-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/05/wednesday-open-thread-holla-at-us-4/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Ms. Conyers is the wife of U.S. Rep. John Conyers Jr., the chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary. She declined to comment for this story, but her chief of staff, Linda Bernard, says Ms. Conyers believes she is "being targeted by the press" because "her husband was recently in New York City and is considering having hearings about police brutality."
Police brutality. Ri-ight....
Also:
A technology systems manager for a Hoboken insurance firm was asleep in his Newark home earlier this month when a SWAT team of FBI agents battered through the front door, held him and his 16-year-old son at gunpoint, tied their hands with plastic restraints and then started asking them questions.
FBI agents eventually realized they didn't have the 69-year-old reputed mobster: Taylor is a 39-year-old black man.
The innocent man describes his ordeal on video in the link.
Empirically, however, it seems beyond dispute that something has made us safer since 2001. Over the course of the Bush administration, successful attacks on the United States and its interests overseas have dwindled to virtually nothing.
Some perspective here is required. While most Americans may not have been paying attention, a considerable number of terrorist attacks on America and American interests abroad were launched from the 1980s forward, too many of which were successful. What follows is a partial history:
1988
February: Marine Corps Lt. Colonel Higgens, Chief of the U.N. Truce Force, was kidnapped and murdered by Hezbollah.
December: Pan Am flight 103 from London to New York was blown up over Scotland, killing 270 people, including 35 from Syracuse University and a number of American military personnel.
1991
November: American University in Beirut bombed.
1993
January: A Pakistani terrorist opened fire outside CIA headquarters, killing two agents and wounding three.
February: World Trade Center bombed, killing six and injuring more than 1,000.
1995
January: Operation Bojinka, Osama bin Laden's plan to blow up 12 airliners over the Pacific Ocean, discovered.
November: Five Americans killed in attack on a U.S. Army office in Saudi Arabia.
1996
June: Truck bomb at Khobar Towers kills 19 American servicemen and injures 240.
June: Terrorist opens fire at top of Empire State Building, killing one.
1997
February: Palestinian opens fire at top of Empire State Building, killing one and wounding more than a dozen.
November: Terrorists murder four American oil company employees in Pakistan.
1998
January: U.S. Embassy in Peru bombed.
August: Simultaneous bomb attacks on U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed more than 300 people and injured over 5,000.
1999
October: Egypt Air flight 990 crashed off the coast of Massachusetts, killing 100 Americans among the more than 200 on board; the pilot yelled "Allahu Akbar!" as he steered the airplane into the ocean.
2000
October: A suicide boat exploded next to the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 American sailors and injuring 39.
2001
September: Terrorists with four hijacked airplanes kill around 3,000 Americans in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.
December: Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber," tries to blow up a transatlantic flight, but is stopped by passengers.
The September 11 attack was a propaganda triumph for al Qaeda, celebrated by a dismaying number of Muslims around the world. Everyone expected that it would draw more Muslims to bin Laden's cause and that more such attacks would follow. In fact, though, what happened was quite different: the pace of successful jihadist attacks against the United States slowed, decelerated further after the onset of the Iraq war, and has now dwindled to essentially zero. Here is the record:
2002
October: Diplomat Laurence Foley murdered in Jordan, in an operation planned, directed and financed by Zarqawi in Iraq, perhaps with the complicity of Saddam's government.
2003
May: Suicide bombers killed 10 Americans, and killed and wounded many others, at housing compounds for westerners in Saudi Arabia.
October: More bombings of United States housing compounds in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killed 26 and injured 160.
2004
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
2005
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
2006
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
2007
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
2008
So far, there have been no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
I have omitted from the above accounting a few "lone wolf" Islamic terrorist incidents, like the Washington, D.C. snipers, the Egyptian who attacked the El Al counter in Los Angeles, and an incident or two when a Muslim driver steered his vehicle into a crowd. These are, in a sense, exceptions that prove the rule, since the "lone wolves" were not, as far as we know, in contact with international Islamic terrorist groups and therefore could not have been detected by surveillance of terrorist conversations or interrogations of al Qaeda leaders.
It should also be noted that the decline in attacks on the U.S. was not the result of jihadists abandoning the field. Our government stopped a number of incipient attacks and broke up several terrorist cells, while Islamic terrorists continued to carry out successful attacks around the world, in England, Spain, Russia, Pakistan, Israel, Indonesia and elsewhere.
There are a number of possible reasons why our government's actions after September 11 may have made us safer. Overthrowing the Taliban and depriving al Qaeda of its training grounds in Afghanistan certainly impaired the effectiveness of that organization. Waterboarding three top al Qaeda leaders for a minute or so apiece may have given us the vital information we needed to head off plots in progress and to kill or apprehend three-quarters of al Qaeda's leadership. The National Security Agency's eavesdropping on international terrorist communications may have allowed us to identify and penetrate cells here in the U.S., as well as to identify and kill terrorists overseas. We may have penetrated al Qaeda's communications network, perhaps through the mysterious Naeem Noor Khan, whose laptop may have been the 21st century equivalent of the Enigma machine. Al Qaeda's announcement that Iraq is the central front in its war against the West, and its call for jihadis to find their way to Iraq to fight American troops, may have distracted the terrorists from attacks on the United States. The fact that al Qaeda loyalists gathered in Iraq, where they have been decimated by American and Iraqi troops, may have crippled their ability to launch attacks elsewhere. The conduct of al Qaeda in Iraq, which revealed that it is an organization of sociopaths, not freedom fighters, may have destroyed its credibility in the Islamic world. The Bush administration's skillful diplomacy may have convinced other nations to take stronger actions against their own domestic terrorists. (This certainly happened in Saudi Arabia, for whatever reason.) Our intelligence agencies may have gotten their act together after decades of failure. The Department of Homeland Security, despite its moments of obvious lameness, may not be as useless as many of us had thought.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121193151568724469.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
True Liberals Must Be Appeasers
Might we finally have a "BNN" to receive news and information that isn't Anglo-centric? A news outlet that doesn't generate ratings by the body count?
