WaPo: Obama Has al Qaeda Quaking in Its Collective Sandals
The Washington Post gushes:
Soon after the November election, al-Qaeda’s No. 2 leader took stock of America’s new president-elect and dismissed him with an insulting epithet. “A house Negro,” Ayman al-Zawahiri said.
That was just a warm-up. In the weeks since, the terrorist group has unleashed a stream of verbal tirades against Barack Obama, each more venomous than the last. Obama has been called a “hypocrite,” a “killer” of innocents, an “enemy of Muslims.” He was even blamed for the Israeli military assault on Gaza, which began and ended before he took office.
“He kills your brothers and sisters in Gaza mercilessly and without affection,” an al-Qaeda spokesman declared in a grainy Internet video this month.
The torrent of hateful words is part of what terrorism experts now believe is a deliberate, even desperate, propaganda campaign against a president who appears to have gotten under al-Qaeda’s skin. The departure of George W. Bush deprived al-Qaeda of a polarizing American leader who reliably drove recruits and donations to the terrorist group.
See, if al Qaeda attacked Bush, it would be because Bush did such terrible things to the Arab world. If al Qaeda attacks Obama, it’s because Obama is getting under al Qaeda’s skin by being so gosh-darn popular with Arabs.
The idea that al Qaeda is just going to attack any American president doesn’t appear to have occurred to these chowderheads. The article is filled with analysis from “experts” telling us how the über-popular Obama is scaring the h-e-double-hockey-sticks out of the terrorists with his enormous popularity.
P.S. Re: Zawahiri’s description of Obama as a “house Negro”: what’s next? I think I know: Osama bin Laden praying: “I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease.”
P.P.S. Look for much more tough scrutiny of Obama along these lines. The AP gave us a good example with this article:
Barack Obama opened his presidency by breaking sharply from George W. Bush’s unpopular administration, but he mostly avoided divisive partisan and ideological stands. He focused instead on fixing the economy, repairing a battered world image and cleaning up government.
Right-leaning bloggers are going to play a more important role during Obama’s administration than we did during Bush’s. Big Media “watchdogs” are now lapdogs. Obama is preparing to mortgage our children’s future with money for contraceptives, the NEA, pork, and other pet Democrat programs. Someone has to speak out. And based on what we’re seeing, it ain’t gonna be the press.
I am sure the Secret Service takes all al Qaeda threats seriously, for Presidents Bush and Obama. And they should.
So long as President Obama keeps this up, I really do not care what Zawahiri and Osama subjectively think about him.Joe (17aeff) — 1/25/2009 @ 12:14 pm
It’s always amazing to me how much a single letter matters to the MSM.
Just change a D to an R, or an R to D…and everything sure seems to change!Eric Blair (e92b94) — 1/25/2009 @ 12:16 pm
the Secret Service may take them seriously, but i doubt Juggy does. either that or he just doesn’t care.
whichever it is, the now inevitable attack on America will leave him solely responsible for the deaths of the citizens he swore, twice, to protect.
my only question is, will he be charged with murder, or just manslaughter?redc1c4 (9c4f4a) — 1/25/2009 @ 12:22 pm
Here’s another point people should realize. Most Arabs are very racist against Black Africans. This is obvious to anyone who has spent any time in Arab world.
Of course this will be blamed on European Caucasians being racist against Arabs, so the spill over is bad perceptions about race by Arabs to those darker. No doubt there is still racism in Europe and among Caucasians, but it is not the cause of Arab racism against Africans. What makes Arab racism unique is it is very open and not the least bit covered over (even though Mohammed said people were like sand, different colors and all equal).
But is that surprising? Saudi Arabia only banned slavery in 1962 (and slaves at the time were black African children imported to work in Saudi homes as gardners and kitchen helpers). Saudis justified it because Africans were ignorant and were brought into the Muslim faith (sounds almost antibellum doesn’t it).
http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/09122001.htmJoe (17aeff) — 1/25/2009 @ 12:24 pm
Why is an attack on America inevitable?Ed from PA (f79927) — 1/25/2009 @ 12:24 pm
I think WaPo editors would agree with you that Al Qaeda would attack any U.S. president. There is, however, evidence that he currently enjoys substantial popularity outside the U.S. and in several Muslim lands and this lends plausibility to the thrust of the article.
