What did you do during the war?

Remember this from back in October 2009?:

Jake Tapper of ABC asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs this question:

It hasn’t escaped our notice that in the last few weeks the White House has decided to declare war on one of our sister organizations saying it’s not a news organization and tell the rest of the news media to not treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to say one of them is not a news organization and the rest of the media should not treat them like one?

Jake Tapper today:

The conservative government watchdog group Judicial Watch, using the Freedom of Information Act, has obtained a series of emails back and forth between White House officials and Treasury Department officials regarding the original exclusion of Fox News from an October 22, 2009 series of round-robin interviews with TARP Special Master Kenneth Feinberg.

Fox News’ Major Garrett ultimately interviewed Feinberg that day because the bureau chiefs of the four other networks – ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC – agreed to boycott the interviews, which were being coordinated through the cooperative “pool” arrangements, unless Fox News, part of the pool, was included.

At the time, Treasury officials claimed that there was no “plot” to exclude Fox News. In a January 2010 New Yorker magazine story, then-press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporter Ken Auletta: “This started over at Treasury, and when it got to the White House it was fixed.”

That does not seem to be an accurate claim, given the paper trail. Indeed, it seems that Treasury Department officials wanted to include Fox News and the White House didn’t want the cable outlet included.

The White House launched a “war” against FOX News and then lied about it. Anyone who has been paying attention should not be shocked by the “war” or the lying. Obama has told far worse lies and launched real wars so this is all small potatoes in the scheme of things. The war on FOX was a flop anyway.

Many people believe that Obama retaliated against FOX because he is thin skinned and petty. That is certainly true, but only partially. Even if Obama had skin like a rhino and a forgiving nature his administration would still be doing everything possible to manipulate and control the press.

The reason for that is because the clothes have no emperor. Obama is and always was an empty suit. Unlike Bill or Hillary Clinton who can hold impromptu press conferences and speak intelligently on a wide variety of subjects, in order to maintain what is left of the illusion of competence Obama has to resort to reading speeches and holding Potemkin press conferences where he faces nothing but softballs.

The media were complicit in creating the illusion that got Obama elected. If they quit cooperating he’s in trouble. If they give him even ten percent of the scrutiny they give to Sarah Palin he’s finished.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

80 Responses to What did you do during the war?

  1. DeniseVB says:

    😀 Catchy tune….

  2. myiq2xu says:

    This right here is funny. I did a spit-take and had to clean my screen

  3. myiq2xu says:

    Then Let Us Do Just That: Nancy Pelosi Says Obama Can Out-Debate Anyone On The Debt

    Only if he gets to stand next to Hillary and read off her paper. He’ll need the media to give him a pillow-fluffing with a happy ending too.

  4. angienc says:

    I’ve also read a story about a paper and/or reporter in CA (can’t remember the name) getting banned from some POUTUS appearance because of negative stories about him.


  5. WMCB says:

    Jake Tapper at least still remembers what a journalist is supposed to be.

    And I am shocked at the “liberals” that I see commenting all over, that since FOX is evil and bad and lies (like they all don’t), it is not a “legitimate” news organization, therefore govt censorship of it would be fine.

    Really? Really? And if the political tide turns in this country, and 12 years from now there is an uber-conservative lock on all 3 branches of govt, you would be just happy as a clam with them deciding whether certain news outlets that you enjoy were “legitimate” or not, right?


    I hope that some more journalists besides Tapper stand up about this, regardless of how they personally feel about FOX. Because if this behavior is allowed to stand without loud condemnation, it spells doom for a free press.

    • ralphb says:

      Hey, those “journalists” seem to like Fox just fine when they get offered a job by them 😉

  6. 1539days says:

    Now I understand Justice will be investigating NewsCorp over the British phone hacking and bribery scandal at News of the World. I can’t flat-out say there’s nothing there, but Holder attacked this charge with some alacrity. You would think the feds would wait until more dirt was dug up in the UK, since only English police and phone technology is currently implicated. I’d personally like to know more about the Stimulus funded Project Gunrunner.

    • ralphb says:

      Unless they did similar actions in the US, Holder could be looking at them for violation of the Corrupt Practices Act. That’s legitimate for US companies doing business overseas.