Delegate update: Obama picks up more Posted: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 12:55 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: 2008, Obama, Delegates
From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
NBC NEWS has updated the delegate counts in Alaska and Colorado, giving Obama one more and Clinton one less in each state. In Alaska, Obama picks up a split of 10-3 (instead of 9-4 after he got the two statewide PLEOs at convention). In Colorado, Obama gets a split of 36-19 (instead of 35-20). Obama's pledged delegate lead is now upped to 149, his superdelegate lead moves to 34, and his overall lead stands at a combined 195 (including the 12 Edwards delegates).
Obama, today, has also picked up another superdelegate, Wyoming Democratic Party Vice Chairwoman Nancy Drummond. "My husband was a Marine during Vietnam -- he was one of many vets that has VA Benefits," Drummond said in a statement released by the campaign. "The men and women in the military and their families are giving the ultimate sacrifice now and I support Senator Obama's plan to honor their service by improving their healthcare, taking care of issues related to combat duty and caring for our homeless vets."
She adds, "We have two incredible candidates... . At both our caucuses and our State Convention, the majority said they want Senator Obama to be our Candidate to run for President. So with that being said, while I certainly respect and admire Senator Clinton's tenacity, I have proudly decided to endorse Senator Barack Obama."
The NBC News Delegate Counts:
PLEDGED: Obama 1649 to 1500
SUPERDELEGATES: Obama 316.5 to 282.5
EDWARDS PL. DELEGATES: Obama 12 to 0
TOTAL: Obama 1,977.5 to 1,782.5
* Obama is 48.5 from the required 2,026.
The cherry-picked list shows lack of intelligence and just plain old common sense.
Somehow, the 1993 so-called Day of Terror plot was thwarted but it didn't signal an end to attacks. It's stands to reason that there were a number of plots through the years that never come close to happening because of intelligence/investigation.
And, last I checked, U.S. "interests" included the war in Iraq. You might want to check with the Bush administration first before saying no terrorists attacks have been waged against American interests. Count these too:
2002
June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.
2003
May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.
2004
May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.
June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.
2005
Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.
2006
Sept. 13, Damascus, Syria: an attack by four gunman on the American embassy was foiled.
2007
Jan. 12, Athens, Greece: the U.S. embassy was fired on by an anti-tank missile causing damage but no injuries.
Dec. 11, Algeria: More than 60 people are killed, including 11 United Nations staff members, when Al Qaeda terrorists detonate two car bombs near Algeria's Constitutional Council and the United Nations offices.
And please explain this:
"...the number of what the U.S. government considers "significant" attacks grew to about 655 last year (2004), up from the record of around 175 in 2003."
Here Comes the Hook, Hillary
By Lawrence Bobo | TheRoot.com
What the senator from New York could learn from amateur night at the Apollo.
May 27, 2008--Politics should be more like an amateur show at the Apollo Theatre in Harlem. Sometimes you need the hook to get a bad act off the stage! The Hillary Clinton campaign for the Democratic presidential campaign has clearly reached that point.
A few years ago I attended a "Top Dog" show at the Apollo, which features contestants who have won rounds of competition on two previous occasions. The opening performance involved a dance troupe of African-American girls, ages 7 to 10 or thereabouts. They were very, very good and brought all the enthusiasm and discipline in the world to their performance. They were pitted against a 14-year-old young lady who sang her heart out with a mind-blowing rendition of an Anita Baker tune.
Like most in the audience I felt awkward about having to choose between these two acts. On the one hand, there was the unbridled energy, confidence, innocence and triumphant expectations of a group of very young girls, children really. On the other hand, you had a young lady who looked like a genuine star in the making. When the cheering was done and the MC reported the results, the young star had won. (And rightfully so, I say.)
But the youngest member of the dance troupe was stunned and almost stomped off the stage in disgust, anger and tears. Her fellow troupe members stopped her. The audience started to boo—mostly because we had to crush the hopes of some very talented kids in the zero-sum, forced-choice format of the Apollo talent show, not because of anything the dancers had done.
The MC immediately began castigating the audience. "Don't you dare! Don't you dare!" he shouted. "She has to learn, they have to learn, you don't always win. The show goes on and you remain professional. Don't disrespect them or this stage by booing in disappointment. They will have other days. This was not their day." Or, words to that effect—as I remember them now. He was right.
If only Hillary Clinton had been there that night. Perhaps she would understand that sometimes the others win, even if you are talented, even if you've fought well, and even if you've won some of the rounds. The decision can still go, clearly and decisively, to your opponent. And in those times, clinging to the stage when your show is over only increases the chances that you will look bad. Last week, in Brandon, South Dakota, Hillary Clinton reached that point.
When I saw the video clip of the interview and heard her say one disingenuous thing followed by a stunningly awful thing, I thought of that Top Dog night at the Apollo. I thought of that little girl who almost stomped off in tears but regained her composure. Senator Clinton claimed to be puzzled as to why people are encouraging her to stop running, claiming such demands are "historically unprecedented." Nonsense.
Any serious observer of American politics knows a long, contentious fight to the convention can hurt the eventual nominee. Gerald Ford's effort to secure election (rather than appointment) to the White House in 1976 was mortally wounded by the fierce challenge he faced from Ronald Reagan. A challenge that went all the way to the convention. Jimmy Carter was damaged by the fierce challenge from Ted Kennedy in 1980, which also went right down to the convention.
It is a cardinal fact of national politics today that, ideally, you want the nomination wrapped up before the convention, and that a party's chance of winning the fall election is greatly diminished by a nomination fight that goes all the way to the convention. So, yes, I found Clinton's comments completely, indeed howlingly, disingenuous.
But then she uttered the unspeakable and said, "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California." I'm sorry. What did you just say? You need to stay in the race just in case someone gets "assassinated." Is that your point? When called on it, she apologized to the Kennedy family. But she also owes an apology to the Obama family, to the Democratic Party and to all Americans who live in a country where violence has too often taken great leaders from us.
Like so much from the Clintons nowadays, the apology rings false. This is just another in a growing string of events pointing to a thorough-going lack of personal integrity. The time for giving her the benefit of the doubt on these matters is long past. This time it felt to me as if her subconscious had let slip with what she is really thinking.
