Powered by Max Banner Ads
Video: CNBC’s Joe Kernan Rips David Brooks
This is hilarious. Joe Kernan really nails it. The only place David Brooks is considered “conservative” is on the pages of the NY Slimes NY Times. The man voted for Barack Obama — he’s no conservative. David Brooks is a phony, elitist hack masquerading as a conservative.
(hat tip Chickaboomer)
Shocker: NY Times Buries Story About Success Of Enhanced Interrogations
The NY Times gleefully trumpeted the release of the so-called “torture memos” ringing every last drop of ink and pixel out of the story as it could, while quietly burying the story about the success of enhanced interrogations. One would think acknowledgment by Obama’s own intelligence director that “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country” would be news. However, the NY Times chose to put that part of the story online only.
Their excuse for this is simply that the paper ran out of room. Yeah, sure it did. The NY Times has relentlessly flogged the “torture” narrative for years and written 100+ front page stories on it. So it’s mighty convenient that The Times would run out of room in their paper on the very day an Obama official confirms what the Bush administration has been saying for years — that the enhanced interrogation program was a big success.
-Chris Jones
The NY Times Killed Major Obama-ACORN Story Just Before Election
It has now been revealed that the NY Times killed a major story about the Obama-ACORN connection just before the election, because it would have been a “game changer.” Which proves what we’ve known all along, that the NY Times and every other liberal rag is in the advocacy business not the news gathering business.
Pathetic, shameful, and even repugnant — but so predictable.
-Chris Jones
David Brooks Realizes He Was Hoodwinked
NY Times columnist and token conservative David Brooks was one of the biggest cheerleaders in the run up to the presidential election. Liberals loved to cite Brooks as the proof that even republicans supported Obama. The reality is that Brooks doesn’t speak for anyone in the republican party. He’s a “conservative” elitist who can barely contain his contempt for regular folks or for candidates like Sarah Palin who didn’t go to Harvard. Nothing makes David Brooks swoon like an Ivy League education.
He waxed poetic in his columns during the campaign about how Barack was really an undercover moderate who would govern from the center. Regardless of his socialist rhetoric, once in office Obama will temper his rhetoric and become a truly great president. He went on to describe Sarah Palin as a “cancer in the republican party” which even looking back remains an incredibly ugly and uncalled for remark. His most recent act of treason was to attack Bobby Jindal’s speech the other night.
But now six weeks into Obama’s presidency, Mr. Brooks is having second thoughts:
Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice. As Clive Crook, an Obama admirer, wrote in The Financial Times, the Obama budget “contains no trace of compromise. It makes no gesture, however small, however costless to its larger agenda, of a bipartisan approach to the great questions it addresses. It is a liberal’s dream of a new New Deal.”
Maybe Brooks should take a break from the NYC cocktail circuit and listen to what us little people have to say one in a while. We all knew Obama meant what he said. He promised “Change” and said it would be socialist change (only he worded it more delicately). With a total lock on every branch of government the left is still pinching itself, because it cannot believe it has truly unchecked power. Every big spending, liberal policy dreamed up over the last 30 years is going to become reality and people like David Brooks can certainly share in the blame.
Obama is such a committed leftist that he’s willing to sacrifice his potential re-election for the sake of transforming America into a socialist nanny state. All the cries from democrats over the last eight years about the cost of Iraq ring stunningly hollow in the wake of the unprecedented spending by the new administration. We’re going through trillions the way we used to go through millions. The war in Iraq was pocket change compared what has been spent just in the last 6 weeks, and we’re just warming up.
-Chris Jones
NYT: Eric Holder Deeply Involved In Marc Rich Pardon
Now that Barack Obama is elected, it looks like the New York Times is at least temporarily doing some real reporting.
The Times has discovered that attorney general nominee Eric Holder was more deeply involved with the disgraceful pardon of Marc Rich than his buddies were willing to admit.
If you’ve watched Hannity & Colmes at all since Obama was elected you already know everything in this article, but if you’re a Fox News hater then you should probably read the piece.
Basically, Eric Holder is an unethical hack who went around the DOJ and gave the word to Clinton’s inner circle that he was “neutral leaning toward favorable” on the Rich pardon. The Times takes you through the entire process by which Holder became involved with the Rich pardon to begin with.
Frankly, out of all Obama’s appointments so far it’s Eric Holder that gives me the greatest concern. The Marc Rich pardon was one of a series of bitch moves committed by Holder while he was 2nd in command at DOJ under Clinton.
Holder is the weak link in Obama’s national security team. Holder will likely cower at the feet of the ACLU and allow civil liberties to trump national security. However, if Holder is Obama’s big gift to the far left nuts then I guess it could have been worse.
-Chris Jones
NY Times Edits The Word “Electrifying” From Description Of Palin Speech
The NY Times wrote a piece today about Obama’s strategy to counter Gov. Palin in the coming weeks. In the original article the Times wrote this:
Some Democrats were urging Mr. Obama’s campaign not to underestimate the potential power of Ms. Palin’s electrifying speech to the Republican convention on Wednesday night even among voters not aligned with either party: On liberal talk-radio shows and on left-leaning blogs on Thursday, some Democrats fretted that the Obama campaign should fight back hard to avoid being caricatured as Senator John Kerry was four years ago.