    • ralphb says:

      The parent News Corp is a US company or is it?

      • 1539days says:

        That would be an important question if this White House cared about the law.

      • propertius says:

        Nevertheless, yes it’s a US (Delaware, of course) corporation.

      • angienc says:

        Until 2004, News Corp was an Australian company; however, in 2004 it reincorporated in Delaware, so that may be the reason for the confusion as to its corporate citizenship status. But propertius is correct — it is, as of 2004, a US corporation.

  7. What did I do?

    Started watching FOX, of course. Because nobody tells SYD what she can, or cannot read or watch.

    Truly… I had shunned FOX news for years. Until Obama’s frat boiz told me too. Then I said to myself … “FOX must be telling the truth…. I better watch.”

    I also remember Ed Rendell on FOX, giving them kudos for covering Hillary fairly during the primaries. That was a turning point.

    • WMCB says:

      I was much the same, SYD. And there is one thing in particular about FOX that took me aback at the time:

      Quite frankly, FOX has a a much, much, MUCH more racially and gender diverse lineup than any of the major networks. It’s true.

      When I finally took off the partisan blinders and began to timidly watch the dreaded FOX on occasion, mostly because they were overall slightly fairer to Hillary, I remember being shocked and surprised at all the female and black and hispanic faces I saw. It honestly threw me for a loop, since I was so unaccustomed to seeing that from watching MSNBC and CNN and ABC and CBS for years.

      Their new business channel is the same way. It’s true that FOX has its other issues with it’s slant (so do the others), but it’s a fact that they have the most diverse lineup over the breadth of their programming. Hands down.

      MSNBC is pure whiteboyland compared to FOX.

    • angienc says:

      FOX must be telling the truth…. I better watch.


      Pre-2008 my mom has been watching FOX because she thought it was good “to know what the other side is thinking.” (Although I personally always thought she watched just to get annoyed at Bill O’Reilly — of whom she says EVERYDAY should nominate himself for “Pinhead”).

      Post-2008 we both watch it because it does seem to be “more truthful” than the others — at least when it comes to Obama (FOX’s fair treatment of Hillary Clinton during the primary also helped). Furthermore, IMO, Greta Van Susteren is the BEST journalist on TV, hands down. Mom & I love her. I still refuse to watch Bill O’Reilly though (mom, of course, still does & still thinks he should nominate himself for “Pinhead”).

      • Lola-at-Large says:

        They do better on the reporting side than the opinion side, a distinction Fox executives themselves have made several times. Wonder why MSNBC executives don’t have to make that distinction? Things that make ya go hmmmmm.

        • angienc says:

          That’s true Lola — there is a huge difference between The Factor with Bill O’Reilly (opinion) & Special Report with Bret Baier (reporting); same with Hannity (opinion) & Greta Van Susteren (reporting). And the difference is obvious to viewers when watching. MSNBC, OTOH, doesn’t bother to distinguish between opinion & reporting & that is unethical, IMO.

  8. ralphb says:

    Great news: Another Obama press conference coming tomorrow morning

    11 a.m., the mother of all distributive-justice lectures happens at the White House. He did warn Cantor not to call his bluff, that he’d take his case to the American people rather than do something crazy like agree to a deal that would solve this problem for the country but inconvenience him personally. And now a terrible thought occurs to me: What if he holds a presser every day until August? What if he resolves to take to the air every morning for the next three weeks and riff about corporate jets until the GOP caves? Second look at tax hikes?


    • WMCB says:

      LOL! The lecturer in chief (POUTUS) is holding the country hostage with his voice alone: “Okay, okay, we’ll pay 90% taxes and you can spend all you want, just please please pleeeeese STFU!”

  9. ralphb says:

    Sgt. Scott Moore’s ‘Wingman’ Justin Timberlake Earns His Own Invitation to Marine Corps Ball


    Marine Corps Ball may become a bigger deal than the Oscars

  10. JeanLouise says:

    Obama tried to give away the house to the GOP and they refused to take it. That’s on them but I’m thrilled that they turned down that sweetheart deal.

    Roll back the Bush tax cuts for anyone making over a million dollars and lets get on with life.

