
Rudy's not the only one. Many Republicans have claimed recently that Obama has returned the government to a "pre-9/11 mentality" where things like legal rights take precedence over things like unchecked wiretapping ability. At a press conference the other day, Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) suggested that it was this mentality literally led to the deaths of 13 American soldiers in Texas. Hoekstra said there were "tools" that George W. Bush and the Republicans gave the intelligence community that Obama and Democrats have since taken away. He said that those tools may have prevented the killings in Texas, and he wants to hold hearings to investigate before the Democrats can take away more tools by letting provisions in the Patriot Act expire at the end of this year.
Watch Hoekstra explain how the U.S. government is "unable or unwilling" to track potential terrorists:
3. Daring The Terrorists To Attack Us Again
Sorry, New York City. Obama's plan to try terror suspects on American soil means you're probably going to get hit. That's according to Rep. Peter King (R-NY) who told reporters this week that the move was "one of the most dangerous decisions any president has ever made."
That's pretty dangerous. Giuliani backed up fellow New Yorker King. Though he praised the staff at the detention center where the suspects will likely be held and he said more than once that the city he used to run is "ready" to host the trials, he said that when it comes down to it, the trials will probably not end well for New York.
"Does it increase risk to New York City?" Giuliani said. "Yes."
2. Allowing Muslims To Walk Around Like "Regular" Americans
It's more than just secret "tools" Obama has taken away from intelligence agencies that puts your life at risk, according to Republicans. Obama's unwavering allegiance to Political Correctness means you're probably going to die because law enforcement officials are too afraid of looking like racists to stop the terrorists from carrying out their nefarious plots.
In a media stop on her book tour this week, Sarah Palin said that this devotion to being P.C. literally cost 13 soldiers at Ft. Hood their lives.
"I think that there were massive warning flags that were missed all over the place," she told Fox News' Sean Hannity. "And I think that it was quite unfortunate that, to me, it was a fear of being politically incorrect to not -- I am going to use the word -- profile this guy, profile in the sense of finding out what his radical beliefs were."
Palin's take isn't unique among Republicans. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), a former Special Agent with the FBI, said this week that his old buddies in the Bureau are telling him about a new "political philosophy" sent down from the White House that's keeping agents from "raising the red flag" on a "person like" alleged Ft. Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan. Rogers said Hasan "fits the exactly the kind of profile [of a person] we know pretty bad people want to recruit to do pretty bad things," but said it's possible the "threshold" of tolerating someone like Hasan has been raised so that he and others like him are falling through the cracks.
"It's something we have to get to the bottom of," Rogers said.
1. Trading Safety for Good paying Government Jobs
Obama isn't content risking the lives of soldiers and New Yorkers to look good to his liberal friends, Republicans say. He's willing to trade the safety of America's heartland for a little political capital, too.
The White House has suggested moving Gitmo detainees to relatively empty prisons all over the country, including sites in economically depressed towns in Michigan and Illinois.
The White House and local officials in Illinois have said the plan will bring desperately needed jobs to communities ravaged by the economic downturn.
Despite the fact that guards are paid to look after society's most dangerous people in prisons all over the country, Republicans are warning that the promised jobs are simply a "bribe" Obama is using to talk small Midwestern towns into becoming terror targets.
Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and other Republicans have spelled out the danger to rural America posed by housing Gitmo detainees.
"Federal policy allows up to 10 followers or family members per prisoner," Kirk said a recent press conference. "With 215 coming to Illinois, that would be over 2,100 Al Qaeda followers and family members connected to Jihad coming to Illinois."
Prison officials say that's actually not true, but Kirk's message is clear -- taking one of Obama's promised jobs means your family could die in a terrorist attack.
At press conference sponsored by World Net Daily earlier this week, Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) suggested terrorism could actually a boon to Democrats desperate to create new jobs.
"Democrats have a jobs program," he said. "First they'll make jobs housing the terrorists here. And then they might create more jobs dealing with the havoc [the terrorists] create."
Morbo
November 20, 2009 12:05 PM
The laundry list of pants-pissing rightwing cowards.
Good thing none of these gutless wonders were around during The Revolution or we'd still be a British colony.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
November 20, 2009 12:17 PM in reply to Morbo
Or speaking German in 1950.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
we r all husseins
November 20, 2009 12:20 PM in reply to Morbo
Funny you should say that. During the past eight years, I've often wished we still were a British colony.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
seashell
November 20, 2009 2:21 PM in reply to we r all husseins
Yes. As somebody once said, it's too bad Australia got the convicts and America the Puritans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
November 20, 2009 2:37 PM in reply to seashell
I almost sprayed my coffee all over my desk...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
matyra
November 20, 2009 5:16 PM in reply to seashell
It does explain a lot, though, doesn't it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dunvegan
November 20, 2009 11:58 PM in reply to we r all husseins
Oh, (to be) Canada!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
November 20, 2009 1:43 PM in reply to Morbo
I understand the Republicans' next move is to amend the last line of the National Anthem. No longer the Home of the Brave.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JimmyBobby
November 20, 2009 7:00 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
Americans are plenty brave. But it's so many elected representatives' job to drill fear into us, on behalf of -- yes, our old friend the military-industrial complex -- that you can't blame people for getting a little shook up. The Europeans are harder to frighten, having seen their cities ravaged and bombed flat within recent memory, but even the Europeans would be a little jumpy if their politicians spent day and night trying to frighten them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SqueakyRat
November 21, 2009 10:22 AM in reply to JimmyBobby
Americans are the most easily frightened people in the world.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Plan 9 Studios
November 20, 2009 12:37 PM
You'd think at one point or another they'd get sick of letting fear rule their lives and realize it doesn't work on everyone else.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
November 20, 2009 12:41 PM
This list is woefully incomplete, in that it only tackles the war-on-terror sublist of fears the Right has attempted to gin up.
