Posts Tagged ‘ Obama ’

A Banner First Year

2009 ends on another high note for the Obama administration:

1.) Horrible attempted terrorist attack fails on Christmas in Detroit.

2.) Obama’s Homeland Security Secretary proclaims, “The system worked.”

3.) Obama, who couldn’t be bothered on vacation to take a break from golfing and address the situation head-on, later has to clean up Napolitano’s mess and call it a “systemic failure.”

4.) Obama presses ahead on his plan to release Gitmo detainees:

The Obama administration is pushing back against calls to halt or delay closing the Guantanamo Bay prison in light of the failed Christmas Day terror attack, suggesting that shutting down the prison will undermine terrorist recruitment in the very network that claimed responsibility for last week’s plot.

Here’s a hint, Mr. Obama: EVERYTHING we do to combat them will be used as a recruiting tool for al Qaeda…even the stuff we DON’T do will be. Are you suggesting we stop working against them altogether? If so, please make that case.

5.) Meanwhile, the terrorists we DO release from Gitmo, return to jihad, looking to kill more Americans.

The chieftains of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) currently include at least three Gitmo alumni who have returned with a vengeance to the jihad. Said al Shihri, AQAP’s second in command, is a former Gitmo detainee who is believed to have been behind the 2008 attack on the American embassy in Sanaa. Gitmo veteran Ibrahim Rubaish is the Islamic jurisprudential authority responsible for approving AQAP terrorist operations. Muhammad Attik al-Harbi became an AQAP field commander after being released from Gitmo on the promise that he’d be rehabilitated in the Saudi re-education program — a scheme premised on the dubious notion that terrorists can be wooed away from jihad by immersion in Wahhabist principles. (Al-Harbi is reportedly back in Saudi custody, undergoing re-re-education.)

AQAP’s senior operatives also include Anwar al Awlaki, the Muslim cleric with whom Nidal Hassan consulted in the months before carrying out the Fort Hood massacre. It is entirely possible, if not likely, that at least some of the former Gitmo detainees in Yemen are complicit in the Christmas Day attack, and that they are planning similar strikes.


UPDATE: ABC News reports that the Detroit would-be bomber was trained by ex-Gitmo detainees. Wondeful! Keep those Gitmo gates open!


How’s that plan working out for ya, O?

Please…let’s not do anything to ANGER them!

The logic that closing Gitmo would have ANY impact — ANY! — on jihadists’ opinion of America and Americans is most certainly the biggest laugher of the year. Congrats, sir.

UPDATE: Do yourself a favor and read Byron York’s takedown of the silly argument of a double standard between how the press is handling this, versus the shoe-bomber incident during Bush’s first term. Does anyone seriously want to make the case that the press is harder on Obama than they were on Bush? Seriously?


Perspective Matters

I guess bounty truly is in they eye of the beholder after all. What’s a recession? Well, it depends on:

  • who you ask
  • when you ask them
  • who’s president at the time

A few years ago, when the unemployment rate was between 5 and 6 percent, the GDP was enjoying years of consecutive positive growth, and the economy was adding 14 million new jobs, that was “the worse economy since the Great Depression.”

Now, with unemployment flirting with double digits, the nation hemorrhaging jobs by the barrel-fulls each month, and the GDP suffering NEGATIVE growth, now the recession is over and happy days are here again. And, it turns out, it wasn‘t isn’t wasn’t even that bad of a recession after all.


I want to get this straight. When things are good, and all of the major indexes are trending upward, THAT is a depression. But when all major indexes are in negative territory and trending downward, THAT is a recovery? Okay, fine. But someone needs to get to editing many an Econ 101 text book…cuz they have it all backwards!

Editing CNN

This is rich. Check out the way the neutral, unbiased pillars of journalistic integrity, couch the flagging poll numbers of our dear leader. (Complete with my bracketed edits, of course.)

WASHINGTON (CNN) – As President Barack Obama approaches 200 days in the White House, a new national poll suggests his approval rating has dropped seven points since the 100-day mark in April. The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Thursday morning also indicates that, while just one in five Americans say that the current economic conditions are good [THAT WOULD BE A 20-PERCENT APPROVAL RATING ON THE ECONOMY, FOR THOSE KEEPING SCORE], the number who feel the economy is in very poor shape is dropping. [SILVER LINING, EVERYONE! GET YOUR SILVER LININGS HERE!]

Fifty-six percent of those questioned in the poll approve of how Obama’s handling his duties as president. Four in 10 disapprove [DOESN’T THAT FOUR NUMBER LOOK WEE IN COMPARISON TO 56 WHOLE PERCENT? WHY WE START COMPARING APPLES TO ORANGES IN A STATISTICAL REFERENCE IS BEYOND BE. IN CASE YOU CAN’T DO THE MATH, A FULL 40 PERCENT DISAPPROVE]. The 56 percent approval is down five points from June, and represents a drop of seven points from the president’s showing in late April. The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation figures are in line with numbers from most other national polls out the past few weeks.