    • ralphb says:

      No matter how many times you say that, it’s never going to be true. Bush’s millionaire tax cuts won’t do it.

      • JeanLouise says:

        They’ll go a long way toward lowering the debt. After all, you can’t solve a problem in one day that’s been growing for eleven years, no matter what Michele Bachmann, et al, say.

        • 1539days says:

          If you tax the people making over $250K another 4% (Clinton era tax rate) it will reduce the national debt by 0.005%. If you only tax the people making over $1,000,000 it will be less than that.

    • WMCB says:

      JL, you could completely confiscate the total net worth of every person making over a million dollars in this country and it would not balance the budget. It wouldn’t even come close.

      We need some serious spending controls.

      • JeanLouise says:

        I didn’t say that it would but, as I said above, you can’t solve a problem that evolved over a decade in one fell swoop. It’s irresponsible to even attempt it.

        • WMCB says:

          I don’t advocate solving it in one fell swoop, and neither do most Republicans. Even Paul Ryan’s draconian plan still grew spending at a healthy clip. And I’ve said repeatedly that I have no issue with some higher taxes, IF I can trust my govt to be sensible with that revenue. Tell ya what, JL – let the Dems show me that they are serious about spending control FIRST. Because even this week, they were trying to insert millions in yet more spending into the debt ceiling deal. More Pell grants, more NIH health studies, etc. That doesn’t sound to me like they are taking things seriously. Sounds to me like the mere prospect of a fresh shiny new credit card limit had them running to pile on more expenditure.

          They have to show me that THEY are responsible, or we will be right back where we are now in 6 years, or 6, or 10. They go first. Then we’ll talk. And the Democratic Senate needs to meet their legal obligation to produce a damn BUDGET, because not doing so for 2.5 years is unprecedented, and THE most fiscally irresponsible thing I’ve ever seen in my years of watching Congress. I need to have some idea what the plan is. I don’t get behind taking more of the taxpayer’s money to fund “Surprise Behind Door Number Two”

        • 1539days says:

          Obama already said that whatever is left of the Stimulus is off the table for cuts. Guess what? If you didn’t spend it by now, it’s not stimulating anything.

        • WMCB says:

          1539, My former party has lost its fucking mind. And as a Clinton Democrat, I always laughed at the “right-wing meme” that Democrats were addicted to spending like a drug. Because I watched Bill meet needs AND make govt more efficient. But if they keep this shit up, that previously stupid meme is looking truer and truer. They are becoming the dumb caricature that I used to rightfully laugh at.

          They are parading around cynically using granny, and sympathy for genuine needs, to busily amass payoff money for favored groups and slush funds, and to create more bureaucracy so all the superior political class can have a spot on the gravy train.

          And they can fuck right off as far as I’m concerned. I don’t trust them any further than I can throw them.

        • JeanLouise says:

          Both teams are trying to protect their special interests. A Texas congressman wants to keep agriculture subsidies and cut food stamps. Neither Party is sparkly clean.

          Ryan’s plan included, I believe, a projected unemploymnent rate of 5%. I don’t recall that it’s ever been that low. Any financial projections resulting from that piece of fairy dust are beyond unreliable.

          Bachmann, Lee and the rest of the Tea Partiers, including, I’m sad to say, Sarah Palin, absolutely do want to ‘fix’ the spending problem this very second and that’s just stupid. It’s going to take some time and destroying our credit rating and rocking financial markets isn’t could for anyone.

          I agree that it’s completely irresponsible that the Democratic Senate hasn’t provided a budget. It almost matches Boehner and Cantor claiming that even considering raising the debt ceiling is all that they’re willing to bring to the table. As I said, neither Party has clean hands.

        • angienc says:

          JL — In 1953 the average unemployment rate was 2.93%. It was at or below 5% throughout the 60s as well, until we hit 1970s. It was also at 5 (or below) from 1995 — 2000 (Thanks, Bill Clinton!).

          You can see the chart here:


        • WMCB says:

          JL, if we do not cut the growth rate of our debt to BELOW the growth rate of GDP, pretty much immediately, then this country is boned.

          It is irresponsible not to try to do it as quickly as we can.