Remember, global warming is a hoax designed to turn America into a socialist nightmare, the Homosexual Agenda is designed to destroy the basic structure of American society, socialized medicine will turn America into Soviet Russia, people who allow abortion will allow any atrocity, public education is unacceptable liberal indoctrination, stimulus spending will bankrupt the nation, and the swine flu epidemic is merely a pretext for the national prison complex unveiling and Muslim uprising.
There isn't a single issue that Republican politicians and/or mouthpieces *haven't* turned into a piss-your-pants, this-is-a-moral-issue-and-what-a-coincidence-we're-on-the-righteous-godly-side-of-it frothfest, no matter how dishonest their assertions or illogical their conclusions or how much their attacks are based entirely on baselessly impugning the character of their opponents.
(In response, Democratic politicians generally roll over, fall asleep or apologize without knowing what they're apologizing for.)
As long as Democratic politicians refuse to call the Republicans out for the Atwater/Rove/Luntz BS, the Republicans will continue to use them. What could be simpler than that? If the Villagers keep come a-runnin', why would they ever stop crying "Wolf!"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dunvegan
November 21, 2009 12:10 AM in reply to Clavis
I'm not only crying "Wolf", I'm screaming "Blitzer".
(On Donner, too...as long as it's the Republican's eating their own.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
johnny b
November 20, 2009 12:42 PM
These fear tactics only work on people who inform themselves and are aware of the real life danger that these threats pose. I mean, who else but somebody who watched the bombings in Spain, London, and all across the globe would be fearful of this? Those insane, informed, family having breeders are a real bunch of morons. Just living in fear, how sad.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
matyra
November 20, 2009 5:24 PM in reply to johnny b
And these things can happen here if we aren't vigilant. Of course. But do you think that keeping them in a prison in Cuba, without charges, indefinitely does anything to make those who would attack us less likely to attack? Come on! At least getting the prisoners here, and trying them moves the process forward.
Keeping them where they are is just a festering wound and your argument doesn't really stand ground. Look up "Guantanamo and al Jazeera" sometime and you'll see what I mean.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
OhioMan
November 21, 2009 8:21 AM in reply to johnny b
What a clever, ironic response.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rynato
November 20, 2009 12:45 PM
OBAMA KILLED ME ALREADY! TWICE!
...
...I got better...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
A Giant Slor
November 20, 2009 12:51 PM
Don't forget the death panels.
Allowing Muslims to walk around like regular Americans -- that's not politically correct, it's constitutionally correct.
"Daring The Terrorists To Attack Us Again" -- So if terrorists attack us, it's our fault? Like if a girl gets raped, it's her fault for dressing provocatively, right?
Conservatism is a mental disease.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Savannah Evans
November 20, 2009 12:55 PM
I think it's high time that somebody resurrects the early 1990s cartoon of a baby-sized Newt Gingrich wearing a diaper and balling his little Republican eyes out.
Instead of Newt, this time we need twins -- maybe Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. With them balling in the foreground, the background would show adults (Democrats) dealing with the actual business of defending the country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jimson
November 20, 2009 12:59 PM in reply to Savannah Evans
"With them balling in the foreground,"
Uhhhh. . . I think you meant "bawling", although "balling" puts an interesting picture into my skull.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Savannah Evans
November 20, 2009 1:02 PM in reply to jimson
OMG you are correct! (hangs head in shame)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 20, 2009 2:32 PM in reply to jimson
Isn't that what they do best -- moral-high-ground rutting?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
November 20, 2009 2:40 PM in reply to jimson
I was thinking the same thing. Now somebody please tell me how to get that picture out of my head!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dunvegan
November 21, 2009 12:12 AM in reply to Savannah Evans
Vitter already wears diapers. (It's a Republican scared-shizzleless thing.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jimson
November 20, 2009 12:55 PM
"Mastermind" makes this guy out to be MacGuyver or something-- what's he gonna do, escape onto the streets of NYC and start blowing things up? Not likely.
"Increase the risk to NYC"? So, Al Quaeda hated us before, but NOW they will REALLY REALLY hate us!!! (I'm scared!)
Hyperbole, political posturing, blah blah blah. Has the GOP jumped the shark yet, or is there weirder nonsense to come?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mjshep
November 20, 2009 2:07 PM in reply to jimson
Wierder nonsense to come.