“Since April, Obama’s rating has stayed steady among white women, but he has dropped 14 points among white men [SEE? IT’S JUST THOSE EVIL OLD WHITE MEN WHO RACISTLY OPPOSE HIM]. A majority of white men supported him at the Hundred Day mark, but now most white men disapprove of how he is handling his job,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “Obama has also slipped among non-whites, but he still gets support from over 70 percent of that group.” [WHAT WAS THE DROP, PER SE? GOT ANY NUMBERS?]

The number one issue dominating the first six months of the Obama presidency has been, of course, the economy. According to the poll, 44 percent say that Obama’s polices have so far made the economy better, with just of half of Americans saying they haven’t had a positive effect. [SO, IN THIS CASE A FULL 44 PERCENT (OF OBAMAPHILES) IS A BIGGER NUMBER THAN “JUST” HALF, OR 50 PERCENT, WHO SAY HE’S HURTING THE ECONOMY? INTERESTING MATH.]

“But another 11 percent say that Obama’s policies will eventually improve the economy, which adds up to a majority who say his policies have helped or will help the economy,” adds Holland. [ISN’T THAT CONVENIENT HOW THAT MATH ADDS UP. WE HAD TO CRUNCH THE NUMBERS, BUT WE FINALLY FOUND A WAY TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE WE’RE ALL DIGGIN’ ON OBAMANOMICS. PHEW!]

Good lordy.

So This Is What Passes for a “Teachable Moment” These Days

So this week the President sat down for a “beer summit” in hopes of achieving a “teachable moment” about race relations:

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama hoisted a beer with a white policeman and a black professor Thursday evening, aiming to cool a dispute between them that had ignited a national debate and threatened to damage his reputation as a politician whose appeal transcends race.

The White House billed the meeting, the culmination of days of national debate, as a “teachable moment” occasioned by the July 16 arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. by Cambridge, Mass., police Sgt. James Crowley after a confrontation between the two men.

As silly as I think the staged photo-opp event was, what I see it as from a PR standpoint is a pretty successful crisis-management ploy. From what I can tell, the president wasn’t looking for a “teachable moment” so much as a “reachable moment.”

When you want a negative, harmful or just plain sticky-situation story to go away, you need to make it go away. This event, while not really teachable in any way—no one will discuss what they talked about in private—puts a punctuation mark on a story that Mr. Obama clearly felt was a distraction. For a day, the story was no longer about the controversy and the President’s reaction to it, but was instead about the beer summit itself. Come Monday, no one will be talking about it at all. End of story.

Whatever you think of the players involved, the notion of a “beer summit” or Mr. Obama’s handling of the situation throughout, you cannot argue that this punctuating event did not successfully put the matter to rest and behind us. That alone makes it a successful crisis management ploy.

Good Thing We Passed That Stimulus Bill…

…before it was too late!

Re-Post, from The Corner

GM: A Dodge? [Andrew Stuttaford]

Here’s a smart piece from the FT by Robert Reich (yes, yes . . . ) on the GM bailout:

Given this record, it seems doubtful that taxpayers will even be repaid our $60bn. But getting repaid cannot be the main goal of the bail-out. Presumably, the reason is to serve some larger public purpose. But the goal is not obvious.

It cannot be to preserve GM jobs, because the US Treasury has signalled GM must slim to get the cash. It plans to shut half-a-dozen factories and sack at least 20,000 more workers. It has already culled its dealership network. The purpose cannot be to create a new, lean, debt-free company that might one day turn a profit. That is what the private sector is supposed to achieve on its own and what a reorganisation under bankruptcy would do. Nor is the purpose of the bail-out to create a new generation of fuel-efficient cars. Congress has already given carmakers money to do this. Besides, the Treasury has said it has no interest in being an active investor or telling the industry what cars to make.

The only practical purpose I can imagine for the bail-out is to slow the decline of GM to create enough time for its workers, suppliers, dealers and communities to adjust to its eventual demise. Yet if this is the goal, surely there are better ways to allocate $60bn than to buy GM? The funds would be better spent helping the Midwest diversify away from cars. Cash could be used to retrain car workers, giving them extended unemployment insurance as they retrain.

But US politicians dare not talk openly about industrial adjustment because the public does not want to hear about it. A strong constituency wants to preserve jobs and communities as they are, regardless of the public cost. Another equally powerful group wants to let markets work their will, regardless of the short-term social costs. Polls show most Americans are against bailing out GM, but if their own jobs were at stake I am sure they would have a different view.

So the Obama administration is, in effect, paying $60bn to buy off both constituencies. It is telling the first group that jobs and communities dependent on GM will be better preserved because of the bail-out, and the second that taxpayers and creditors will be rewarded by it. But it is not telling anyone the complete truth: GM will disappear, eventually. . . .

Read the whole thing.

Funny Video Make Me Laugh