Then a little while later it was changed to this:
Some Democrats were urging Mr. Obama’s campaign not to underestimate the potential power of Ms. Palin’s speech, even among voters not aligned with either party: On liberal talk-radio shows and on left-leaning blogs, some Democrats said the Obama campaign should fight back hard to avoid being caricatured as Senator John Kerry was four years ago when he ran against President Bush.
Whoa! That was a close one. They can’t let people think her speech was ‘electrifying’ it could have negative consequences for Barack Obama! There’s no telling how many people may have seen that word before it could be removed.
I can’t imagine how many puff pieces they’re gonna have to write for Obama to make up for such a careless mistake.
(Hat tip to Patterico’s Pontifications)
The NY Times Hates People Who Hate Radical Islam
Deborah Soloman of The NY Times conducted a disgraceful interview with author and critic of radical Islam Brigitte Gabriel a few days ago.
In her book “They Must Be Stopped,” Gabriel is critical of the way Islamic fundamentalists are trying to burrow there way into American society. Gabriel is a Christian who was born and raised in Lebanon and speaks from experience about the dangers of allowing Islam to spread unchecked.
Deborah Soloman like her radical left-wing colleagues at the NY Times believes that it’s Gabriel that’s the real problem not the insane Muslim killers.
Here’s a few gems from the interview:
As a Lebanese-Christian immigrant who spent her girlhood amid the bloody devastation of the Lebanese civil war, you have lately emerged as one of the most vehement critics of radical Islam in this country. Are you concerned that your new book, “They Must Be Stopped,” will feed animosity toward Muslims? I do not think I am feeding animosity. I am bringing an issue to light. I disapprove of any religion that calls for the killing of other people. If Christianity called for that, I would condemn it.
What about all the moderate Muslims who represent our hope for the future? Why don’t you write about them? The moderate Muslims at this point are truly irrelevant. I grew up in the Paris of the Middle East, and because we refused to read the writing on the wall, we lost our country to Hezbollah and the radicals who are now controlling it.
In your new book, you write about the Muslim presence in America and bemoan the rise of Islamic day schools and jihad summer camp. Is there really such a thing? Yes. Instead of taking lessons on swimming and gymnastics, the kids are listening to speakers give lectures titled “Preparation for Death” and “The Life in the Grave.”…
Here’s the best part:
Are your parents still in Lebanon? I became an orphan at the age of 23. Both my parents are buried in Israel, on Mount Zion, with Oskar Schindler.
Why did you bury them in Israel? I wanted to honor my parents. After all, it is the Holy Land. And I wanted to ensure that both my children will know where my loyalty lies — with Israel, because Israel for me represents democracy, respect and human rights, something that no other country in the Arabic world offers.
Are you an agent of the U.S. government? No.
Are you underwritten by the C.I.A.? No. Are you kidding? In 2000, I voted for Al Gore.
But I see that R. James Woolsey, a former director of the C.I.A., serves on the board of American Congress for Truth, your educational foundation. We also have John Loftus, a staunch Democrat and former Justice Department prosecutor. We are not Red or Blue.
Where do you live? I do not share that information because of the death threats I receive.
Threats from anyone we know? Al Qaeda mentioned my name on their top Internet sites and recently sent a press release about my work.
If you are worried about death threats, why would you put a glamorous photograph of yourself on the cover of your new book? In Lebanon, we were raised to be glamorous, feminine and sensual. It’s the only good thing we inherited from the French.
It really shows you just how far off the reservation The NY Times has gone. This nutty left-winger thinks anyone who hates radical Islam and loves Israel must be a C.I.A. plant. She simply cannot conceive of anyone holding such normal (and completely accurate) viewpoints. I don’t think that last question about where she lives was an accident either. The sickos on the left would love it if an Islamic militant tracked down Ms. Gabriel and wore her head as a hat.
(hat tip NewsBusters)
NY Times Attacks Anti-Obama Book
It wasn’t a matter of “if”, but “when” The NY Times would attack the anti-Obama book that currently sits atop their bestseller list. Jerome Corsi’s book, The Obama Nation is selling like mad and its driving the left-wingers crazy. Clay Waters over at NewsBusters has some excellent analysis of the article and the book.
NY Times Still In Denial About Pro-Obama Bias
NY Times TV critic Alessandra Stanley wrote a shockingly ridiculous piece in today’s paper. Stanley rejected the claim that the media is pro-Obama, and said his trip overseas was only a big story because he already looks like he’s president. She went on to admire his confidence and “statesmanly restraint,” whatever the hell that is.
But it’s not pro-Obama bias in the news media that’s driving the effusion of coverage, it’s the news: Mr. Obama’s weeklong tour of war zones and foreign capitals is noteworthy because it is so unusual to see a presidential candidate act so presidential overseas. Mr. Obama looks supremely confident and at home talking to generals and heads of state, so much so that some viewers may find the pose presumptuous — as if Mr. Obama believes that not only is his official nomination at the Democratic convention in August a mere formality, so is the November election.