This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dunvegan
November 21, 2009 12:14 AM in reply to jimson
So the worst that can happen is KSL excapes?
Hell, let KSL escape! Into. New. York. City.
Among. New. Yorkers.
End of problem.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dunvegan
November 21, 2009 12:18 AM in reply to Dunvegan
KSM...OBL...whatever.
I'd bet on New Yorkers against those two on the ground with a 20 yard headstart at about 5 million to 2.
And I'd win 2 dollars.
When Richard Ramirez was caught on the streets of LA by citizens, he was begging and praying on Satan's dewclaws for law enforcement to save his sorry ass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
garp
November 20, 2009 1:00 PM
yes
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
November 20, 2009 1:01 PM
They were around during the Revolution. Where do you think the tories came from? That we used "tory" for "British loyalist" and the British use "tory" for "conservative" isn't a coincidence.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
November 20, 2009 2:50 PM in reply to ericf
I think you're being unfair to the American Tories. They weren't fear mongerers like the current GOP. And they weren't cowering in their boots; undoubtedly many decided to stick with the Crown because they felt it was in their financial interest to do so, but for a good many it was a principled stand, and often one that required a good deal of courage. Remember that the Sons of Liberty could be a pretty rough crowd, and it took spine to stand up to threats of tarring and feathering and having your home or business burned and looted.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
November 21, 2009 1:16 AM in reply to slb
All true, but my point is that modern conservatives act like they're the minutemen when the conservatives of the time supported the British. If the teabaggers were around then and were as brave as their rhetoric, they would have joined the loyalist militias.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
OhioMan
November 21, 2009 8:27 AM in reply to slb
Wasn't it conservatives who supported the division of the US in the Civil War, in addition to siding with the King in the Revolution? Weren't they the ones who opposed Social Security, Medicare, and the civil rights movement? Weren't they the ones who wanted to invade Iraq? Didn't they deregulate the financial industry, leading to a global economic collapse?
Conservatives have alsways stood against American progress on behalf of the American people, in whatever form it may rear its ugly head, favoring wars, deregulation of business, and tax cuts for the megarich instead.
Remember when we were traitors if we criticized bush? The barrage of crazy, asinine criticism of Obama from the right is deafening. So are they traitors too?
Hypocrisy, thy name is conservatism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sagebrush
November 20, 2009 1:09 PM
A study I read about a few years ago correlated the occurrence of nightmares with the dreamer's political inclination. It turns out that conservatives have nightmares several times more frequently than liberals do, and that the content and quality of conservatives' nightmares is significantly more frightening than those that liberals experience. Liberals' nightmares usually tend to be of the situational social embarrassment kind – like arriving at work without pants or that sort of thing. Humiliation in the eyes of friends and family, rather than physical danger or stark fear, is the main theme the researchers said liberals reported about their bad dreams. Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to have bad dreams about (unsurprisingly) being chased and/or brutally attacked or killed by strangers. So if you wonder why conservatives are such “experts” on fear of nameless, faceless attackers, it’s simple. They experience it regularly in their dreams.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Savannah Evans
November 20, 2009 1:15 PM in reply to Sagebrush
Well I'm a liberal and I've been having lots of nightmares since November 2000. Every time I think I'm about to wake up, a new nightmare begins.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
November 20, 2009 1:36 PM in reply to Sagebrush
That's really interesting. I'd never heard about that, but it makes total sense. Their brains are actually functioning differently than ours are. Thanks for the heads-up!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sagebrush
November 20, 2009 5:42 PM in reply to Clavis
I found it very interesting, too, Clavis. (In a former life, I was a psychiatric nurse, so I find this kind of thing fascinating.) I've wondered, though... Which is the chicken and which is the egg? Do people who naturally have a lot of nightmares gravitate to conservativism because of the nightmares? (For whatever reassurance that it might offer...) Or does the process of becoming conservative cause bad dreams? But either way, the correlation that the article I read described was dramatic and very clear. It's got to come from somewhere.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
November 20, 2009 1:52 PM in reply to Sagebrush
One of these days I'm actually going to go to work without pants. Maybe that will make the dreams stop.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Texas Aggie
November 20, 2009 8:03 PM in reply to Sagebrush
Interesting. All my nightmares are about forgetting to go to class until the final exam.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Frankly_my_dear
November 20, 2009 1:11 PM
"Daring The Terrorists To Attack Us Again"
Does "BRING 'EM ON!" ring a bell with anyone?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Shoto
November 20, 2009 1:11 PM
Anyone see "Terror in Mumbai" last night? While these wingnuts are yammering about the "terrists" running around loose in the US, the Pakistani military, intelligence services, government and general population is acting as a safe harbor for actual real scary guys trying to get their hands on Paki Nukes. Hey Wingnuts: Get your priorities straight, will ya?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
November 20, 2009 1:16 PM
Thank God the conservatives kept us safe during the past administration when they ignored the memo in August, 2001, "Bin Laden determined to attack U.S. using passenger airplanes." Reading "The Pet Goat" really taught Bin Laden a lesson.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Frex
November 20, 2009 1:53 PM
Gee was it only 2004 when conservatives were strong on America types and liberals claimed the sky was falling. What a difference a couple of elections make.