Enough already. If a 7-year-old girl at the Apollo Top Dog show can appreciate that sometimes you have to walk off the stage with pride though not necessarily a winner, then one can hope that the junior senator from New York won't force the hook to be brought out to remove her from the stage.
Lawrence Bobo is the W.E.B. Du Bois Professor of Sociology and of African and African-American studies at Harvard University.
Return to The Root Homepage
by: Joshua Green
The Atlantic Monthly
"What’s intriguing to Democrats and worrisome to Republicans is how someone lacking these deep connections to traditional sources of wealth could raise so much money so quickly. How did he do it? The answer is that he built a fund-raising machine quite unlike anything seen before in national politics. Obama’s machine attracts large and small donors alike, those who want to give money and those who want to raise it, veteran activists and first-time contributors, and—especially—anyone who is wired to anything: computer, cell phone, PDA."
Read the complete article here:
How Silicon Valley made Barack Obama this year’s hottest start-up
Commentary: No graceful bow-out for Clinton
by: Marc Ambinder
The Atlantic Monthly
"The communications revolution under way today involves the Internet, of course, and if Barack Obama eventually wins the presidency, it will be in no small part because he has understood the medium more fully than his opponents do. His speeches play well on YouTube, which allows for more than the five-second sound bites that have characterized the television era. And he recognizes the importance of transparency and consistency at a time when access to everything a politician has ever said is at the fingertips of every voter. No other candidate in this or any other election has ever built a support network like Obama’s. The campaign’s 8,000 Web-based affinity groups, 750,000 active volunteers, and 1,276,000 donors have provided him with an enormous financial and organizational advantage in the Democratic primary."
Read the complete article here:
How would Obama's success in online campaigning translate into governing?
55 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - A Democratic Party rules committee has the authority to seat some delegates from Michigan and Florida but not fully restore the two states as Hillary Rodham Clinton wants, according to party lawyers.
ADVERTISEMENT
Democratic National Committee rules require that the two states lose at least half of their convention delegates for holding elections too early, the party's legal experts wrote in a 38-page memo.
The memo was sent late Tuesday to the 30 members of the party's Rules and Bylaws Committee, which plans to meet Saturday at a Washington hotel. The committee is considering ways to include the two important general election battlegrounds at the nominating convention in August, and the staff analysis says seating half the delegates is "as far as it legally can" go.
Saturday's meeting is expected to draw a large crowd, with Clinton supporters among those encouraging a protest outside demanding that all the states' delegates be seated. Proponents of full reseating have mailed committee members Florida oranges and pairs of shoes to get their attention.
DNC officials are concerned about a potentially large turnout at the "Count Every Vote" rally outside the event and have asked the hotel staff to increase security to keep everyone safe. The DNC says the roughly 500 seats available to the public inside were taken within three or four minutes of becoming available online Tuesday.
The DNC analysis does not make recommendations for how the Rules and Bylaws Committee should vote, but gives context from the party's charter and bylaws for the committee to consider.
The analysis said there are two options to include half the delegations — either allow half the number of delegates from each state into the convention or allow the full delegations to attend, but give them each half a vote. "The rule does not actually specify whether the reduction is to be accomplished on the basis of delegate positions or delegate votes," the analysis said, giving committee members some justification for sending the entire delegations with half-votes as some leaders in the states want.
The analysis also underscores a prickly problem: If the Rules and Bylaws Committee decides to restore any of the states' delegates, there is not a simple way to divide them between Clinton and Barack Obama.
That's especially true in Michigan, where Obama had his name pulled from the ballot. He didn't have the option of removing his name in Florida, but all the candidates signed a pledge not to campaign in either state.
Clinton won the majority of the vote in Florida and Michigan and has been arguing that the delegates should be fully restored according to the results of the January primaries. But even if they were, it would not be enough for her to overtake Obama's delegate lead.
As it becomes clear that Obama likely will win the nomination, he has been working to win over voters in the two states with visits in recent days. He plans to return to Michigan on Monday.
The DNC staff analysis argues that the Rules and Bylaws Committee was fully within its rights to strip all 368 delegates from the two states when they scheduled primaries in January. Party rules said their nominating contests could be no earlier than Feb. 5. Michigan voted on Jan. 15, Florida on Jan. 29.
The analysis also said there is an option to restore 100 percent of the delegates — by a recommendation of the Credentials Committee that meets later this summer. However, that would mean a final decision would not be made until the first day of the convention in Denver since Credentials Committee decisions have to be approved by the full convention as it convenes — risking a floor fight.
Alice Huffman, a member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee from California who is supporting Clinton, said she has been barraged with e-mails in the past few weeks. She said the senders include Floridians who are upset that they are being disenfranchised, and she has started printing out the messages so she'll have a record to explain her decision.
"This is a really, really significant issue to women. Obviously it's a significant item to people of color too. So I'm just preparing myself as best I can," said Huffman, president of the California NAACP.
The shoe shipments are being organized by WalkAMileInOurShoes.org and1 the orange idea was promoted by a group called Florida Demands Representation, which plans to bus Floridians to Saturday's rally outside the meeting. Blaine Whitford, a volunteer helping organize the effort, said they are unaligned with any candidate.
Susie Buell, one of Clinton's top fundraisers, has formed a political action committee encouraging women to support full seating of the delegates. The WomenCountPAC has taken out ads in USA Today and The New York Times promoting attendance at the rally.
___
Associated Press writer Juliet Williams in Sacramento, Calif., contributed to this report.
Great article. Ties in well with the WSJ article I cited.
Again, I believe an Obama presidency will be Carter Redux.
Harry Truman must be turning in his grave.
This passage sums it up:
"If Barack Obama took over as president of the United States, all the thwarted tyrants in the world would see their big chance. They would quickly test American resolve, just as JFK was tested by the Soviets. The Chinese might seriously threaten Taiwan, which they think is theirs by right. Russia might move on Georgia and the Ukraine. Hugo Chavez might invade Columbia, just to try out his shiny new Russian jets and tanks. Under Obama, the United States might not be serious about international power, but all the hungry little tyrannies will be very serious indeed. It's their big opportunity.
In Pakistan, President Musharraf has escaped four assassination attempts. What would Obama do if the next one succeeds --- and radicals take control of Paki nukes? Could we talk them into giving up their keys to Allah's final victory over the infidels? Obama seriously overstates his magic if he really believes that.