          That’s not ideology, that is math. It’s what happens when one exponential function is higher than the exponential function which is funding it. We have waited far far too long, and have let that curve rise too far upward, to get away with doing it without much pain.

          you can’t solve a problem that evolved over a decade in one fell swoop

          Exponential functions tick along slowly rising for what seems like a long time. But once you start approaching the point of no return, it graphs upward VERY sharply and quickly. That’s where we are. You cannot get out of that situation at the same speed you got into it. You will hit the wall before you can get there. The compounding interest catches up to you.

          No, we do not have 12 years in which to get ahead of that curve.

        • ralphb says:

          wmcb. In all honesty, I think we’re boned.

        • Three Wickets says:

          All these options being debated: 700 billion, 1.7 trillion, 2.4 trillion, 4.0 trillion, they are all over 10 years. GDP growth is flat today, so if we were to stop deficit spending immediately here and now, we would have to cut the federal budget by 40% in the coming fiscal year. That won’t happen. Our national debt in the near term will keep rising, no one questions that. The goal is charting a long term course for economic growth and fiscal mgmt that keeps us solvent, decelerates debt growth, and eventually begins paying it down. One of the problems with negotiations right now is that nobody sitting at the table has a plan or idea for economic growth. We’re going to leave that to the invisible hand of the markets apparently.

          China just finished their 12th Five Year Plan for economic growth, and they are pretty much on target. We do not want their economic system here, but whether it’s China or Germany growth economies plan with a long-term view. Our leadership both private and public sector these days appears directionless.

      • djmm says:

        Uh .. we could stop fighting three wars.

        That would cut spending. That would be like putting a tourniquet on a bleeding wound.


        • Lola-at-Large says:

          I am all for that! While you’re at, kill Guantanamo, yank back the CIA budget, and LEGALIZE & TAX IT! But that’s just me….

    • JeanLouise says:

      If we invest in the economy, raise taxes on the undeniably filthy rich and stop the wars, we can go along way toward paying off the debt. Clinton and Reagan both raised taxes during a recession. It’s not a sin to do so. It is a sin to put grannies and the disabled out on the streets.

      • ralphb says:

        It’s not ideology, it’s mathematics. That will not do it in time to do us any good. We are $14 trillion in the hole now going to $26 trillion (or more) by the end of the decade.

        If we reach that point more than Grannies and the disabled will be in the streets. That’s what would be nice to avoid but we can’t do it by wishing.

        • JeanLouise says:

          We can’t do it by cutting Medicare and Social Security either. So soak the rich,Take back the billions in in energy subsidies, make GE pay some fucking taxes. End the war.

          Give me a list, I can find th money and not a cent of it will go to corn growers. Iowa’s just going to make a choice based on who will be bettr for everyone.

      • WMCB says:

        we can go along way toward paying off the debt.

        No, we can’t. Everything mentioned so far is emptying an ocean with a thimble. We are too far in the hole. The exponential curve has risen…well, exponentially since Clinton or Reagan were president. It would take spending cuts WAY beyond anything anyone has even remotely proposed, plus massively increased tax revenues. Not just rates, but revenues, which is tricky because you can’t just jack up taxes to the moon without killing GDP .

        We’ve boxed ourselves in by kicking this can too far down the road, for years. There is no way out of this merely by taxing the rich bastards and making modest cuts. The debt overhang is too high, and the interest has begun to compound too fast. We had a chance had we done it 4 years ago, because the more time passes, the more you have to both cut and increase revenue to get ahead of it. 10% of GDP going to debt payments rises to 20%, then 30%, then 40%, then 70% – and it rises faster the closer you get to the kaboom point. It’s how compound interest works.

        You keep talking morality. This has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with math, Math doesn’t care. It just is.

        I frankly think we may be boned no matter what we do. Crash and reset.

        • WMCB says:

          Think of the compounding debt this way, JL. There is a hole, and the boat is taking on water. You make some attempts at bailing (both via reduced spending and increased tax revenue), but you have not plugged the hole. You can do that for a while. But this water does not flow into the boat at a steady rate. It increases. If you bail with the some decent buckets right away, and plug or at least partially plug the hole, you can get ahead of it. If you don’t, the rate of taking on water keeps increasing. If you wait until it’s coming in at 90 gallons per minute, you are going to need some damn big buckets. If you wait til it’s coming in at 300 gallons per minute, it gets even harder to ever catch up. At some point, the flow rate exceeds the available buckets and manpower to use them. And you are sunk.