These Repugs need to realize that these statements will live forever as YouTube clips that can me manipulated and played endlessly at election time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
macsurf
November 20, 2009 1:58 PM
Did Sister Sarah not see that the first RED FlAG about the shrink who did the shooting at Ft. Hood was issued by a supervisor @ Walter Reed Medical Center where the crazy shrink worked before being transferred to Ft. Hood way back in early 2007 on YOU KNOW WHO'S watch?
Oh, but of course not. Sister Sarah told Sean Hannity not once, but TWICE, in their recent interview that Ahmadinejad was the president of IRAQ!! And Sean didn't correct her. Not only are these people wing nuts, they're dumbbell dingbats to boot!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
baltimore
November 20, 2009 3:22 PM in reply to macsurf
what's new about this? it's an axiom that all wing-nuts are dumb. what the heck, they voted for dumbya bush not once, but twice, didn't they?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
aliesterrand
November 20, 2009 3:31 PM
Ok, let me start by agreeing that some of these right wing politicians sound hysterical. But, I sense an implication that left wing politicians don't engage in fearmongering. Or is just ok for them to do it because you agree with them in principle? I find myself excusing politicians for these excesses when I hope that they will succeed and implicitly condescend to the electorate by doing so. Perhaps we all need to raise the bar for political rhetoric.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SqueakyRat
November 21, 2009 10:39 AM in reply to aliesterrand
OK, let's hear some examples of left-wing fearmongering . . . I'm waiting!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
November 20, 2009 3:55 PM
Alie, maybe you could "raise the bar" by refusing to make excuses for Right Wingers by claiming "everyone does it" when your side is caught lying or fear-mongering.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
aliesterrand
November 20, 2009 4:14 PM in reply to traitorjoe
Sorry, I didn't think saying they sound hysterical was excusing them. Some people might even consider that derogatory.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Iamtheocean
November 20, 2009 5:53 PM
Rightwing extremist's love this stuff and the GOP know's it so really who's the one egging on the terrorists ?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fangorn1
November 20, 2009 6:00 PM
It looks to me like some conservatives want a terrorist attack. For good measure, a few have offered advice to terrorists just in case they run out of ideas. Mark Kirk suggested the Sears building as a prominent target. John Shadegg reminded dimwitted Al Queda operatives that kidnapping and ransom of NYC officials and their families might be effective. I'm sure there are more instances because it seems to be the party line. Run out of ideas? Ask the RNC@mayhem.com
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
November 20, 2009 6:53 PM in reply to fangorn1
Yes, conservatives want a terror attack. You are so right.
Honestly, you people are fucking pathetic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
November 20, 2009 7:34 PM in reply to masanf
Well then, when the terror attack conservatives believe is so inevitable under an Obama Presidency occurs, keep your yaps shut and don't use it to make political hay.
If you don't want to be accused of wanting a terror attack, then don't be such partisan buttplugs when one happens. Otherwise, if the shoe fits, wear it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kuyleh
November 21, 2009 12:01 PM in reply to masanf
You'd know. You're our picture for pathetic perfection. Keep it up!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
November 20, 2009 6:55 PM in reply to fangorn1
Tell me again, who are the fearmongers here, the Republicans or the idiots who think the Republicans want another terrorist attack? Is it hard being that stupid, or does it come naturally to you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
OhioMan
November 21, 2009 8:36 AM in reply to masanf
I'm sorry, but republicans most certainly *do* want another attack, believing that it would well and truly doom the evil, Communist Obama presidency once and for all.
Remember PNAC, the Project for a New American Century? It was a conservative group led by cheney, Gingrich, and Rumsfeld. Their 90s manifesto advocated invading Iraq but bemoaned the fact that the American people would never permit such a foolish misadventure. Unless, said PNAC, the nation were to experience a "new Pearl Harbor", some sort of devastating surprise attack. *Then* we could invade Iraq with no trouble!
So. bush snuck into office after losing the 2000 election and not nine months later - boom! We had a "new Pearl Harbor" attack (despite clear warnings, ignored) and immediately invaded Iraq in response. Can you possibly believe that was some kind of "coincidence"?
The goal now, as it was during the Clinton years, is to run the president out of office by any means necessary. One thing that would do it would be a "new 9/11", and believe me, folks, that is *exactly* what republicans pray for every night, despite what their apologists may say on forums like this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
November 20, 2009 6:49 PM
This attack on Republicans is hilarious as it comes from people who insist almost daily that not passing the Obamacare piece of crap bill that the majority of Americans don't want is tantamount to murder and tens of thousands of Americans are dying because of the Republican resistance to health care "reform". The hypocrisy is so staggering it is almost surreal.
