On September 26, 2012,
in Uncategorized,
by magoo1310
It’s Thursday, September 26th, 2012….and before we begin, two quick notes; you must check out video #4 (On the Lighter Side) on our home page at www.thedailygouge.com. The videos are accessed through the numbered boxes immediately below the Quote of the Day. If your pants are still dry after watching, you’re either dead or a Dimocrat.
Second, as the U.S. Naval Academy Class of 1977 will be celebrating its 35th Reunion this weekend, we’ll be taking Thursday evening and Friday off; look for us again on Monday, October 1st.
Now, here’s The Gouge!
First up, the Left once again demonstrates its curious interpretation of the 1st Amendment, courtesy of Bill Meisen and one “Moaning Mona” Eltahawy, sometime-CNN/MSDNC weekend pundit and a founding member of Journalists for Censorship:
“It’s my right to know what you’re arresting me for!” How like a Liberal! In the best tradition of her Dear Misleader, Eltahawy’s only cognizant of what she deems her “rights”, remaining willfully and blissfully ignorant of the rights of others. Not to mention she ended a sentence with a preposition!
For more on the subject of the willfully ignorant, we turn to Marc Thiessen, courtesy of the WaPo, and his telling tale of….
A bogus defense of Obama’s intelligence briefing record
The Post’s Fact Checker, Glenn Kessler, takes issue with my report that since taking office President Obama has skipped his daily intelligence meeting more than half the time. So let’s fact check the Fact Checker.
The Facts
After hearing from sources in the intelligence community that President Obama was not attending his daily intelligence meeting on a daily basis, I asked researchers at the Government Accountability Institute, a nonpartisan research group headed by Peter Schweizer (who is also my business partner in a speechwriting firm, Oval Office Writers) to examine at Obama’s official schedule. We found during his first 1,225 days in office, Obama had attended his daily meeting to discuss the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) just 536 times — or 43.8 percent of the time. During 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance became even less frequent — falling to just over 38 percent. By contrast, Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, almost never missed his daily intelligence meeting.
After Islamist radicals stormed our embassy in Cairo and terrorists killed our ambassador to Libya on Sept. 11, I further reported that Obama also skipped his daily intelligence meeting every day in the week leading up to the attacks. The day after the attack, he scheduled but then canceled his daily intelligence meeting, while finding time to go to Las Vegas for a campaign rally.
These facts are not in dispute. Indeed, before publishing both of my columns, I specifically asked National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor if there were instances where the president had, in fact, held his daily meeting on the PDB that did not appear on the official public calendar. He offered no examples, and not once did he challenge the numbers I presented. Neither has any White House official challenged them in the weeks since this controversy erupted. So, as a factual matter, Kessler offers no evidence that the information I presented on Obama’s PDB meeting attendance is wrong.
What Kessler and the Obama White House do argue is a matter not of fact but of opinion — that it does not matter if Obama attends a daily intelligence meeting because he reads his PDB every day. Kessler compares Obama to former presidents going back to Reagan and Nixon and finds that “many did not have an oral briefing” — and that this means Obama has simply “chosen to receive his information in a different manner than his predecessor.” There are several problems with this.
First, Kessler ignores one giant difference between then and now: Sept. 11, 2001.
Comparing lax presidential briefing habits before and after 9/11 is like comparing lax presidential security habits before and after the Kennedy assassination. After terrorists killed 3,000 people in our midst, everything changed — and the president’s daily intelligence meeting took on dramatically increased importance. President Bush made it a priority to sit down with his senior intelligence advisers every day to discuss overnight intelligence on threats to the country. President Obama has not.
Kessler notes that Bill Clinton’s CIA director could not get a meeting with him, and that Clinton was known to comment that his morning papers were better than the intelligence brief. This is more an indictment of Clinton than a defense of Obama. On Clinton’s watch, terrorists attacked us repeatedly without cost or consequence — from the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, to the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, to the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, to the USS Cole in 2000.
Now the circle is complete; once you were but a learner, but now you are the Master! Only of prevarication, Darth Clinton!
As for Nixon and Reagan, comparing Obama’s briefing habits to those of presidents who served 30 to 40 years ago — in an era when advanced technology consisted of electric typewriters — is irrelevant in an age of 21st-century surveillance and collection capabilities.The volume, speed and complexity of intelligence has changed dramatically in the intervening decades — and with it the need for interactive briefings.
