Did Obama Go Sideways On Four Decades Of Policy?
Aug 1, 2012 Political
Robert Gibbs, the former Obama “Baghdad Bob” has declared Mitt Romney’s trip to Israel an embarrassing disaster. Gibbs, a mouthpiece for the Obama campaign, is trashing Romney’s trip claiming that he was unable to convince people he should be the Commander in Chief.
Gibbs cites Romney’s expression of concern over some aspects of the London Olympics, claims that upset the British officials, as one reason he is not ready for primetime. The Obamabots would have you believe that Romney “struck out playing tee ball.”
The problem with this is that Romney only expressed concerns that the British have been publicly declaring for months. The British newspapers and other media have been talking about the very issues Romney discussed for months. When asked, Romney cited their own concerns and was somehow the bad guy.
Let us not forget that Romney is uniquely qualified to discuss Olympic preparation given his work on the Salt Lake City Olympics. He said nothing that was not already known or that was not already a concern. Even Piers Morgan sided with Romney and Morgan is in no way a right wing supporter.
So that issue has been settled. It was no big deal and Romney caused no international incident.
So on to the next issue. Gibbs cites Romney’s statement that Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel as a major gaffe and shows Romney is not ready for the White House. Here is what Gibbs said about Romney and his comment:
And he criticized the Republican’s declaration that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and should therefore be home to the U.S. embassy. He said that “went sideways” on four decades of American policy, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, that holds the status of Jerusalem, which both Israelis and Palestinians claim as their capital, should be worked out in negotiations. WSJ
So, according to Gibbs the Romney declaration went sideways on four decades of American policy. How dare he declare that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel? He is a foreign policy disaster. Barack Obama is so talented and in tune that he would never make such a silly gaffe.
Except candidate Obama said the very same thing in 2008. Yes ladies and gentlemen, Barack Obama went sideways on four decades of American policy by declaring that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel. Here is what the anointed one said in 2008:
Any negotiated agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, he said, “must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state with secure, recognized, defensible borders. And Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided.” CNS News
The Obama campaign backtracked later on but it is important to note that Obama said Jerusalem must REMAIN (remain means that it is currently so and must stay that way) the capital of Israel. He further stated that it must not be divided. He was speaking to a Jewish group and backtracked later when confronted by others. There is a video of him saying it so you Obamabots out there can’t claim he never said it. And just to be sure, NO, you all can’t play games and claim he was taken out of context. He was in context with his remarks about business and he was completely in context with his Jerusalem remarks.
I know that Obama and his people like to say something and then tell everyone that it was never said or taken out of context but the truth is they all lie and try to twist words. Another truth is that many of Obama’s followers are too stupid to actually see it.
In any event, candidate Obama said the EXACT same thing candidate Romney is now saying. Obama was the wonderful messiah and Romney has gone sideways on four decades of American policy.
This is what Baghdad Bob Gibbs would have you believe. The reality is that Romney’s trip was not an embarrassing disaster and the Obama campaign knows it. The campaign is doing everything it can to lie in order to gain traction.
Say Romney insulted the Brits while ignoring the insult Obama levied on them when he took office. He returned a Bust of Churchill thus insulting our ally and then his peeps lied about it. Even the apology is steeped in falsehood.
The reality is that Romney went to other countries and met with people who respect him. He did not bow to other leaders and he did not run around apologizing for America. He demonstrated what a real leader looks like and the Obama folks know this.
They are scared. It shows in their response to Romney’s actions and it shows in their fundraising emails. They are afraid and they are worried that the ruse is up and they will lose.
Even the black community is fracturing with regard to Obama.
I wonder if they are racists for opposing the anointed one…
Stick around and pop the popcorn because the show is going to get interesting.
Also:
The Blaze
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
GagDad Bob Gibbs Gets It Totally Wrong
May 5, 2010 Political
In the White House press conference on 4 May, Robert Gibbs lit into Wendell Goler of FOX News when Goler started to ask a question about the comparisons of the oil spill to Katrina. Goler had not finished the question when GagDad Bob stopped him and said that FOX had former FEMA Director Michael Brown on and that Brown said the oil spill was deliberate and that the assertion came with little push back form the interviewer (Neil Cavuto). Here is what GagDad Bob had to say:
“Your network put on the former FEMA director to make an accusation that the well had been purposely set off in order to change an offshore drilling decision.” Breitbart (video)
This is demonstrably false. Gibbs told a huge lie when he said this because brown did not say it. He said the regime was playing politics with the oil spill and using it to retreat from its earlier commitment to allow more offshore drilling. Brown also discussed the path of the oil and that it might flow up the east coast and this is what they wanted to push their anti drilling agenda. Brown argues that Obama was slow to respond because of his dislike for big oil.