The Obama Record: Record unemployment, record deficits, no legislative accomplishments, foreign policy weakness that makes Jimmy Carter look like Curtis LeMay.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
November 20, 2009 6:54 PM in reply to masanf
The only thing hilarious are your stupid assinine posts. You people have the market on hipocrisy. Life might be a lot better for you if you'd take your head out of your smelly ass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
November 20, 2009 6:56 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Learn to spell hypocrisy, moron.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
November 20, 2009 7:44 PM in reply to masanf
Learn how to avoid comma splices, moron.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
November 20, 2009 6:57 PM in reply to lousgirl84
And asinine as well. Better yet, don't use any words with more than three letters. That would better suit your "intelligence" level.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
November 20, 2009 7:31 PM in reply to masanf
That's all you got????
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
November 20, 2009 7:45 PM in reply to masanf
If you're going to berate others for their linguistic shortcomings, then sharpen up your own and learn how to avoid nonparallel construction, Dudley.
And if you don't know what that is, I'll be glad to smarten you up and show you where you failed to use it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
November 20, 2009 7:43 PM in reply to masanf
"This attack on Republicans"
Right. Republicans say "you lie" during the SOTU and liken the President to Hitler, and *they're* the ones being attacked. Tell me another one.
"is hilarious as it comes from people who insist almost daily that not passing the Obamacare piece of crap bill that the majority of Americans don't want"
Unfortunately for you, the majority of Americans *do* want it. Poll after poll clearly demonstrate that when you ask Americans whether or not they favor each of the broad provisions presently being debated, a plurality of the electorate *does,* in fact, want the plan passed. You are either lying or else you're just plain wrong.
"is tantamount to murder and tens of thousands of Americans are dying because of the Republican resistance to health care "reform".
(laughing, pointing) :)
Go ahead, champ. Tell me what pages of the bill the "death panels" appear on. Enlighten us all, genius.
"The hypocrisy is so staggering it is almost surreal."
Clearly, your perception of hypocrisy has been permanently damaged. I suspect it's because of long exposure to excessive GOP hypocrisy at close range.
"The Obama Record: Record unemployment, record deficits, no legislative accomplishments, foreign policy weakness that makes Jimmy Carter look like Curtis LeMay."
That's one outright falsehood (unemployment), one mischaracterization and distortion (deficits), one qualitative misjudgement (legislative accomplishments) and one unsupported statement of opinion (foreign policy).
I bet you can come up with even more of those misstatements, falsehoods and misjudgments if you try.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
aliesterrand
November 20, 2009 9:47 PM in reply to Signalman
Right. Republicans say "you lie" during the SOTU and liken the President to Hitler, and *they're* the ones being attacked. Tell me another one.
So by your logic, I could find the stupidest most extreme left wing view, (say at Democratic Underground) and claim that Democrats say....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
November 20, 2009 10:44 PM in reply to aliesterrand
"So by your logic, I could find the stupidest most extreme left wing view, (say at Democratic Underground) and claim that Democrats say...."
I don't know why you have to be so dishonest in your comparisons. I gave you a perfectly creditable example of an elected Republican Congressman, and you seem to think that it's fair and reasonable to compare his stupid behavior with the folks over on Daily Kos. If you want to be fair and honest, then you should be able to trot out some similar misdeeds on the part of elected Democrats.
Why you would want to hold Daily Kos to a higher standard of behavior than you'd hold elected members of the GOP, I can't imagine. But it certainly appears to indicate dishonesty to me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
aliesterrand
November 21, 2009 12:22 AM in reply to Signalman
Actually you said
Republicans say "you lie" during the SOTU and liken the President to Hitler
Are you refering to Joe Wilson with both of these or did you have someone else in mind? You used a plural.
As for elected officials.... (from Politico)
"Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) warned Americans that "Republicans want you to die quickly" during an after-hours House floor speech Tuesday night."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
November 21, 2009 6:21 AM in reply to aliesterrand
"Actually you said Republicans say "you lie" during the SOTU and liken the President to Hitler
Are you refering to Joe Wilson with both of these or did you have someone else in mind? You used a plural."
Yes, I did, because Joe Wilson hasn't (so far as I am aware) likened the President to Hitler, and because no other Republicans have (so far as I am aware) said "you lie" during the SOTU. The clear distinction between the two (and the concomitant linguistic imperative to use a plural) should be apparent to anyone with at least a journeyman's facility with English grammar. Don't be afraid to ask for further clarification if the big words make your head hurt.
"As for elected officials.... (from Politico)
"Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) warned Americans that "Republicans want you to die quickly" during an after-hours House floor speech Tuesday night."
I'm not seeing any bad behavior inherent in that; certainly nothing that rises to the level of shouting "you lie" at the President on the floor of Congress during his SOTU address. It may be behavior that you don't like, but it's not even close to being in a class with Joe Wilson's inexcusable outburst.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
aliesterrand
November 21, 2009 7:52 AM in reply to Signalman
Right. Republicans say "you lie" during the SOTU and liken the President to Hitler, and *they're* the ones being attacked
OK, so you were referring to Joe Wilson and some still unnamed individual here. When I called you for using a lowest common denominator attack, i was referring to the second part, not the first.(I have heard of Joe Wilson)You then defended yourself referring to the first part. Strangely, you didn't defend the second part. Is this sloppy thinking or a deliberate tactic?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
November 21, 2009 10:00 AM in reply to aliesterrand
"OK, so you were referring to Joe Wilson and some still unnamed individual here."