Calling WaPo editors “chowderheads” over this seems a little overheated.Tim McGarry (9fe080) — 1/25/2009 @ 12:41 pm
I do not speak nor do I understand “Moronese” very well, so can someone explain how to kill WITH affection? You know, since Obama kills WITHOUT it?
I mean, do you have to be a moron to be Muslim, or does that come afterward?Two Dogs (4a6fe8) — 1/25/2009 @ 12:53 pm
Or an S to a B.
Oh, it’s not, now that Obama is here. Go back to sleep.Jim Treacher (796deb) — 1/25/2009 @ 1:02 pm
How long after Bush leaves office is an attack on America not his fault? It has to be close to a year,otherwise we can fault Bush for 9/11, right? It must be tricky for you to walk the thin line of wanting to be right about Obama being bad for national security and when specifically that attack has to happen.Ed from PA (f79927) — 1/25/2009 @ 1:09 pm
Most Arabs are very racist against Black Africans. This is obvious to anyone who has spent any time in Arab world.
Boy howdy do they ever. Spent a week in Tangiers doing an INCHOP. Black sailors were advised to do liberty in groups.
If Obama, who is an Indonesian-Moslem by adoption, doesn’t bow to Mecca five times a day as President, we’re sure to see the always calm, rational, clear thinking ‘Arab Street’ spin right into the Stratosphere!SeniorD (50f696) — 1/25/2009 @ 1:20 pm
Ouch. This post is painful to read because it displays amazing ignorance about what al Qaeda is about.
Al Qaeda has very concrete core goals which its leaders proclaim over and over:
1. Kick out the US, Europe and Israel from their perceived “Holy Land” and traditionally Muslim regions.
2. Replace all governments in such areas with regimes similar to the Taliban.
It is NOT inevitable that every US president would be viewed as hostile. An isolationist US regime would be hailed by al Qaeda and its sympathizers; indeed, the message that its leadership keeps sending to the US is that this country should elect leaders who don’t meddle in the Muslim world.
On the face of it, President Obama’s commitment to remove American troops from Iraq serves both of the above goals. Indeed, given the effectiveness of the surge and related strategies, one would expect that the al Qaeda leadership s (or at least the component that cares about Iraq–it’s not a coherent whole) would do everything it could to make departure of US troops easy.
So it is interesting and worth an article that the rhetoric has gone into overdrive at this early point, as it shows a very short-term mindset by some of the leadership. The al Qaeda pitch has always been that it is there for the long haul, but if it is worried about short-term losses in enthusiasm as opposed to having the long-term goal of eliminating substantial US troop presence out of Iraq met via playing nice with the new administration, then it shows a deterioration in its position, a change in its strategic mindset, or both.
If al Qaeda perceives that it must take a consistently hostile stand to even those US policies that sync with its goals, It bodes very badly for President Obama’s hope that diplomacy will be a useful tool in this area.
Lastly, how is this relevant? “Obama is preparing to mortgage our children’s future with money for contraceptives, the NEA, pork, and other pet Democrat programs.” There are not enough contraceptive and flaky art projects out there that could reach a billion dollars, let alone the hundreds of billions that were committed by the Bush Administration to fix the financial system’s miscarriages. The ‘mortgage on our children’s futures’ was taken out by the cooperative efforts of the Republican executive and Democratic legislature. That was bipartisanship in action–the Bush Administration and the Republicans who voted for the bailout merit a full 50% of the credit.