At no time did Brown say that the well had been purposely set off. Gibbs just flat out lied.
We do know that the response was not as crisp as Obama led people to believe and it was not in keeping with his campaign rhetoric when he bashed Bush for the response to Katrina. Since 1994 there has been a plan in place (established during Clinton) to respond to an oil spill in the Gulf. That plan called for the placement of fire booms and ignition of the oil. Experts claim that if this had been done (in other words, if they had followed the plan) the scope of the spill would be much smaller.
The problem is that there were no fire booms at the coast. There were none preplaced and the Coast Guard did not have them. The government had to call the company in Illinois and have the only one in stock sent and then had the company call South American countries to see if we could borrow some.
Those booms have obviously been missing for some time and no one expects any president to know if they are there or not. It is not like they inventory all the stuff when they take office. This is why other people are in charge of these kinds of things. The person responsible for this response plan did not do his job. And because of that, the response was not in accordance with the plan and no, Obama did not respond or engage immediately. If his regime were involved from the start they might have noticed that the plan was not being followed and asked why. They might have also found out the booms were not available much earlier than the nine or so days it took to make that little discovery.
The Coast Guard Commander is also to blame for this. She indicated that she had everything she needed to accomplish her mission. Since her agency is the first responder and is responsible for these kinds of spills one would assume she would follow the plan and would know about the fire boom situation. In any event, she did not have everything she needed to do her job.
From all this we can see that while one can disagree with Brown on the reasons he gave for the delay, one cannot dispute his assertion that there was a delay (a delay in following the plan and a delay in response from the regime). It is also painfully obvious that Gibbs lied when he said Brown accused the regime of deliberately setting the well off.
It appears to have been an accident (though one wonders why Obama sent SWAT Teams out) but it is possible that it was deliberate. If it was I do not believe that anyone in the US had anything to do with it. If it was deliberate then it was probably an act committed by our enemies. A small submarine could have caused the damage and maybe that is why Obama sent SWAT Teams out. Perhaps he wanted them to look for any indications of foul play and to asses other rigs for security. No matter what, I do not believe that he or his regime had anything to do with it and it will likely be concluded that it was a freak accident.
A convenient accident (and one that the liberals wanted to see to validate their beliefs) but an accident nonetheless.
But Gibbs has thin skin as do most in the regime. He concocted a story because he is not tough enough to take a hard question and answer it. He just had to demonize FOX but he did it with a LIE.
I don’t recall any concern over the state run media and the way it treated George W Bush. How many state run media shows had guests on who claimed that Bush knew about 9/11 and that it was an inside job? How many guests on those shows claimed that the Bush administration imploded those buildings?
As for a comparison to Katrina, there would be one if what Gibbs claimed was true. You see, the state run media had guests who claimed that George Bush blew up the levees in New Orleans because he hates black people. How many people defended Bush when Kanye West, the moron singer, claimed Bush hated black people (while Kanye was asking Americans to be generous and donate to help those folks)?
This regime is full of sissies who have thin skin and it starts at the top with the regime leader Obama. They have a hard time with criticism and they act like they are being treated unfairly.
Just ask yourself, if Bush (or any Republican) would have gotten as many passes as Obama has. What would the state run media be saying about Bush if he were president now and there were no fire booms?
We all know the answer and yet, the state run media is strangely silent when it comes to their boss Barry.
Saul Alinsky would be proud of this regime and of GagDad Bob Gibbs. The only thing is, when Alinsky wrote his book there was no Internet where people could instantly debunk the Socialist community agitators that he inspired.
UPDATE: Brown said that they were making it a political issue. Looks like he was correct.