          We should have started bailing a long time ago.

    • Lola-at-Large says:

      JL, I do wish some of the tax breaks had been rolled back last year when it was up for renewal, but that ship has sailed. If it didn’t happen then, it won’t happen now. And Ralph is right; it wouldn’t be nearly enough.

      • ralphb says:

        I’ve got nothing against the Clinton era tax rates for everyone. I don’t think cuts are stimulating anything now but neither is extra spending that they have done.

        We should stop the wars and make cuts in Defense. We should also cut or kill other depts which aren’t proven effective. We are going to have to take an axe to spending and raise revenue both to get out of this mess. The hole is too deep and we haven’t even stopped digging it deeper.

        • angienc says:

          But smartypants Obama said he was going to take a “scalpel” not an “axe” to the problems. {rolls eyes} Meanwhile, 2.5 years later, the Dems haven’t even proposed a budget.

        • Mary says:

          Yes, and smarty-pants Obama said he would cut all that “waste, fraud, and abuse” (especially in Obamacare–that’s the only way the Dems could make their math work). Instead, he just added more and more and more, to the tune of 25% increases in federal costs across the board.

          Rolling eyes—he says whatever he needs to say to get the moment he’s in.

  11. ralphb says:

    Shameless liar Harry Reid.

    “If we don’t reach agreement, it could mean no Soc Sec checks, no paychks 4 troops, no schools for our children,” Reid wrote on Twitter.

    Schools will shut down. I can’t believe Nevada elected this asshole again.

    • votermom says:

      The seven plagues of Egypt are coming!!!!!!!!!!! Let my debt ceiling rise! /m0sesbama

    • JeanLouise says:

      You would’ve preferred Sharron Angle?

      • angienc says:

        Yeah, because at least she would have NO POWER in the Senate besides her ONE fucking vote & then maybe, after her unsuccessful term was over Nevada could have a chance to vote in a good Dem. Unlike what they have with Harry.

      • JeanLouise says:

        You have a point, angie, but there’s no telling when that one vote could be the determining vote. I’m no fan of Reid and I don’t think he’s a good leader but, at least, he’s not bat shit crazy and Angle is. Do we have to replace the mediocre elected officials with all bat shit crazy people? Wasn’t Rand Paul enough?

        • ralphb says:

          I think Harry Reid is a damn liar and batshit crazy on top of it. If he’s not crazy, he’s too stupid to breath alone.

          I would much prefer more batshit crazies to people like Reid and Pelosi any damn day. We are currently going to Hell in a handbasket and all we have to fear is maybe these crazies might change business as usual.

        • angienc says:

          I honestly think someone like Angle would have been marginalized by the rest of the Senate. With the breakdown as it is, one vote doesn’t carry that much weight, especially one from someone the others don’t want to touch with a 10 ft. pole. Do I wish the Nevada GOP hadn’t been stuck with Angle in the first place? Hell yes! But I still think having her in over Reid would have been worth the risk.

          Reid, OTOH, is an elitist scumbag. He said that he didn’t like DC in the summertime because of the “smell” of the tourists. I honestly don’t believe Angle could have been worse than him.

        • JeanLouise says:

          Democrats are holding the Senate by a thread. Reid’s bad but McConnell luuves Wall Street and Big Energy even more than Reid does.

          As to marginalizing the crazies, Eric Cantor’s so crazy that he’s willing to plunge us even further into a depression and he’s sitting at the table.

        • angienc says:

          If you are actually lumping Cantor in with Angle, then you’ve lost credibility on what “crazy” is, IMO.

      • myiq2xu says:

        I would have preferred Wayne Newton. Hell, if I lived in Nevada I would have voted for one of Siegfried and Roy’s tigers over Dirty Harry.

        • JeanLouise says:

          I used to be a huge proponent of the 30% solution. Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell cured me of that.