If Obama gets in, what will he do about Iranian nukes, now predicted for 2009? Would Obama back a civilized democracy or appease the fascists? Prediction: He would opt for appeasement. That is entirely consistent with his expressed beliefs. Liberals live in a world without hard choices. They just spin whatever happens, and the media let them get away with it.
The Left cannot escape responsibility for 9/11, for the mullah tyranny in Iran, and for undermining American security in a thousand other ways. These folks are dangerous, not because they are stupid or evil, but just because they just can't handle reality. It's like a truck driver who can't see the oncoming traffic. The driver doesn't get credit for good intentions. The Left always forgives itself these little gaffes, but reality is unforgiving.
Barack Obama is even less prepared than Clinton and Carter were. You can tell from his constant bloopers, and by the people he's picked for his foreign policy team. They live in never-never-land, exactly what you would not want in a sane and sober US Administration. It's a chilling sight.
The Obama camp is now boasting that their guy can magically crack the toughest nuts in the world. How is he going to do that? Oba-magic will make it happen, baby. It's gonna be love and peace from here on out.
The Left falls for that kind of imbecility. They're convinced their guy can somehow voodoo away the most dangerous fanatics in the world --- a miracle without precedent in history. But history isn't their strong suit, nor geography, nor straight thinking. Wishful thinking and moral posturing are. I'm sorry, but it's true."
"If members of Congress really want to mitigate the effects of high oil prices as much as they claim they do, they could start by letting oil companies bring America’s vast untapped supplies to market."
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjdhMjQ5NzRmNWM5MjIyMmY3ZmJjOTE2N2Y5NWUxNTM=
Black Political
Supporters Should Speak Out
Against Hillary's Assassination Insinuation
Or Be VOTED OUT !
The day before Hillary's horrifically diobolical assassination insinuation, I was in the midst of writing a piece regarding how we, particularly blacks, should treat black politicians who had sided with Hillary. Folks like Charley Rangel, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, Stephanie Tubbs Jones (my Congresswoman) and the like. Here's a bit of what I had written, "...Let's rally behind them in support of their future political careers. Let's keep voting for them (as long as they keep doing a good job). Let's not go against them....in fact, let's show them some love. I know, some of you think I must be crazy but......"
Then, the very next day as you all know, Hillary made the most incredible insinuation (or hope) that anyone could make. To justify staying in the race because anything could happen....even assassination, was a true shock heard 'round the country. And, although many in the media are trying to downplay her sentiment as a misspeak or gaffe as they call it, we as blacks know the real deal. Hillary was either trying to send a subliminal message to some nut....or deeply hopes harm on Obama. WHATEVER the reason, it is a total abomination that should be addressed accordingly.
Blacks and whites nationwide have bombarded forums and blogs stating their outrage for her incredibly dangerous remark. But one group has been totally silent. Where are all of the black politicians who have supported Hillary up until now? They know, as all blacks know, that from the very first day Obama declared his candidacy, the first question that arose in the minds of all blacks was 'will he get snipered'? We all know that right out of the gate, Obama had to hire 24 hour Secret Service Protection....Why ? Because of the true threat of some nut wanting to harm him or his family.
And now, for Hillary herself to be the one sending out the little code....is just a true disgrace to herself, to her supporters and to all Americans. Every black political supporter should be demanded to speak out against Hillary's destructive mentality and rhetoric. They must each denounce her statement publicly and let it be known that they find her comments to be absolutely improper, sinister and out of line with the progress being made by so many in our country.
If they do not, they will be showing us that they have become so politicized that even the thought of the assassination of a fellow human being, let alone a brother, is a tolerable occurance in their book, which is certainly not in-line with the views and concerns of their constituents. Therefore, they MUST BE VOTED OUT ! I feel confident that this is not the case. But, we shall see. So Charley, Sheila, Maxine, Steph and the gang....please don't let us down. We're counting on you !
As the late, great Johnny Cochran may have put it...
Demand that they denounce...or they must get the Bounce !
Greg Jones
Visit: www.Blacks4Barack.org OFFICIAL SITE !
1. Senator Obama, when will you finally decide to go back to Iraq, to see the progress first hand?
2. And when will you finally decide to meet one-on-one, unconditionally, with General Petraeus?
The ad also talks about the incredible progress that has been made since Senator Obama last visited Iraq in January 2006: violence down 70%, civil war over, Al Qaeda decimated, political progress occurring, and the Iraqi Army taking the lead. The fact is—the surge has worked, and has moved America closer to overall success in Iraq.
View the ad here:
http://www.vetsforfreedom.org/multimedia/details.aspx?id=282
That same email also answers the question of whether VFF is a 527 organization, as the Obamaists would have you believe.
News flash: we're not.
The attacks you noted are mentioned in the post.
The Bush Administration views the war in Iraq as the central front on the war on terror and al-Qaeda has been decimated there and their ability to launch attacks elsewhere has been crippled.
Based on the clear historical record, it is obvious that the Bush administration has done something since 2001 that has dramatically improved our security against such attacks. To fail to recognize this, and to rail against the Bush administration's security policies as failures or worse, is to sow the seeds of greatly increased susceptibility to terrorist attack in the next administration.
Guess you'll have to buy his book....
But you already know the answer to your question about Katrina, you're just looking for McClellan to validate it.
Is Olbermann looking to revise has fond farewell to McClellan now that he has turned on his boss and cash in? McClellan will be the left's media darling for scoring this fix for them.
Bush-bashing is like heroin.
But it will fade and you'll need more.
Do you think ex-Bushies have figured out a way to make a quick buck off strung out Bush haters?
"Every nation has its war party. It is not the party of democracy. It is the party of autocracy. It seeks to dominate absolutely. It is commercial, imperialistic, ruthless. It tolerates no opposition. It is just as arrogant, just as despotic, in London, or in Washington, as in Berlin. The American Jingo is twin to the German Junker…. If there is no sufficient reason for war, the war party will make war on one pretext, then invent another."