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Gibbs, lies, michael brown, Obama, oil gulf coast
Gibbs Gets One Right (Almost)
Oct 27, 2009 Political
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs made a statement today that is almost completely correct though he probably thought it was more of a veiled threat. The statement came after someone asked about Senator Joe Lieberman, who vowed to filibuster the Reid plan (or any plan) if it contains a government option. This is how the exchange was reported:
Asked about Lieberman’s threat to filibuster a final vote on the Reid plan, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said: “I haven’t seen the report from Sen. Lieberman or why he’s saying what he’s saying. I think Democrats and Republicans alike will be held accountable by their constituents who want to see health care reform enacted this year.” [emphasis mine] Politico
It is difficult to gauge what support for the public option is because various polls report drastically different results. An ABC/WaPo poll shows 57-40 in favor of (up 5 points from August) but Rasmussen says support is soft:
Polling on the health care topic by many firms has created some confusion. In particular, polls on the “public option” show a wide variety of results. A recent poll in The Washington Post found that 57% support a government-run health insurance company to compete with private insurers, but our polling shows that support is very soft. In fact, people are strongly opposed to a public option if they think it could lead employers to drop the existing coverage they provide employees. The fact that results are so subject to change based upon minor differences in question wording suggests that voters do not have firm opinions on the public option.
The issue is all over the place and that probably reflects confusion on the part of the public because the issue changes almost hourly. The polling to date suggests that those under 30 (the me generation) are in favor of the reform and the public option while those over 65 are not.
Back to Gibbs’ statement, he is right about paying at the polls but in all elections, and particularly midterm elections, the most reliable voting block is the elderly. Senior citizens show up in very large numbers on election day. The young do not generally show up and it is highly unlikely that they will turn out like they did during the last presidential election when they were excited about voting for ObaMao.
Those who are pushing this health care takeover will pay for it at the polls. Harry Reid is down to 41% in his home state and the last time I looked he lost to the generic Republican. Reid is digging his grave deeper but a lot of things can happen in the next 12 months. The economy will be a big drag if it stays bad but any improvement would help Democrats. There is some easing of the downturn but I think that is temporary. The recovery will be a W and we are on that first uptick. When inflation hits next year and we head back down the Democrats will have hell to pay.
So will any other politician deemed to have had a hand in this. This would include any that voted for the stimulus and those who decide to vote for the health care takeover.
The public is upset and politicians will have a hard time this go round. They usually rely on the short memories of the electorate who only remember the last thing that was done for them but this time it appears as if a lot of people have very good memories. The Tea Parties are still going strong and a lot of people are angry at government. ObaMao’s base is upset with him because he did not go all Commie fast enough and has not done enough damage to the country in their eyes.
The moderates, Independents, and Republicans are upset with out of control spending, a stimulus that has not worked, the abandonment of our troops in Afghanistan and the pettiness of the Rookie in Chief. Barring a major event that turns this country around in a good direction, next November will be a bloodbath at the polls.
Robert Gibbs might have thought he was issuing a veiled threat to Lieberman and others who oppose this health care takeover but he really accurately predicted the fate of many in government who have abandoned the Constitution and have spent like there is no tomorrow.
If Gibbs still has his job the day after the election, it would be funny to play his words back for him and tell him how he was almost correct. The thing he will get wrong?
The politicians will be held accountable by their constituents who do NOT want this health care takeover to go through.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: election, Gibbs, health care, lieberman, Obama, public option, seniors
Is The Honeymoon Ending?
Jul 2, 2009 Political
The press has been easy on Obama since he decided to run for the White House. They treated him like royalty and protected him. They, in effect, became the media wing of his campaign and they remained his media after he was elected. Last week during his press conference he was grilled pretty good and he was on the defense. He was taken to task more than he had ever been. The thought at that time was that his numbers were dropping and the public is awakening to the fiasco that is his policies.
Today Press Secretary Gibbs was grilled over the Obama Town Hall meeting where the questions and the people are preselected or screened. Helen Thomas, of all people, was like a shark in the water. She stated:
“The point is the control from here. We have never had that in the White House. And we have had some control but not this control. I mean I’m amazed, I’m amazed at you people who call for openness and transparency and you have controlled…” veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas said Wednesday.
I am amazed that she would even say that the Obama White House is more controlling than the Bush White House. She said it when she said “…NEVER had that in the White House.”
It seems the media are beginning to go after him and are finally starting to do their jobs rather than be toadies who follow their master at the lectern. It is about time.
It was inevitable because the media eventually get around to being tough. They finally did it with Bill Clinton and they will do it with Obama. It seems that his failed policies and the lack of progress in the economy are beginning to take their toll.
