White House Wants People to Stop Being Critical of Their Governance
Waaaaaaa! WAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!
An exasperated White House newly committed to preaching partisan peace slammed Republicans for playing politics on national security and making ignorant allegations about the investigation into the Christmas airliner plot.
Deputy national security adviser John Brennan complained Sunday that politicians, many of them Republicans, were unfairly criticizing the administration for partisan purposes and second-guessing the case with a “500-mile screwdriver” that reaches from Washington to the scene of the abortive attack in Detroit.
“Quite frankly, I’m tiring of politicians using national security issues such as terrorism as a political football,” Brennan said. “They are going out there. They’re unknowing of the facts. And they’re making charges and allegations that are not anchored in reality.”
Oh, cry me a river. First off, many of us have serious concerns regarding the administration’s handling of our national security. Second of all, do these guys not remember Bush’s last term?
Put on your big boy pants, Brennan.
If Bush’s last term is the template, why aren’t more folks calling the naysayers unpatriotic? But now that Cheney found his pacifier, at least we’re spared from having to listen to his blathering.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 07, 2010 at 1521 hrs
If he did something that wasn’t either spending money we don’t have - or giving rights to terrorists - maybe I’d stop complaining.
Wimp. This is nothing compared to the pounding Bush got throughout his 8 years.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 07, 2010 at 1546 hrs
You’ve got it backwards, Joe. The Bush naysayers, we were told, were patriots, because dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Not so much these days, I guess.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 07, 2010 at 1600 hrs
Poor little liberal Joe needs to grow up. Barry’s a big boy, he should be able to handle the criticism. I mean, he wanted the job…he had to know that at least 50% of the country wouldn’t like what he wanted to do, right? Or was he so enamored of himself that he believed that he was fundamentally different from every other president in history?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 07, 2010 at 1730 hrs
White House Wants People to Stop Being Critical of Their Governance
Then stop making it so damn easy to do.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 07, 2010 at 1845 hrs
Poor Joe.
Bubba, you are getting your ass kicked. Not only by the people here, but all over. Nobody believes the Leftist lies anymore. After 50 years of bullying us into silence, we are done with it.
The concerns about how The Chosen One would treat terrorists predates His inauguration. The white House and their shills should just shut up. And their claim that the Panty-bomber is talking because they Mirandized him is just stupid. Try Mirandizing a hardened terrorist who doesn’t have the family this guy did and see how that works for ya.
Posted by Steve on February 07, 2010 at 1915 hrs
If they want an end to criticism of their governance, maybe they should try governing instead of dictating. If they are bothered by the Republicans “partisan purposes” then maybe they should try allowing some of the very substantive Republican proposals to come up for public debate, rather than ramming one partisan bill after another down the nations throat.
What they are really complaining about is the fact that the people are getting involved and expressing a contrary opinion to that of the regime.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 1008 hrs
If criticizing the government continues prevents another 9/11, I’m all for it.
As you were.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 1316 hrs
Both sides are guilty of this crap. They won’t say it to your face, but they all want you dumb and ignorant, because it makes you easier to manipulate. Fear mongering, whether it’s Republicans and terrorism or Democrats and health care, only works on voters who respond emotionally, and voters who respond emotionally usually do so because they are incapable of responding rationally.
A politician’s worst nightmare is a well-informed voter.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on February 08, 2010 at 1426 hrs
RS,
We’re in agreement about being informed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 1505 hrs
I have no problem with criticism that’s genuine and not disingenuous. I have no problem with criticism that’s constructive and not merely for one’s own or for one’s own party’s political gain. Sure there’s gray area and nobody can truly know someone’s motivation for saying something. But there’s also some pretty clear cut examples of politicians bashing the other guy for the exact same thing they supported when their man was doing it. That kind of stuff is bullshit and it behooves all of us on both sides to call it when we see it.
Posted by scott on February 08, 2010 at 2126 hrs
Oh please. The Democrats spent 8 years spouting the most harmful and distasteful crap about President Bush. To stand up now and act all “holier than thou” about it is just silly. You reap what you sow… and I figure there is a lot more reaping to come. Perhaps if you start calling it “speaking truth to power” again, you’ll be able to swallow the karma a bit easier.
I’ll agree on one thing… there is no reason going with disingenuous criticism… Obama has bumbled so many issues, both foreign and domestic, that there is no need to make stuff up. If you can’t find something of substance to point to, then you must be living under a rock.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 2324 hrs
Which reminds me. In addition to disingenuous criticism, there’s also another kind that deserves to be called out: False ones.