--Robert M. La Follette
Barack Obama, who makes the same allegations repeatedly from the campaign trail, the New York Times demonstrated ignorance in this editorial. The EU-3 have held repeated talks with the Iranians, and since they represent Iran’s major Western trading partners, their influence allows them better leverage with Tehran. Moreover, the US has publicly backed EU offers that included everything the NYT and Obama claim to be necessary to convince the mullahcracy to give up nukes. That included security guarantees, WTO membership, and normalized diplomatic relations — and have since 2005.
Obama does not even acknowledge the fact that we have offered everything he has suggested, to no avail. In this event, the Iranians resumed their enrichment process in July 2005 after snubbing the EU-3 offer. Since then, the US has done exactly what the NYT recommends in its editorial today, which is progressively tighter sanctions — which Democrats opposed at the time.
At the heart of this nonsense lies a belief that Iran means no harm to anyone. Obama, the NYT, and many Democrats believe that Iran just wants to trade openly and have normal diplomacy with the world, and as soon as we offer that the Iranians will stop building nuclear weapons. For some reason, 29 years of terrorist sponsorship and low-level war against the West has escaped their notice, as have the public offers to deliver normalized trade and diplomacy. The mullahcracy isn’t building a bomb to get free trade; they want to use it to extend hegemony over the entire Middle East, and not for benign purposes, either.
Such foolishness has been the hallmark of the Times for years, but we can hardly afford it in the White House. Face to face presidential negotiations without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will not end the Iranian threat to our national interests in the region.
Astounding ignorance or just giving Bush haters another fix...
Judge dismisses lawsuits for Florida delegates.
Teeheehee
Note how when a democratic representative came out and said the dems flat-out lied to win the '06 elections, no one cared.
From John Lewis, in American Thinker:
The big debate now is whether Obama would be a foreign policy appeaser. It's the wrong question. All modern liberals must be appeasers --- because that's their ideology. They constantly proclaim to the world that peace-at-any-price is their single, greatest, overarching goal.
Conservatives want to live in peace like any sensible human being. We just know there is not a single shred of evidence that we can have peace without armed vigilance.
If you tell Ahmadi-Nejad that, as a true Leftist, peace is your overarching goal, he instantly knows you've lost. Remember, this is the culture of the shrewd Persian rug merchant. They know how to read the cards. Fanatics like A'jad are driving for victory, not peace. They are willing to sacrifice much, much more than any Western nation. Iran lost perhaps half a million people in the Iran-Iraq war, but even then Ayatollah Khomeini was still not willing to make peace. The United States, with four times Iran's population, has lost less than .01 percent of that number of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. You and I don't want to look at the headlines in the morning for fear that more US soldiers have died. But jihadis constantly proclaim, "We value death; you value life." They are not irrational, just willing to die in this world for eternal rewards in the next.
Since 9/11 liberals have made it clear in a thousand little ways that they are just not willing to resist a suicide-bombing enemy. They don't have the moral fiber, and they always misunderstand reality. Starting from false premises, the Left always ends up with false conclusions. It is stunning to behold, but just look at Carter, Clinton and Obama. Self-righteous, blind-as-a-bat, and adored by the bubbleheads."
Read the whole thing. d links to it above.
"The problem that the world, including the U.S., has today is not with Iran as a nation-state but with the Islamic Republic as a revolutionary cause bent on world conquest under the guidance of the "Hidden Imam." The following statement by the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the "Supreme leader" of the Islamic Republic – who Mr. Obama admits has ultimate power in Iran -- exposes the futility of the very talks Mr. Obama proposes: "You have nothing to say to us. We object. We do not agree to a relationship with you! We are not prepared to establish relations with powerful world devourers like you! The Iranian nation has no need of the United States, nor is the Iranian nation afraid of the United States. We . . . do not accept your behavior, your oppression and intervention in various parts of the world."
And again from John Lewis:
"The truth is that we are constantly talking with all our enemies through back channels. So this election-year banana oil that "we haven't talked to our enemies" is just shameful. It is unworthy of a national party; it shows yet again how utterly empty-headed and morally shallow today's Democrats are. It's a terrible shame, because we need two parties with their heads screwed on straight. We should have intelligent debates about the war on terror; but you can't do that with one side living in denial that there is a war at all.
Appeasement is the liberal default position on war and peace."
So, how should one deal with a regime of this nature?
Allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, allow them to wipe Israel off the map no doubt, since you seem to share Kahemenei's view of our country.
Look to where true autocracies, true tyranny and despotism exist instead of projecting it on to our country.
Barack Obama is no more responsible for this story than the Che flags in the Texas office — but again, it doesn't speak well of the organizers and volunteers working on his behalf...
Earlier this month, 75,000 people gathered in Waterfront Park in downtown Portland to hear Obama speak at a pre-primary rally.
Brennan, who controlled the crowd near the Portland Police Memorial, noticed several Porta Potties set up in the middle of the memorial. Brennan had been at the site five days earlier for an annual memorial service and a flag was still set at half mast on the day of the rally...
"Not for a moment do I think that Mr. Obama had anything to do with this," Brennan said. "But somebody at his campaign at a local level made the decision to put them there. And I just want an acknowledgment: 'Hey, we made a mistake.'"
No honor, no respect. Par for the course.
S,
I've always been of the opinion that all the people who want to blame America for the world's problems should go live under the regimes they try so desperately to protect.
Maybe they'll learn a few things when they're thrown in prison-or executed-for voicing their opinions.
I was watching a PBS special this Memorial Day weekend on the POWs of WWII. The touching documentary ended eloquently with one former POW saying, with tears in his eye, "We know, freedom isn't free."
To many this quote may seem a cliche, but it is much more than that. It's the truth.
Look at the last three Medal of Honor awardees: two jumped on grenades to save their team's lives, and the other lost his life calling for a rescue mission for his brother SEALs (which was tragically shot down).
That's not "Bush lied, people died!" That's love of something greater than yourself, and a level of courage which most liberals can't even comprehend.
"Free" freedom will never exist. Someone will always have to die to protect our rights-even the rights of the stupid.
4000 US soldiers have been killed and 30,000 have been wounded in Iraq, mostly by IEDs planted by terrorists of one stripe or another. Where does it say it's the US Army's mission to ride around waiting to get blown up providing on the job training to jihadis so you can "feel" but not actually be safe?