Without criticizing Obama, former CIA director Mike Hayden recently explained the value of the in-person meeting: “With President Bush, I really saw the value of the personal interaction that we had on an almost daily basis. There was rich give-and-take, so that not only did the president get the advantage of knowing the analysts’ innermost thoughts, but they also were able to leave the room understanding what the president believed he needed in order to make the kind of decisions he had to make.”
In addition to the PDB, Hayden said, Bush also received two longer, magazine-length pieces each week, and additional in-person briefings were held on each of these. On Thursdays, Hayden also briefed Bush for a half-hour on sensitive collection programs and covert action.
The Pinocchio Test
Perhaps Obama does not feel he needs such daily interaction. But the fact that he has not been having it is indisputable. (Though, interestingly, since my columns appeared, Obama attended his PDB meeting seven days in a row for the first time in seven months. If live briefings are no better than paper briefings, why has Obama suddenly begun receiving briefings in-person?)
It is a fact that for eight years before Obama took office, there was a daily meeting to discuss the PDB. And it is a fact that, on taking office, Obama stopped holding the daily intelligence meeting on a daily basis. Kessler may not think that is important, and he is entitled to his own opinion —but not his own facts.
I give Four Pinocchios to the Fact Checker.
Which qualifies Kessler for a lifetime membership in the League of Lying Liberals:
And since we’re on the subject of The Obamao’s shortcomings, theMorning Examiner‘s Conn Carroll details….
Obama’s parade of failures
If President Obama was expecting an easy interview at his Univision forum yesterday, he certainly got a surprise. From immigration reform, to Libya, to his promise to change Washington, Obama was forced to admit his presidency has been a total failure at every turn.
Right out of the box, Univision’s Maria Elena Salinas asked Obama:
We know in Libya, four Americans were killed. We know now that Ambassador Chris Stevens warned about security days before he was killed. Many people want to know whether — if you expected so much anti-American sentiment in the Islamic world. And why wasn’t your administration better prepared with more security at our embassies on September 11?
Obama never answered. Instead, he gave a rambling, long-winded response that avoided her question entirely. And the next question did not get any easier. Univision’s Jorge Ramos asked:
On May 28th, 2008, we had a conversation in Denver, Colorado, and you told me the following — and I’m going to quote you: “But I can guarantee that we will have, in the first year, an immigration bill that I strongly support.” I want to emphasize “the first year.” At the beginning of your governing, you had control of both chambers of Congress, and yet you did not introduce immigration reform. And before I continue, I want for you to acknowledge that you did not keep your promise.
Obama refused to acknowledge he ever made such a promise. Instead, he blamed others, the economy and Republicans, for his failure to pass immigration reform.
Later, when asked to identify his biggest failure as president, Obama first named immigration reform, and then mentioned his failure “to change the tone in Washington.” “I think that I’ve learned some lessons over the last four years, and the most important lesson I’ve learned is that you can’t change Washington from the inside. You can only change it from the outside,” Obama said.
But Obama didn’t “learn” this while he was in office. He came into office on a platform of changing Washington from the outside.That was one of his biggest debates with Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primary. She said Democrats needed an insider like her to make change in Washington while Obama said he would bring change from the outside.
He’s had four years to do it. By his own admission, it hasn’t happened. How will the next four years be any different?Obama can’t answer that question because he can’t even acknowledge he’s already tried, or that he has failed, not even on something as obvious as immigration.
Obama is clearly a very strong candidate when he sticks to scripted events and speeches. But when pressed on his record, his off the cuff responses are disastrous. We’ll see if he improves before the debates.
Given the moderators the RNC agreed to, why would he need to? It’s not like he’s going to be asked tough questions, let alone be required to answer the softballs he’s tossed.
In a related item, Jonah Goldberg asks:
What has Obama learned?
It’s been said the Oval Office isn’t a place to learn on the job — as this president has shown.
The Oval Office isn’t the place to learn on the job. That was the line from both Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain in 2008. In fairness, that’s always the argument the more experienced candidate uses against the less experienced candidate (just ask Mitt Romney).
But Barack Obama seemed a special case, easily among the least experienced major party nominees in U.S. history. A Pew poll in August 2008 found that the biggest concern voters had with Obama fell under the category of “personal abilities and experience.” In a “change” year, Americans swallowed those concerns and voted for the change candidate.
Four years later, it’s worth asking, “What has Obama learned?”
Several journalists have asked that exact question. And Obama’s answers raise another question: Can Obama learn?