The part in bold is what I really can’t believe. The only thing unusual about Obama’s overseas trip is the obscene media amount of media coverage it’s receiving.
OUTRAGE: NY Times Rejects McCain’s Editorial
Drudge is reporting that the NY Times has rejected an editorial by John McCain less than a week after printing Barack Obama’s piece ‘My Plans For Iraq.’
The paper’s decision to refuse McCain’s direct rebuttal to Obama’s ‘My Plan for Iraq’ has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles.
‘It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece,’ NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain’s staff. ‘I’m not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.’
In McCain’s submission to the TIMES, he writes of Obama: ‘I am dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it… if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president.’
NYT’s Shipley advised McCain to try again: ‘I’d be pleased, though, to look at another draft.’
[Shipley served in the Clinton Administration from 1995 until 1997 as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Presidential Speechwriter.]
A top McCain source claims the paper simply does not agree with the senator’s Iraq policy, and wants him to change it, not “re-work the draft.”
McCain writes in the rejected essay: ‘Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. ‘I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,’ he said on January 10, 2007. ‘In fact, I think it will do the reverse.’
Shipley, who is on vacation this week, explained his decision not to run the editorial.
‘The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.’
Shipley continues: ‘It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.’
Developing…
Drudge is presenting the McCain editorial in full, and we’ve chosen to do the same.
The following is the McCain editorial in full as rejected by the NY Times:
In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.
Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”
Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.
Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.
The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.
To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.
Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military’s readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.
No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.
But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.
Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”
The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.
I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.
By John McCain
(via Drudge Report)
NY Times Writes Hit Piece About Fox News Defending Itself From Hit Pieces
The NY Times has yet another hit piece on Fox News this morning. This time it’s a hit piece about Fox News defending itself from hit pieces. For some reason David Carr thinks it’s inappropriate for Fox News to strike back hard when they’re smeared.
He accuses the network of using underhanded and nefarious tactics to hit back at critics and smear merchants. Considering that Fox News is pretty much attacked daily, the need for a good media relations department is obvious.
FNC has been #1 in cable news for years, and critics of every stripe have tried a variety of “kitchen sink” strategies to damage the network. So when someone like Mr. Carr writes a propaganda piece teeming with lies and innuendo about the cable channel, I’m surprised that he’s surprised they take swift action.
Among the many complaints in Mr. Carr’s latest article about Fox News is that journalists who write critical pieces are blacklisted and shut-out of future access to the network. However, since many in the “mainstream media” love to call Fox News “Fixed News” or “Fake News,” why would they care if they get access?
Many of the television-beat reporters I called had horror stories, but few were willing to be quoted. In the last several years, reporters from The Associated Press, several large newspapers and various trade publications have said they were shut out from getting their calls returned because of stories they had written. Editors do not want to hear why your calls are not being returned, they just want you to fix the problem, or perhaps they will fix it by finding someone else to do your job.
According to many newspapers across the country, rival cable channels, and that hack Olbermann, FNC is merely a mouthpiece for the Bush administration that only puts out fake stories. So it would seem to me that being blacklisted from Fox News would be a godsend to all the “real” journalists out there.
NY Times Says “Silver Lining” Of $4 Gas Is Death Of The S.U.V.
When General Motors announced recently that they will be drastically cutting production of their pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles, and possibly ending production of the Hummer completely, The NY Times celebrated.
It’s hard to convince most Americans that there is a silver lining to $4-a-gallon gasoline. But General Motors provided a nugget of good news when it announced that it would shutter much of its production of pickups and sport utility vehicles — and might even get rid of the Hummer, the relative of the Abrams tank unleashed on the streets in the cheap-gas days of the 1990s.
In the eyes of latte drinking liberals, high gas prices are a good thing. You’re a fool if you think Barack Obama has any interest in bringing down the price of gas. The liberal view is that the higher the price of gas, the less people will drive, which will be better for the environment.
Left-wing comedian Bill Mayer espoused the same viewpoint on his show “Real Time” just a couple of months back. He said, “yeah gas prices are high, but let’s be honest, that is better for the environment.”
Barack Obama told CNBC the other day that higher gas prices are a good thing, but he would’ve preferred it rise gradually giving the American people “time to adjust.”
In the mind of a liberal, Al Gore’s junk science is more important than whether or not working Americans can afford to get to work.
The way Americans should be “adjusting” is of course to begin using alternative sources of energy, but also to begin drilling our own oil right here in America. We have enough untapped oil reserves here in America to get off foreign oil, but the environmental thugs that continue to pollute Washington have always prevented this.
People like Al Gore, Leo Dicaprio, and Barack Obama will always be able to afford to travel so they don’t really give a rip how high gas prices go.
The Democrats entire world view dictates that gas prices stay high and go much higher so they can impose their global warming regulations on all of us.
Posts