To the other moron who posted the stuff about the Chinese invading Taiwan or the Russians moving on Georgia if we elect Obama that very well may be true. The Russians have been lording their natural gas supply over Georgia and Ukraine for years and the Bush Administration can't do a damn thing about it. Given the opportunity the Russians will do the same to the rest of Europe. It's a big part of the reason the German government now pays farmers to plant windmills instead of crops all over their country.
And your argument, that we might be tested militarily in the future holds true for whoever we elect, not just Obama. It proves he's absolutely right about getting out of Iraq. That occupation is destroying the US Army. We're not much of a deterrent to the Chinese or anybody else with an exhausted, worn out Army while borrowing $300 billion a year from them to prop up our economy.
D, I suggest if you want to live in a country where the government has the right to spy on you without a warrant, where there's no government regulation of business, where government subsidizes the wealthy, burdens the middle class and works to prevent the poor from rising out of poverty, starts needless wars and lies about it, tortures and lies about it, borrows
trillions of dollars putting it's children and grandchildren deeply in debt for generations to come, then go find somewhere else to live.
That's what Republicans have done to this country. We're going to take it back and get on with the business of forming a more perfect union instead of following the dead end path of a hollowed out, morally and economically bankrupt shell of the USA Republican rule has in store for us.
Is fear all you have?
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=52d98ca6-6c14-4f4a-9180-4e7f1fce8a1a
First, I take issue with your characterization of our troops as 'waiting around to get blown up.' Our brave men and women are the best trained, best equipped fighting force in the world...and they are winning! Their mission in the war on terror is to fight the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan so that we do not have to fight them here.
Second, the fact that there has not been a successful attack in the US since 9/11 is due to their brave service and sacrifice. You should thank them instead of disrespecting them by reducing their sacrifice to mere fodder. I not only 'feel' safe, I am safe, and you would be hard pressed to prove otherwise.
Surely our military is stretched, but hardly 'destroyed', 'exhausted' or 'worn out.' Our military is as strong and as resilient as the brave men and women who comprise it, and continue to re-enlist in order to complete their mission.
I am not prepared to accept defeat, appeasement and victimhood as willingly as you seem to be.
Surrender, protectionism and isolationism will do nothing to advance the freedom, security, innovation and independence of this great country or the freedom loving people of the world.
Last. Windmills alone will not solve the world's energy problems. And it will not reduce our dependence on fossil fuels overnight. As worldwide demand puts upward pressure on prices, we need to be allowed to supplement innovation and conservation, with production of our own, independent, energy supply. That means US drilling, building refineries and increasing our use of nuclear energy.
We can protect our NATO allies from tyranny and oppression as we have in the past: with a credible threat of force as a deterrent to agressive action. We can share our technological advancments and innovations through trade and commerce.
I question how Mark intends to form his "more perfect union" without the military he's so willing to disrespect.
Mark?
Interestingly enough, I notice it has has Senator Obama performing below Kerry '04 among African American voters in a number of states that Senator Obama expects to be competitive. It is just inconceivable that Senator Obama will garner less African American votes than John Kerry and/or the turnout among African Americans will be lower or only marginally better than in '04 if Senator Obama is the nominee. I don't need a poll to tell me that if Senator Obama is the Democratic nominee blacks folks from Sugar Ditch Mississippi, with no reliable transportation or sewer system, to the 'pro-black' brothas in Harlem who've sworn on the "Biography of Malcolm X" they would never vote will be in the voting booths in November.
Kerry, Georgia 2004: 88%
Actual Percentage of Overall Voters: 25%
Obama, Georgia 2008 (Survey USA): 84%
Projected Percentage of Overall Voters: 26%
Kerry, Ohio 2004: 84%
Actual Percentage of Overall Voters: 10%
Obama, Ohio 2008 (Survey USA): 76%
Projected Percentage of Overall Voters: 10%
Kerry, Virginia 2004: 87%
Actual Percentage of Overall Voters: 21%
Obama, Virginia 2008 (Survey USA): 92%
Projected Percentage of Overall Voters: 18%
Kerry, North Carolina 2004: 85%
Actual Percentage of Overall Voters: 26%
Obama, North Carolina 2008 (Survey USA): 89%
Projected Percentage of of Overall Voters: 20%
Your exaggerated claims are little more a litany of worn out cliches, propaganda spewed by the left for a generation.
When Obama can credibly demonstrate that he had the experience, judgment and sound policies on government spending and entitlements, taxes, education, trade and foreign policy, then he can have my vote.
Bush hatred, Republican bashing is not enough to pry me from my independent, conservative principles.
I was reading a post on racialicious about Hillary's RFK ravings and Latoya Peterson added this is the comment section -
"At this point, I am unable to write fairly about HRC from any other standpoint than policy. If a WoC wants to write about her and address the race baiting, Ill post it. If a white feminist wants to write about her and discuss the race baiting, I’ll post it. But I need someone to engage."
Since JJP has the Clinton attacks Obama wiki and you've written about this would you be so kind as to write another eloquent post about this?
Relax, Obama will be the nominee and he will get 95% of the black vote.
But he will still lose.
-Michelle
Victimhood? Your ilk has wrapped yourself in victimhood like you have the flag for decades. Get over it. We're going to get out of Iraq.
They'll either have the civil war Petraues has been priming them for by arming all sides or they won't. But either way Iran wins. Iraq being 60% Shiite is and will be much closer aligned with Iran than they ever will be the USA. They're neighbors. They share a religion. Before the invasion most of the Iraqis in leadership positions were exiled in Tehren. Besides oil their only other business is religious tourism when busloads of Iranians visit on their high holy days.
We invaded, occupied and destroyed their country. We arrested Iraqis without charges, imprisoned them without trial, and tortured them.
So we'll leave. We'll rebuild our military, treat our wounded, life will go on. Iraq will sell oil and rebuild their country. And if we're very lucky they'll forgive us someday.
And how will that keep us safe?
Or are you so relegated to defeat that you don't care?
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/All_but_conceding_Dem_primary_is_over_DNC_turns_to_Obama_defense.html
http://www.ohboyobama.com/?page=1
similar to digg
Your characterization of our mission actions in Iraq and of the Iraqi sentiment towards the US is breathtakingly warped.