Wrong. If you need clarification, then act like an adult and *ask* for it, instead of trying to put words in my mouth.
"When I called you for using a lowest common denominator attack,"
I did no such thing, but *you* certainly did. Trying to liken the inexcusable behavior of a sitting Congressman to the behavior of "unnamed individual(s)" on Daily Kos isn't just inaccurate, it's outright dishonest, as well as being a "lowest common denominator attack." Pot, kettle, black.
"i was referring to the second part, not the first.(I have heard of Joe Wilson)"
You need to read them together, but understand them separately, Grasshopper. (laughing)
"You then defended yourself referring to the first part."
Wrong. I explained to you the grammatical construction that I used, which clearly went right over your head. Furthermore, I haven't "defended" anything, since I've neither said nor done anything that requires defending.
"Strangely, you didn't defend the second part. Is this sloppy thinking or a deliberate tactic?"
Once again, the clear distinction between the two (and the concomitant linguistic imperative to use a plural) should be apparent to anyone with at least a journeyman's facility with English grammar. Don't be afraid to ask for further clarification if the big words make your head hurt.
Oh, BTW -- it's good to see that you have rightly abandoned your attempt to tar Congressman Grayson with the brush that's more properly applied to Congressman Wilson. I'm sure you recognized that you weren't going to get anywhere with that argument.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
aliesterrand
November 21, 2009 2:36 PM in reply to Signalman
What? Are willfully misunderstanding my argument or are you really that dim? You keep claiming that I don't understand what you are saying, but then you don't clarify what you actually mean. I have to assume that either you have no idea what you are trying to say or you can't communicate intelligently.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
November 21, 2009 5:44 PM in reply to aliesterrand
"What?"
Yes, here it comes. The plaintive bleat of the internet post-opponent who's gotten in over his head. (laughing)
"Are willfully misunderstanding my argument or are you really that dim?"
Neither. *You* are the one misunderstanding an argument, and *you* are the one who's "really that dim." After all, I've had to explain my grammatical construction to you twice, and you still clearly don't get it. Perhaps you should drop back to varsity-level play, since your Compare-Alan-Grayson-To-Daily-Kos-Screamers methodology gets you no points in this argument.
"You keep claiming that I don't understand what you are saying, but then you don't clarify what you actually mean."
You don't understand, and you don't ask any probative questions. You misunderstand, leap to inaccurate conclusions, dishonestly misrepresent my position (as a consequence of the inaccurate conclusions to which you leap) and attempt to put words in my mouth. You can't read my mind, pal, but that doesn't seem to have stopped you from trying.
Furthermore, just as you cannot read my mind, *I* cannot read *yours.* I don't know what's unclear or confusing to you *until you tell me,* so please don't demand that I clarify myself unless and until *you* tell *me* what *you* would like to have clarified.
"I have to assume that either you have no idea what you are trying to say"
I know exactly what I'm trying to say. You, however, do not know what I am trying to say, despite your best attempts to speak for me.
"or you can't communicate intelligently."
Said the poster who needed a grammatical construction explained to him. (laughing)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
aliesterrand
November 20, 2009 10:38 PM in reply to Signalman
"Unfortunately for you, the majority of Americans *do* want it. Poll after poll clearly demonstrate that when you ask Americans whether or not they favor each of the broad provisions presently being debated,"
Ok, while technically true this is misleading. If you mix a pound of hamburger with a pound of crap, which one do you suppose you'd taste? The provisions that people like aren't at question. (although even then I bet "free cake for everyone" would poll well, so....)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
November 20, 2009 10:58 PM in reply to aliesterrand
"Ok, while technically true this is misleading."
Not in the least. If you have substantive criticism to offer, then man up and offer it.
"If you mix a pound of hamburger with a pound of crap, which one do you suppose you'd taste?"
Your argument is specious and jejune. Rejected.
"The provisions that people like aren't at question."
Of *course* they are. If someone's going to falsely claim that people don't want what's in the bill, then I'm going to call them on it -- because poll after poll clearly indicates that when you *ask* Americans about the individual items in the bill, they *do* want them. Not just by a majority, but in some cases by significant majorities.
"(although even then I bet "free cake for everyone" would poll well, so....)"
Live by the polls, die by the polls. When you mislead people with terms like "socialism" and "death panels," don't be surprised when you get pushback. And the easiest pushback of all is to simply show people what's actually in the bill, and then to ask them if they want that.
And that's where you lose.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
aliesterrand
November 21, 2009 12:30 AM in reply to Signalman
My analogy referred to the fact that you could want the parts, but still find the whole to be unacceptable. Most every bill that goes through Congress has good provisions or they would never pass. Does that make the whole bill good? If I gave you your pet project, but stipulated that for every dollar spent on it the RNC would get three, would you still agree?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
November 21, 2009 6:30 AM in reply to aliesterrand
"My analogy referred to the fact that you could want the parts, but still find the whole to be unacceptable."