In July, CBS News’ Charlie Rose asked Obama what the biggest mistake of his first term was. Obama replied it “was thinking that this job was just about getting the policy right.” Getting the policy right is important, Obama continued, “but the nature of this office is also to tell a story to the American people that gives them a sense of unity and purpose and optimism, especially during tough times.”
Then, last week, in an admirably tough interview on the Spanish-language network Univision, Obama was asked what his biggest failure was. His first impulse was to pander. “My biggest failure so far is we haven’t gotten comprehensive immigration reform done,” Obama said. “But it’s not because for lack of trying or desire, and I’m confident we are going to accomplish that.” (Actually, it was at least a little “for a lack of trying or desire,” given that Obama never pushed for the legislation, even when his party controlled Congress.)
Then Obama got contemplative. “The most important lesson I’ve learned is that you can’t change Washington from the inside, you can only change it from the outside,” he said. “That’s how I got elected, and that’s how the big accomplishments like healthcare got done because we mobilized the American people to speak out.”
Put simply: This is very strange stuff.
In the 2008 primaries, Obama and Clinton had an intense argument over the nature of the presidency. Clinton argued that real change came when skillful politicians moved the machinery of Washington toward progressive ends. The president was a “chief executive officer” who is “able to manage and run the bureaucracy,” she explained.
No, no, replied Obama. The presidency “involves having a vision for where the country needs to go …. and then being able to mobilize and inspire the American people to get behind that agenda for change.” So, after four years on the job, Obama has learned that he was right all along! How humble.
Except that’s not the story of Obama’s presidency. Contrary to popular myth, Obama has not rallied public opinion to his side on a single major domestic issue.The idea that healthcare reform was an “outsider-driven” affair is especially otherworldly. Unpopular from the get-go, it passed with ugly horse trades and legislative bribes that helped spur an outsider movement to defeat it, i.e., the “tea parties.”
His claim that he was too busy “getting the policy right” to tell the people a story is doubly creepy in its lack of self-awareness. All the reporting about Obama’s first term suggests that he outsourced the heavy lifting on the stimulus, “Obamacare” and Wall Street reform to the Democratic leadership while he indulged his logorrheic platitudinousness. According to Bob Woodward’s new book, even Nancy Pelosi hit mute on the speakerphone (which she’s denied) during one of Obama’s perorations, and she and Harry Reid went on with their meeting.
In his first year, Obama barely stopped talking to the American people, who unfortunately didn’t always have a mute button handy.According to CBS’s Mark Knoller, Obama gave 411 speeches or statements (52 addresses solely on healthcare reform), 42 news conferences, 158 interviews, 23 town hall meetings and 28 fundraisers.
And what did Obama learn from all of this? Nothing, nothing at all.
And why, inquiring minds want to know, hasn’t The Obamao gained any knowledge OTJ? Because, from his perspective, he had nothing to learn. He knows it all; always has, always will. And what he doesn’t know….
….ain’t worth learnin’!
The Boy Blunder’s overblown ego notwithstanding, what’s important isn’t what The Obamao’s learned on the job, but what voters….
….have learned about HIM! We’re betting they’ve gained a belly full.
Next up, another Liberal icon subtly sows the seeds for One World Government:
Hillary Clinton Pushes for Global Tax on Elites
In remarks this morning to the Clinton Global Initiative, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proposed a radical idea: a global tax on elites around the world. “One of the issues that I have been preaching about around the world is collecting taxes in an equitable manner, especially from the elites in every country,” Clinton said to laughter from the audience. “You know I’m out of American politics, but — (applause) — it is a fact that around the world, the elites of every country are making money.”
Clinton continued her rift on the rich. “There are rich people everywhere.And yet they do not contribute to the growth of their own countries.” The secretary of state suggested that the rich around the world do not give back to their communities. “They don’t invest in public schools, in public hospitals, in other kinds of development internally,” said Clinton.
She continued, saying that it is up to foreign leaders to make the change. “And so it means for leaders telling powerful people things they don’t want to hear,” Clinton said. “It means being transparent about budgets and revenues and bringing corruption to light. And when that happens, we shouldn’t punish countries for uncovering corruption. We should reward them for doing so. And it means putting in place regulations designed to attract and protect investment.”
Let’s consider Hillary’s claims for a moment. We’ll focus on the second paragraph, because frankly, like Madonna’s latest unintelligible diatribe, we haven’t a clue what Bill Clinton’s wife is trying to say in the third.
“They do not contribute to the growth of their own countries”; “They don’t invest in public schools, public hospitals, in other kinds of development internally.” What….the wealthy in these countries pay no taxes?!? If so, who’s fault is that?!?