Surrender, defeat and isolationism is not without consequence and hardly provides for the benign scenario you describe. You possess a dazzling naivete.
Iran would grow more powerful, the chances of a radical Shiite state being created in Iraq would also increase. Such a state would oppress its own citizens and pose a regional threat. Sectarian violence would spiral out of control, killing millions of Iraqis, both Sunni and Shiites. Many Iraqis would be forced to flee their homes as radical militias would seek to create homogenous regions. Shiite terrorist groups like Hezbollah would likely find safe haven and support.
Abandoning Iraq, therefore, means watching from the sidelines while Iraqis are slaughtered and neighboring states -- including Iran -- divide the spoils.
If such a scenario were to take place, Iran -- the main sponsor of terrorism and a home to numerous al-Qaeda leaders -- would grow in power and become the leader of the region. It would become easier for Iran’s government, which denies the Holocaust and has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel and the United States, to obtain nuclear weapons. The West would also find its options to affect Iran’s behavior increasingly limited. In response to the growth of Iran’s power, countries in the region like Egypt, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Gulf states would seek nuclear weapons (in fact, many of these states already indicate that they plan to develop nukes). Already, Iran’s leadership has expressed willingness to share its nuclear technology with other rogue states like Syria and Venezuela.
If we continue to stay and achieve victory, the success of democracy in Iraq threatens nearby tyrannies and empowers those fighting within them. Iraq as free, self-governing ally in the region would prove a powerful deterrent to Iranian expansion.
We must finish the job by completing the training of Iraqi security forces, supporting Iraq’s new democratic government, begin the disciplined reduction of American forces, and turn the future of Iraq over to the only people who can ensure the nation’s long-term success—the Iraqis.
I am happy to 'wrap myself in the flag.' I taking pride in our country as beacon of freedom, opportunity, and generosity. We are a force for good in this world. While not without faults, we are ever vigilant and strive to maintain and perfect the ideals upon which this country was founded and by which we have succeeded in creating the most free and prosperous nation on Earth.
That was awesome!
Sending it to my family.
Thanks
PRINCETON, NJ -- In the 20 states where Hillary Clinton has claimed victory in the 2008 Democratic primary and caucus elections (winning the popular vote), she has led John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily trial heats for the general election over the past two weeks of Gallup Poll Daily tracking by 50% to 43%. In those same states, Barack Obama is about tied with McCain among national registered voters, 45% to 46%.
In contrast, in the 28 states and the District of Columbia where Obama has won a higher share of the popular vote against Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries and caucuses, there is essentially no difference in how Obama and Clinton each fare against McCain. Both Democrats are statistically tied with him for the fall election.
All of this speaks to Sen. Clinton's claim that her primary-state victories over Obama indicate her potential superiority in the general election.
The results are based on aggregated data from Gallup Poll Daily tracking from May 12-25, including interviews with more than 11,000 registered voters nationwide (including Alaska and Hawaii). Across this period, Gallup has found Clinton performing marginally better than Obama in separate trial heats for the general election against McCain. Clinton has led McCain by an average of three percentage points, 48% vs. 45%. Obama has trailed McCain by an average of one point, 45% vs. 46%.
Clinton's popular-vote victories thus far include the three biggest Electoral College prizes: California (a solid Democratic state), New York (another sure bet for the Democrats), and Texas (a solid Republican state). (Although Obama won more delegates in Texas, Clinton's vote total exceeded Obama's by nearly 100,000 votes.) However, her victories also include several of the largest swing states that both parties will be battling to win in November: Pennsylvania and Ohio, as well as wins in the disputed Florida and Michigan primaries. As a result, Clinton's 20 states represent more than 300 Electoral College votes while Obama's 28 states and the District of Columbia represent only 224 Electoral College votes.
Clinton performs five percentage points better than Obama versus McCain in the states she has won (51% vs. 46%), excluding Michigan and Florida; Obama has virtually no advantage over Clinton versus McCain in the states he has won.
According to Gallup's May 12-25 tracking polling, Clinton is running stronger against McCain than is Obama in the 20 states where Clinton can claim popular-vote victory in the Democratic primaries and caucuses. By contrast, Obama runs no better against McCain than does Clinton in the 28 states plus the District of Columbia where he has prevailed. On this basis, Clinton appears to have the stronger chance of capitalizing on her primary strengths in the general election.
That was beautiful and the music was perfect.
The EPA estimates that by 2030 it will reduce GDP by 0.9% to 3.8%, and that is based on assumptions that appear hopelessly optimistic. Even the EPA's assumptions contemplate an additional increase of 44% in the cost of electricity over what would occur without Lieberman-Warner.
The idea that American voters can change the Earth's climate is folly. The danger that voters could choose to cripple our economy is, however, very real.
DAILY KOS~
I am not sure what type of reaction or response you hope to illicit with your comment but let me say this:
Yes PTSD is real, serious, treatable and not necessarily a chronic, nor debilitating anxiety disorder.
Feel free to ask any questions here, as I am open to sharing my own experience in overcoming PTSD.
1) Iraq’s communities have largely stopped shooting at each other. That has been an achievement of the physical security efforts of our forces and I would highlight very courageous and determined Iraqi security forces who took extraordinary risk to make that happen and have fought in a determined way to make that happen.
2) Political accommodation at the local level has placed some social pressure on the Iraqi government to move in the same direction or key actors within the Iraqi government who represent portions of the communities who were fighting each other.
3)The effect on Iraqi society, the third thing that has changed I think, is a rekindling of hope.
4)The fourth big thing is Al-Qaeda is on its way to defeat. And this has had a big effect.
5)Point number five would be the militias are increasingly discredited, its linked to the point made earlier just like Al-Qaeda was rejected from the communities in which they were operating, we are now seeing militias rejected by the populations in which they had been operating.
6)the sixth thing is, no big surprise, the exposure of Iranian activity and Iran’s true intentions.
7)Point seven is that U.S. intentions are much more clear to Iraqis. Iraqis were confusing our activities with our intentions as we left them behind and their neighborhoods were taken over by terrorists and militias who were victimizing the people in those neighborhoods. So people were thinking, you know, maybe America wants us to fail.