It seems that maybe the media are also waking up to the idea that they helped elect a rookie who know not what he is doing.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Watch the video at Breitbart
Tags: Gibbs, helen thomas, media, press, white house
Liberals Rush To Judgment On Limbaugh
Mar 3, 2009 Political
The liberal weenies over on the left are very good at using half truths and taking things out of context. We saw this during the campaign when the liberals from the subservient Daily Kos to the so called leaders of the party continually stated that John McCain said we would be fighting a war in Iraq for a hundred years. McCain said that he saw no problem with us having forces in Iraq for 50 or 100 years as long as the violence had ended and they were not being shot at. He then said that we have troops all over the world in much the same fashion. The left turned that all around and that is not an isolated incident. They used McCain and Limbaugh completely out of context in order to paint McCain as anti immigrant when he is anything but.
The Obama administration has picked up where they left off during the campaign this time by taking the words of Rush Limbaugh out of context. Liberals can stop reading here because you will not agree and you will not believe anything other than what you have been told to believe by King Hussein and his people.
Rush Limbaugh has been the object of scorn lately and has been taken to task because he said he wanted Obama to fail. That is all you will hear of this from everyone on the left, as well as some on the right. They will not tell you that Limbaugh said he wanted the policies that Obama is pushing to fail and they will not tell you that Limbaugh said that he supported the president but not his policies. That is, after all, no different than saying you support the troops but not the war.
Limbaugh spoke at the CPAC on Saturday and he reiterated the idea that he wanted Obama to fail because the failure of what Obama wants to do will be good for America. One of the first responses came from RNC chair Michael Steele who told an interviewer who had asked about Limbaugh’s comment (of course by leaving out everything but fail). Steele said that Limbaugh was an entertainer and; “Yes, it’s incendiary, yes, it’s ugly.”
This drew a scathing response from Limbaugh who laid on the line exactly what the Republican party needed to do and what Steele in particular needed to do to get things back on track. This eventually led to an apology from Steele who had to explain what he meant.
This drama might provide a little entertainment for the left who are so perplexed by Limbaugh that they are trying even harder to demonize him. Obama has mentioned him directly in an effort to minimize him and the influence he has over conservatives. Limbaugh is a smart man who understands business and he understands what will and what will not work. He also understands politics and he knows what makes this country great. If Obama had any sense he would listen.
Instead, his Press Secretary Robert Gibbs took a shot at Limbaugh and, once again, told a half truth with regard to the “Obama fail” theme.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, who last month blasted CNBC host Rick Santelli from the podium in the briefing room, challenged reporters on Monday to ask Republicans if they agree with Limbaugh’s desire.
“Do they want to see the president’s economic agenda fail? You know, I bet there are a number of guests on television throughout the day and maybe into tomorrow who could let America know whether they agree with what Rush Limbaugh said this weekend.”
Gibbs said he thought “it would be charitable to say he doubled down on what he said in January in wishing and hoping for economic failure in this country.”
“I can only imagine what might have been said a few years ago if somebody might have said that on the other side relating to what was going on in this country or our endeavors overseas,” Gibbs said. The Hill
I know Gibbs was trying to reduce the impact of Limbaugh’s speech and that he needed to paint the people who were listening to it as out of touch or radical. He wants to divide Republicans which is why he wants them asked if they agree with Limbaugh (want Obama to fail). Gibbs, of course, lied and said that Limbaugh was hoping for economic failure. This is a blatant lie and a gross mischaracterization of what Limbaugh said. In fact, Limbaugh has maintained that Obama’s actions will CAUSE economic collapse and that he [Limbaugh] did not want that to happen. Gibbs concluded by saying how the other side might have reacted if the left had made similar statements about Bush and what was going on here and overseas.
Here is a little newsflash for this pasty twit, the left did say a number of things dealing with failure. The left WANTED our troops to fail and they wanted us to lose the war. They proclaimed the war was lost on a number of occasions and Obama and Biden both opposed the surge and said it would not work. The left took every opportunity to oppose Bush and to throw obstacles in his way. They wasted time on the Plame Game, they continually opposed funding for the troops, and they worked hard to ensure judicial nominees were denied confirmation.
In total, the left opposed Bush and attempted to cause him failure. They opposed the war (after it was no longer politically good to support it) and they did not support the troops.
So Mr. Gibbs, before you open that yap of yours perhaps you should do a little research and know what you are talking about.
Yes, Limbaugh opposes Obama and wants him to fail because Obama’s plans will be an economic and financial disaster. If Obama fails at what he wants to do, it will be good for the country.
On the other hand, if your liberal buddies had succeeded in causing failure for our troops we really would have lost the war and many more of them would have died.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]