Whining about potential NEA or contraceptive funding does not meet the real challenges of 2009–it just shows how little the minds behind this blog and like-minded “right-leaning” bloggers can contribute to reviving the Republican party.Cyrus Sanai (4df861) — 1/25/2009 @ 1:22 pm
Well, this was a predictable comment:
As opposed to the august contributions of….Eric Blair (e92b94) — 1/25/2009 @ 1:25 pm
Don’t rise about the rhetoric, Eric, just try to drag others into the mud with you.Ed from PA (f79927) — 1/25/2009 @ 1:26 pm
Here is a quote that is relevant:
Ed, I really wouldn’t accuse anyone else of resorting to empty rhetoric, if I were you, you know?Eric Blair (e92b94) — 1/25/2009 @ 1:28 pm
Cyrus writes, “Whining about potential NEA or contraceptive funding does not meet the real challenges of 2009…”
What he ignored (or was ignorant of by failing to click links) is that those topics were raised in regard to an AP story headlined, “Obama breaks from Bush, avoids divisive stands.” Patterico was merely noting that the AP is BS, and that BO took several divisive stands in the first week. If “whining” about them doesn’t meet the challenges of 2009, neither does taking them in the first instance.Karl (2491e1) — 1/25/2009 @ 1:45 pm
Eric, just try to drag others into the mud with you.
Hilarious, because previously we had this gem:
I am not going to go back through threads to find hot air links.
This will be Eddy’s nomenclature from now on – it really exemplifies his entire reason for being here, IMHO. Or else we can just call him that wonderful epithet of I work is done.
It is NOT inevitable that every US president would be viewed as hostile.
Really? Then please offer proof of those Presidents in the past 25 years who were not widely reviled in the Arab world. Do you think that Democrats offering smiley faces and puffy pink cotton candy will be viewed any differently, no matter what their actions entail? Let’s look at the tape, shall we? Carter? He was despised for brokering the treaty between Sadat and Begin. Clinton? Our embassies were bombed and staffers murdered during his time in office, along with the attempted sinking (and murders of our sailors) of one of our destroyers by Yemeni terrorists. He was despised by the Arab world for not allowing Arafat to essentially take over Israel and annihilate it from within, despite getting the Palestinians every other concession that they sought from the Israelis.Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/25/2009 @ 1:52 pm
That was before, Dmac!
Rainbows and butterflies populate the world, along with kite flying children.
Things are different! We are the change we need!Eric Blair (e92b94) — 1/25/2009 @ 1:57 pm
All I ever wished for was that some deity would magically appear and somehow make our oceans stop rising and begin the heal our planet.Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/25/2009 @ 2:02 pm
“…begin to heal our planet.” I must read my Hopey/Changey bible more often.Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/25/2009 @ 2:03 pm
You heard about the great ice-icon built to the Prophet of Anthropogenic Global Warming in Alaska, right?
Bring offerings of ice cubes and polar bear liver to the Other One!Eric Blair (e92b94) — 1/25/2009 @ 2:08 pm
Don’t worry about getting the Gospel down properly, Dmac. There are many many people in the MSM who will instruct you.
Dissent is no longer patriotic. It’s now “marginally treasonous.”
It’s a New Day! We are the Change we seek!Eric Blair (e92b94) — 1/25/2009 @ 2:13 pm
You’re correct, Joe, about racism against Blacks. Ayaan Hirsi Ali said the only time she felt racism is when she went to Saudi Arabia as a schoolgirl and was called “slave” by everyone in school.
Wapo is blind. If anything, AQ will attack Obama because Americans love him, not Arabs. The crueler then better: It’s an AQ feature, not a bug.Patricia (89cb84) — 1/25/2009 @ 2:18 pm
Let me see if I understand the Washington [com]Post right: for seven years President Bush’s goal was the hunt down the jihadi bastards and kill them, but they did not fear him and instead, increased their numbers of those Martyrs For The Movement because Bush made them mad; but now, Obama, the media’s Annointed One, who has only been in office six days, has them shaking in their Birkenstocks and rethinking that whole jihadi/martyr thing?
Hey, maybe because of such miracles, as outlined by the Washington Post Mortum, there is something to this whole Obamassiah image.