8)The eighth thing – Iraqis understand their responsibilities.
9)There is a real commitment across all these communities to battle it out on the political battleground rather than at the end of a gun.
10)The tenth thing I would say is Iraqi security forces continue to reform and expand and there’s a slower degree of improvement in the area of rule of law which is, as you know has been a problem from the beginning but there have been some noble efforts there and some efforts that could be scaled up in that area.
Truly a tour de force presentation that all who wished to be fully informed must read.
http://www.aei.org/events/filter.,eventID.1722/transcript.asp
"I don’t have a visceral reaction to Barack Obama one way or the other, but I sure found his commencement address at Wesleyan to be pretty off-putting. He smugly put himself forward as an exemplar of the well-lived life, and proceeded from this to the more politically significant solipsism of imagining how much better America would be if it were filled with people who were a lot more like Barack Obama.
After some throat-clearing, Obama gets into the meat of the speech by offering himself as a role model for the graduating seniors:
But during my first two years of college, perhaps because the values my mother had taught me —hard work, honesty, empathy — had resurfaced after a long hibernation. . . .
I wrote letters to every organization in the country I could think of. And one day, a small group of churches on the South Side of Chicago offered me a job to come work as a community organizer in neighborhoods that had been devastated by steel plant closings. My mother and grandparents wanted me to go to law school. My friends were applying to jobs on Wall Street. Meanwhile, this organization offered me $12,000 a year plus $2,000 for an old, beat-up car.
And I said yes.
The single sentence paragraph at the end of this section has got to be my favorite part of the speech, though Obama modestly allowing that his evident virtues of hard work, honesty, and empathy are due to his mother is a close second.
What’s funny about his sacrifice is that when Obama took this job, $14,000 was about the average salary for somebody getting out of college. Of course, Obama wasn’t just a run-of-the-mill college graduate; he was an Ivy-Leaguer, who graduated from Columbia with a BA in political science. A corporate career would almost certainly have been more lucrative — for a while. Last year, his family income was about $4,200,000. I don’t have the data, but I bet that compares reasonably favorably with the average household income of 1983 Columbia political science and 1991 Harvard Law School graduates. Nonetheless, Obama did sacrifice some of his expected credential-based wage premium for a number of years.
I’m pretty far from being a John McCain booster, but does Obama not get that he’s running against a guy who spent the directly analogous years of his life in a fetid jungle prison being hung upside down and beaten with sticks until his bones broke?
And I said yes. Cry me a river, pal."
(for instance, notice all the spam JJP is receiving today. Gotta scroll right through it to get to the real stuff.)
You're acting like an ostrich.
The spammers are freaking after that bombshell Scott McClellan dropped yesterday. This will hurt McCain in the general bigtime.
But if it helps you to sleep at night...
lol
Are you rejecting and denouncing poor Scott?
Everyone else just sees him as an opportunist.
Isn't it great!
Craig,
I hate the scrolling, I wish they would find their own place to meet and just leave me out of it.
Ha!....all this comes our right after McLame with jaw clenched, says he'll "never surrender" in Iraq.
I read at this link that Fox was anxious to burn Obama over the Auschwitz story, even to the point of diminishing his great uncle's service. Apparently, when they discovered the story was true - except the name mix-up, they said Buchenwald was a labour camp not a death camp. The writer sets them straight about what went on at Buchenwald:
Using the Holocaust to Smear Obama
Poor baby. It's those old anti-Bush people, isn't it? lol
In other words....let Clinton and her crew act like nut cases
An original story at:
http://jon8332.typepad.com/force_for_good/2008/05/fretting-whethe.html
IFFF they had all this dirt on Obama, they would have spilled it already.
I read that story - the writer put it into perspectve. I hope those mofos get it.
I also followed the link to the Holocaust Museum and went on from there to other stories about that time.
Viewing the pictures of the bodies that were piled up and the mass graves and even the pictures of the emaciated prisoners brought me to tears - I actually cried.
I can't believe that they could speak the words work camp as if that so how diminished the impact of the evil that the people in those camps (or even in that country) endured.
Dispicable.
I didn't know Henry Ford was an anti-semite. I wonder what led his company to pay blacks an equal wage during very racial times?
I also wonder why it took the United States so long to help? Hitler was annihilating jews for ten years before any country helped.
Tweety said he'll be working on Saturday, so that means MSNBC will be covering it.
Brinksmanship
Every criticism or fact-check of Obama is a 'smear.'
But it's not that easy to ignore Auschwitz.
It's one of the most emotionally charged words in any language, for anyone who is aware of what happened there, and few educated people aren't.
Perhaps that is why Obama chose to invoke it in the first place.
The word is significant in the context of the Obama campaign for two reasons.
First, because it has such emotional connotations, particularly for Jews, with whom Obama has had trouble closing the deal, it looks like he's pandering to them. I'm not saying that he is, but it has that appearance.
Auschwitz was the site of the deliberate extermination of Jews (as well as Catholics, Gypsies, homosexuals, and others deemed "unworthy of life" by the Nazis) and one might cynically think that an attempt to say that one of his family members was responsible for the liberation of the camp would give that constituency a warmer feeling for him, despite his many foreign policy advisors who clearly are not fans of the state of Israel (e.g., Zbig).
It is of concern because it reveals a profound ignorance of history and/or geography.
Anyone familiar with the history of World War II knows that Auschwitz was in the occupied country of Poland.
Furthermore, anyone familiar with that history knows that American troops never advanced past the River Elbe, in Germany, and that the Soviet forces advanced all the way across Poland and into eastern Germany. Which is why there was an East Germany.
No one, in other words, familiar with that history, would imagine that an American soldier, under Patton, had contributed to the "liberation" (scare quotes because the Soviets never liberated anyone--they only enslaved them) of Auschwitz.
Obama didn't know this. Nor, apparently, did anyone on his staff, since he had been spouting the same fable since 2002 and no one had bothered to correct him. Or if they had, they were ignored. I'm not sure which is worse.
Given his unfamiliarity with Jack Kennedy's less-than-successful negotiations with Khrushchev, it makes one wonder what else he doesn't know.