          I love Wayne Newton, though.

        • JeanLouise says:

          And Cynthia McKinney. They’re all several cans short of a six-pack.

    • 1539days says:

      His Twitter spelling blows. He abbreviates in the wrong places. And no matter how hard you try harry, Lady Gaga will not retweet you.

  12. ralphb says:

    Possible new revenue-raiser: Let’s tax cats


    Now they’ve gone too far 🙂

    • Rocky Hussein Squirrel says:

    • JeanLouise says:

      I’ve only have one cat so I’ll pop for the $25 for myself and three old ladies if it means that Medicare or Social Security won’t be cut.

      • angienc says:

        That’s a city tax, not a federal tax so it doesn’t help with SS or Medicare.

        And no, I ain’t paying it. Between my parents & myself, we currently have 4 rescue cats that cost about $2000-$3000 a year a piece for vet visits, food & other expenses (and these are HEALTHY cats). Start taxing people for having a cat & there will be A LOT more in the streets & in the shelters.

        • Might tax them for having children instead.

        • Jadzia says:

          What, unpaid maternity “leave” that forces way too many of us back to work within just a few weeks (3 days, in the case of my last pregnancy), $1000/month/kid for day care when they are little, thousands for their care over the long summer vacation, systematic discrimination against mothers in the workplace, and lower Social Security benefits for women who make so little that after they have paid all the above-mentioned costs realize that it makes no economic sense to continue to participate in the paid workforce, and GUILT GUILT GUILT that you are a Bad Mommy/Bad Feminist/Lazy Worker no matter WHAT the fuck you do — that’s not enough punishment?

  13. djmm says:

    Myiq, excellent post. I especially like your “The reason for that is because the clothes have no emperor.”
    Ain’t it the truth!


  14. JeanLouise says:

    We can’t do it by cutting Medicare and Social Security either. So soak the rich,Take back the billions in in energy subsidies, make GE pay some fucking taxes. End the war.

    Give me a list, I can find th money and not a cent of it will go to corn growers. Iowa’s just going to make a choice based on who will be bettr for everyone..

    • angienc says:

      When people start saying “soak the rich” they lose me.

      First, what is “rich?” Those making $250k a year? Not going to go along with that one, if that is the definition. 33% of $250,000 is $82,500 a year in taxes. That’s enough. Now, if you want to go back those making $250,000 paying 36% in taxes (Clinton tax rates), I think that is reasonable. But if people want to talk about “soaking” those making $250k a year — Fuck that shit. I think that is unreasonable regardless of what someone who isn’t putting a g-damned penny in my pocket has to say about it.

      Second, the actual “rich” rich (ie, those not having to “work” for their income but who live off of investments, stocks, etc) will just move the hell out of here (as they have the ability to do) if you try to “soak” them. Why do you think so many English millionaires & billionaires have residency status in Monaco, for example? To get out of paying the high British taxes.

      There is a balance between the extremes of undertaking the rich & “soaking” them. Both extremes are just as unreasonable, IMO.

      • Three Wickets says:

        Well we’re talking about six different marginal rates for different brackets of ones’ income. I believe the top 35% marginal rate is currently only paid for the portion of one’s income over 373k. Then there are all the deductions and write-offs. So someone making a million a year might pay closer to a 25% effective tax rate once the accountant gets done. The top marginal rate was at 70% in Reagan’s first term. We’ve made it easier in the past three decades for the rich to become richer.

    • Jean Louise,

      You sound a lot like the Sarah Palin interview I watched yesterday.

      Leave SS and medicare alone.

      Learn to prioritze, as all executives have to do.

  15. Lola-at-Large says:

    Late night humor. IowaHawk has a list of questions he says he tweeted for The One’s Twitter Townhall. http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/07/questions-so-many-questions.html


  16. Just an FYI for Jean Louise…

    There is no “30% solution.” Parity = 51%.

    And it will work just fine if the parties involved will get serious and offer us some actual female candidates. (Like Hillary and Sarah) instead of squashing them in their gears and then putting up some show tokens in their place.

  17. Here’s my $.02 worth.


    Congrats to MIQ, for keeping the PUMA spirit alive here ;~)

Comments are closed.