I reject the implicit claim that that's what's happening here. It is clear that both you and masanf are trying to make a claim with thin evidence, and that evidence being founded on polls that misrepresent what's actually going on. The fact is, when you tell people about the individual provisions in the bill, and ask if they think those provisions are a good idea, the majority of Americans want them. I'm not sure how you can claim otherwise unless you're simply trying to be misleading (or else outright dishonest).
"Most every bill that goes through Congress has good provisions or they would never pass. Does that make the whole bill good?"
Then by all means, let's talk specifics about the bill. I'd like that, because the whole GOP obstruction effort has centered around being vague, misleading or dishonest about what's actually in the bill. So if you want to talk specifics, I'm all for that. And that's because the GOP side loses when that happens.
"If I gave you your pet project, but stipulated that for every dollar spent on it the RNC would get three, would you still agree?"
Once again, if you want to talk *specifics* about the bill, then bring it on. Don't waste my time with lame analogies. And if you can't offer anything other than those selfsame analogies, then it's clear that you don't really *know* what's in the bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
aliesterrand
November 21, 2009 7:39 AM in reply to Signalman
So are you claiming that there is nothing odious in these two gigantic bills? I doubt if even you believe that. I personally prefer to argue principles, not minutia, nor am I an expert on this. However, since you insist on it, how about the medicare cuts? Over $500 billion over ten years, isn't it? I don't know exactly, but since you seem to be the expert on this bill perhaps you could tell me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
November 21, 2009 10:17 AM in reply to aliesterrand
"So are you claiming that there is nothing odious in these two gigantic bills? I doubt if even you believe that."
Once again, you dishonestly attempt to put words in my mouth. Fail.
If *you* think there's something objectionable in there, then kindly man up and explain what it is. Lay it out for us. Tell us where it is in the bill so we can look it up for ourselves, and tell us what you think the problem is. If you can do that, you'll get a fair hearing from me. OTOH, if all you can do is crap about how terrible the bill is, then I'll just lump you with the Daily Kos nutbars you were recently complaining about. Your call, pal.
This isn't about what *I* find objectionable in there. It's about *you* putting some actual substance behind *your* complaints, instead of simply whining aimlessly.
"I personally prefer to argue principles, not minutia, nor am I an expert on this."
Then it beggars belief that you apparently want to get into a debate over this. Besides, when debating a bill in Congress, the discussion over principles is *done.* The discussion over minutiae is what takes place then. Surely you realize this. Congress is no longer talking about whether or not there will be a health care bill (principles). They're talking about what's actually going to be in it (minutiae).
"However, since you insist on it, how about the medicare cuts? Over $500 billion over ten years, isn't it? I don't know exactly,"
Okay, here's your homework. Go look in the bill and find the exact amount. Then tell us, by *citing the bill itself,* whether those are "cuts" or "savings." Since you admittedly "don't know exactly," you should look at this as an opportunity for self-improvement and education.
"but since you seem to be the expert on this bill perhaps you could tell me."
This is a dishonest misrepresentation on your part. I have made no such claim, and I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise. If you don't know enough about what's in the bill to offer substantive criticisms of it, then you need to curb your snotty attitude.
Once again, if you want to talk *specifics* about the bill, then bring it on. Don't waste my time with lame analogies. And if you can't offer anything other than those selfsame analogies, then it's clear that you don't really *know* what's in the bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
November 20, 2009 6:52 PM
This president is perhaps the weakest president ever in regards to foreign policy and it is the Republicans who are cowards? Only somebody with a "Yes We Can" bumper sticker on his car and a shrine to Obama at his house believes such crap. The rest of the US ain't buying it anymore, and the "president's" terrible approval ratings prove that.
The Obama Record: Record unemployment, record deficits, no legislative accomplishments, foreign policy weakness that makes Jimmy Carter look like Curtis LeMay.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
November 20, 2009 7:49 PM in reply to masanf
"The rest of the US ain't buying it anymore, and the "president's" terrible approval ratings prove that."
Tell you what. As soon as President Obama's approval ratings drop below the combined ratings of President Bush and VP Cheney when they left office, you hurry on back and tell us all, okay?
Until then, you're just blowing smoke. And looking increasingly desperate. But desperation becomes you; you look good in it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
November 20, 2009 6:55 PM
It's time for another Obama speech to the nation and to call out these sobs for what they are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
November 20, 2009 6:58 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Yeah, because his speeches have accomplished so much, haven't they? You would be better off staying at your Obama shrine instead of making a fool of yourself on the computer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
November 20, 2009 7:30 PM in reply to masanf
The only one I see making a fool of themselves is you, with every post you make.