Posted by scott on February 08, 2010 at 2332 hrs
Be a little more specific, Scott. What criticism of this administration regarding foreign or domestic policy has been false? And please stay away from the “Birther” bulls***. While there may-or-may not be something there, that is not the point here.
Posted by Steve on February 09, 2010 at 0219 hrs
I agree with Scott, no need for false criticism. If his pseudo-Keynesian approach to sending our economy into a tail spin isn’t enough for you to find fault with, there is the exploding uncontrolled debt, looming inflation, a risky and ineffectual health care scheme, $2.5 trillion in wasted stimulus, seizures of banks, an unabated mortgage crisis that may worsen despite the waste of billions in a misguided attempt to fix the market, terrorists on trial in public courts flaunting rights that they never deserved, a fortune wasted defeating a deadly flu that wasn’t, broken TARP promises, a buffoon of a treasury secretary who did better at tax evasion than he does at tax collection, 300% increase in casualties from a war that he does not seem to understand, Iranian nukes, a Russian arms build-up, worsening relations with China, pirates, looming failure and starvation in Haiti….
WHEW… I can’t go on… there is just too much for one blog post!! When you start to write it all down in one place, it is truly amazing how many things one amateur do-it-yourselfer can screw up.
Yes, Scott is right. Pick one (or several) of the myriad of Obama screw-ups. No need to waste time making stuff up. Obama has provided us with plenty, and he has not learned a thing. Unless his teleprompter wises up, expect more in the way of systemic Obama failure.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 0908 hrs
Can you post links to your strident denunciations of Bush administration officials every time they suggested Democratic criticism was off base?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1453 hrs
Unfortunately my public opinion column in the dead tree newspaper never quite gelled, so the records of any public writings I have published (or not) might be a bit slim there, hack-scott-like-clone. Also, it’s a bit nauseating to always ask people to publish links instead of offering opinion and your own links to back it up if you wish. Could you provide me links to all of your writings on the Bush administration for the last 9 years so that I can verify your qualifications on this issue? Go ahead, I’ll wait right here. Nauseating, isn’t it?
In any case, it is quite disingenuous for Democratics to now complain that their stumbling president is under fire for his failures, especially after they did the exact same thing to President Bush for eight years. heh, now Gibbs is claiming that criticism of the anointed one is collusion with Al-Queda… what a simpleton. Bush made some mistakes and was rightfully skewered for them. He never took enough heat for being so fiscally liberal in my opinion, though I certainly pointed that out in many forums locally. If you are somehow implying that all of the grinning monkey, king george vitriol was constructive and worthy criticism, then I’ll tend to think you might be rather a hack yourself.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1917 hrs
My post was about the original blog entry. It’s always amusing to see people pretend that the same behavior is commendable when their side engages in it and contemptible when the other side does.
At one level, I don’t blame the GOP for trying - again, this is politics and, if it applies extra pressure to fix the decades-long problems in coordination among the intelligence services, may even be slightly constructive. But it’s also amusing for me to see the GOP paint this unsuccessful terrorist plot as an epic fail for Obama when they continue to view the quite successful and much larger 9/11 terrorist plot as an epic win for Bush’s resolute and inspired leadership. (If that comparison makes your head explode, substitute “the unsuccessful shoe bomber plot” for 9/11. The point still stands.)
At another level, I think that excessive partisanship about national security is really bad for the country. It will make things worse when, inevitably, the next substantial terrorist attack on US soil happens. (I’m not preaching defeatism - we should obviously try to prevent attacks - but it’s a big, open country, and human beings and human institutions are fallible.) If a substantial attack occurs on Obama’s watch, I expect GOP leaders and the entire right-wing will denounce him as a feckless traitor, no matter what the circumstances. (Before you say the Democrats did this…um, no one to the right of Michael Moore went there after 9/11, and it took Moore several years.) If Obama deserves (some) blame if a major attack happens, so be it. Let a bipartisan commission sort it out, just like it did for 9/11. But playing reckless politics with national security issues makes it harder for us to see the threats facing us accurately and to respond in an effective way. In the case of terrorism, it’s worse yet because crazy partisans actually help the terrorists, well, terrorize. In the words of my favorite British WWII poster, if, God forbid, we’re ever faced with such a scenario, we should “keep calm and carry on.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1212 hrs
Total Entries: 19642
Total Comments: 129729
Most Recent Entry: 02/07/2012 09:25 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/08/2012 12:13 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 129
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/08/2012 12:30 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).