Certainly not America’s….which makes it of no consequence whatsoever to a Secretary of State who just lost an ambassador and three other Foggy Bottom employees to a terrorist attack about which she’d received more than ample warning.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch with The Gang That Still Can’t Shoot Straight, the WSJ‘s Matthew Kaminski offers observations on a rather disturbing parallel:
The Mitt Whitman Campaign
The Romney presidential campaign elicits uncanny—for Republicans, unnerving—parallels to the last gubernatorial election in California.
Two years ago, Meg Whitman ran for the top job in Sacramento as a star executive and moderate Republican. She led with her biography and muddled her message on economic policy. Ms. Whitman worked at Bain & Co. in the 1980s with Mitt Romney, whom she considers a friend, before making her mark and millions atop eBay. During the campaign for governor, she was even mentioned as a veep possibility one day for Mr. Romney.
The Whitman effort failed on two fronts, as the Hoover Institution’s Bill Whalen notes. She couldn’t turn her business success into a political plus and ended up coming across, or getting successfully defined, as a cold plutocrat. And she was unable to give voters a clear idea of how she’d fix California’s chronic fiscal and economic problems. Jerry Brown won the election by nearly 14 percentage points.
Now, very blue California isn’t America, and Mr. Romney—a former governor and second-time presidential candidate—is a more experienced and accomplished politician than his former protégé at Bain. But it’s not too late for the lessons of her campaign to sink in.
Mr. Romney has also run on his C.V. and diluted the policy message—bashing China, for example, rather than explaining how he’d revive economic growth. The results are coming in. Starting with Newt Gingrich’s attacks on his Bain career and followed by the Obama full-frontal attack over the summer, Mr. Romney isn’t seen as sympathetic tycoon. His “likability” numbers show that: 42% of voters have a “very unfavorable” view of him, while 34% have a “very favorable” opinion about President Obama, according to the Economist/YouGov poll this week.
The weak economy gives Mr. Romney an opportunity to make the sale on his economic management and ideas, yet he’s not done it.For the first time, the Economist/YouGov poll shows Mr. Obama ahead of him on who would do better on handling the economy.Among independents, the candidates are tied on this issue.(Absolutely unbelievable given the sad state of America’s economy!) Given the Democratic advantage over the GOP in the number of registered voters, Mr. Romney needs to carry independents to win in November.
He remains within striking distance in the polls, yet the Whitman-like strategy doesn’t have a reassuring track record for Republicans. Ms. Whitman, of course, is back in the business world, heading Hewlett-Packard.
Hewlett-Packard; like Columbia, the Gem of the Ocean, another entity which may not exist four years from November 6th!
On the Lighter Side….
Finally, continuing with our Russian theme, we’ll wrap things up with the Education Section, brought to you today by a Pennsylvania school district which is apparently….BIG surprise!….ignorant of history:
School: Sorry About Hammer & Sickle
A Pennsylvania school district has apologized and made significant changes to a high school marching band’s halftime show that commemorated the Russian Revolution with red flags, military-style outfits and giant hammers and sickles. The New Oxford High School Marching band’s show will no longer be called “St. Petersburg: 1917″ and the performance will no longer include the hammers and sickles, according to a statement from Rebecca Harbaugh, the superintendent for the Conewago Valley School District.
Harbaugh acknowledged that “many people have expressed concerns about the show.” “We are taking steps to address many of the concerns expressed to us,” she said. “This is a learning opportunity for not only our students who have learned about the Revolution and its tragic consequences but it also a learnign opportunity for us as teachers and administrators.”
The performance will now be called, “The Music of Shostakovich” and the hammer and sickle have been replaced with traditional Color Guard band equipment.
The controversy started when an unidentified parent became upset after watching the performance. “There is no reason for Americans to celebrate the Russian revolution,” the parents said. “I am sure the millions who died under Communism would not see the joy of celebrating the Russian revolution by a school 10 miles from Gettysburg.” “It was Glee meets the Russian Revolution,” he told Fox News. “I’m not kidding you. They had giant hammers and sickles and they were waving them around.” “Who thought this was a good idea?”
Paul Kengor, the executive director for the Center for Vision & Values at Pennsylvania’s Grove City College, thought the performance was initially a joke. “This is surreal,” he told Fox News. “This is like something out of the Twilight Zone – but it’s even stranger than that.” Kengor said even if the school was not celebrating the revolution “they seem to be commemorating this to some degree.”
Then again, maybe they were just paying homage to….
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.