You are pond scum.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JadeZ
November 20, 2009 9:32 PM in reply to masanf
just think, you have 7 more years to post about Obama!
lol
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
November 20, 2009 7:05 PM
Obama is the FDR of our time. I'm tired of the racist attacks on him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
November 20, 2009 7:28 PM
Obama knew they were going to make him into a scary guy. If anyone saw the HBO special By The People, there is a candid moment when he is talking to Richard Wolff and he said those exact words. "They are going to try to make me into a scary guy"
Obama knew he would meet with lots of opposition, but I don't think he even knew it would be this bad. He needs to call these mfrs on their shit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
November 20, 2009 10:49 PM
They hated Bill Clinton, too - how dare he give them 8 years of peace and prosperity - but nothing like this. The Repubs would rather die of swine flu or food poisoning from unregulated foods, lose their jobs, see their loved ones shipped to Iraq and never come back under a Republican president than prosper under Obama. The very idea that a BLACK man from a supposedly liberal party can undo 8 years of disasters under Bush and Cheney makes them insane. If they admit the truth, they voted and supported an ignorant failure, twice, they will have to admit we were right and they were wrong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
November 21, 2009 12:43 AM
If you were a politician who was a member of a party made up of obviously uninformed, uneducated, irrational people, wouldn't you use this fear technique? Surely no one believes any of those Repub politicians, other than Sarah, actually believe what they are saying. They have a group of voters who can only be enticed to vote for them by spouting this nonsense at every opportunity.
Way back in the American Dark Ages, people in the South had to demonstrate their ability to read and memorize stuff before they could vote. Maybe the time has come to require voters to demonstrate their ability to think rationally by asking them to certify that they are not Repubs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
OhioMan
November 21, 2009 8:44 AM in reply to hoppycalif2
republicans are lucky that their True Believers are so amazingly easy to fool. They'll believe anything bad about Obama and Democrats no matter how outlandish. They never check the facts. They listen only to the propaganda on Fox "News" and the right-wing radio blowhards. No other viewpoints are allowed.
With a gang of simpletons like this on your side, demagoguery is so easy it's laughable! Beck says there are concentration camps for conservative imprisonment and suddenly there are anti-concentration-camp rallies all across the country. It's as if the people involved don't have minds of their own, like they were empty vessels eager to receive whatever crap some fool pours into them.
I thank the gods every day that I am not a conservative. What lost, wasted lives so many of them lead.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Odel Roo
November 21, 2009 9:33 AM
Democrats are lucky that their True Believers are so amazingly easy to fool. They'll wont believe anything bad about Obama and Democrats no matter how resonable. They never check the facts. They listen only to the propaganda on MSNBC and the left-wing radio blowhards. No other viewpoints are allowed.
With a gang of simpletons like this on your side, demagoguery is so easy it's laughable! Beck debunks ( http://tinyurl.com/yaumkeb )that there are concentration camps for conservative imprisonment. It's as if the people involved don't have minds of their own, like they were empty vessels eager to receive whatever crap some fool pours into them.
I thank the gods every day that I am not a Liberal/progressive. What lost, wasted lives so many of them lead.
Not to completely defend Beck here but you seem to be the ranting about exactly what you are doing here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
November 21, 2009 10:23 AM in reply to Odel Roo
You know, I'm a firearm-owning disabled Army veteran who was raised in and still lives in the Deep South. By all measures, I'm a key part of the Republican demographic.
And it's people like you who ran me out of the GOP. Y'all lost my vote, and behavior (and claims) like yours aren't likely to win me back any time soon.
As far as 'not believing anything bad' about a sitting President and his party 'no matter how reasonable,' you should bear in mind that y'all set the bar pretty low during the last eight years -- so you have no one to blame but yourselves for that.
Rhetoric won't win back the votes of me and former Republicans like me. And neither will jerkazoid behavior. If you want us back, then you need to read some Goldwater and Buckley, and learn how to behave and to comport yourselves like them.
Because this Koko the Gorilla act isn't working for you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Odel Roo
November 21, 2009 10:46 AM in reply to Signalman
I'm a firearm-owning disabled Army veteran as well. I was thought i was replying to the previous by MarkofOhio post above mine. As for setting the bar low... i didn't vote for the guy and didn't really care for him.
I was trying to point out a kind of pot calling the kettle black with tired old lines from both sides.
Were you a 31V?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
November 21, 2009 6:05 PM in reply to Odel Roo
"I'm a firearm-owning disabled Army veteran as well. I was thought i was replying to the previous by MarkofOhio post above mine."
You were. And I was responding to you. Is there a problem with that?
"As for setting the bar low... i didn't vote for the guy and didn't really care for him."
You misunderstand. As far as 'setting the bar low' goes, I was referring to your statement about 'not believing anything bad' about a sitting President. Conservatives gave President Bush many, many passes (whether you yourself voted for or believed him) on things that later turned out to be partially or wholly true. Given that, present criticism of the kind you offered seems to be little more substantial than crocodile tears, and no more willing of my credence.
"I was trying to point out a kind of pot calling the kettle black with tired old lines from both sides."
You did, but you did so, IMO, rather poorly and with a post full of rhetorical holes. I'm sorry if it troubles you that I chose to point one of them out.
"Were you a 31V?"
Mike, not Victor.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pmb50
November 21, 2009 10:58 AM
911 happened under there watch. enough said
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?