And within six days (on the seventh He rests) Obama has managed to:
order Gitmo closed and created an outrage among 9-11 families
revealed to the terrorists that all the information they need can be found in the U.S. Army Manuel
pissed off the Vatican
allocated tax payer dollars to reduce the foreign populations through abortion
pissed off Pakistan
stared down a reporter
killed civilians in Pakistan
bashed former President Bush on the new White House website
threw his weight around telling Republicans to basically get drilled since he “won”
lashed out against a talk show host who has no legistlative powers
asked for an waiver on his own rule on lobbyists
I am so glad the AP informed me that he had avoided an divisive stances. Who knew?retire05 (16b406) — 1/25/2009 @ 2:37 pm
Wait a minute. I’m confused. That bit about “George W. Bush’s unpopular administration”, was that Al Qaeda? Or was that the Associated Press? Sometimes they sound alike to me.Gesundheit (9ca635) — 1/25/2009 @ 2:52 pm
It will always be his fault.
He did order the strike on the WTC, yes.
It must be tricky for you to compose a coherent sentence.Jim Treacher (796deb) — 1/25/2009 @ 4:20 pm
“There are not enough contraceptive and flaky art projects out there that could reach a billion dollars…”
I’m certain the UC and Cal State systems could apply for grants double that just by dusting off old onesSteveG (a87dae) — 1/25/2009 @ 4:25 pm
[…] Patterico points out, when AQ leaders attacked Bush in their videos, it was seen as evidence that the entire […]Washington Post Tries to Persuade It’s Readers That Al Qaeda is Afraid of President Obama « (8dac4f) — 1/25/2009 @ 4:52 pm
I think Obama will turn out to be a worse enemy of AQ than George W Bush. He has already sent that signal by ordering that strike on Pakistan. I think it’s going to be an interesting four years. Pop-corns anyone? 🙂Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 1/25/2009 @ 5:12 pm
Comment by Jim Treacher — 1/25/2009 @ 4:20 pm
Snark is not a substitute for intelligence.Ed from PA (836625) — 1/25/2009 @ 5:28 pm
Love-Queen, depending on the meaning of “worse” (more menacing vs. not as good at it), I agree with you.Xrlq (e0ec4f) — 1/25/2009 @ 5:33 pm
Or it could just be Obama is making real his campaign promises in the first week and this is just the start of some real momentum… or it’s a craven fleeting nod to a campaign promise.SteveG (a87dae) — 1/25/2009 @ 5:35 pm
“Hey, I authorized the CIA to launch Hellfire missiles on day frickin one…” Day 31?
Maybe not so much
When I read:
I just imagine the response.Eric Blair (57b266) — 1/25/2009 @ 5:44 pm
Snark is not a substitute for intelligence.
Neither is incoherency, but don’t let that stop you.Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/25/2009 @ 5:55 pm
So how about running your thesis by us again, in English?Jim Treacher (796deb) — 1/25/2009 @ 6:13 pm
How long after Bush leaves office is an attack on America not his fault? It has to be close to a year,otherwise we can fault Bush for 9/11, right? It must be tricky for you to walk the thin line of wanting to be right about Obama being bad for national security and when specifically that attack has to happen.
Comment by Ed from PA — 1/25/2009 @ 1:09 pm ”
Funniest comment I’ve read all day. It’s Bush’s fault, if you forget:
1. We now know they will attack the homeland.
2. Obama doesn’t have to contend with Gorelick’s wall.
3. All of the security measures which have simce been put in place, including the NSA measures which the Dems politicized only to continue.
4. Obama has sent a clear message to the Muslims that he is a weak horse – ignoring 1470 of Islamic history.
So Ed, are you Murtha’s executive assistant? If not you are missing out on a great opportunity.Terry Gain (0a6eaf) — 1/25/2009 @ 6:24 pm
“I think Obama will turn out to be a worse enemy of AQ than George W Bush. He has already sent that signal by ordering that strike on Pakistan. I think it’s going to be an interesting four years. Pop-corns anyone?” Comment by Emperor7 — 1/25/2009 @ 5:12 pm
Sorry Emperor. You have no clothes. And no clue. Obama didn’t issue no order. Predator drones have been killing supected terrorists in Pakistan for several years.Terry Gain (0a6eaf) — 1/25/2009 @ 6:27 pm
There was a seious error in my penultimate comment. I referred to Gorelick’s wall when I should have said Gorelick’s Islamic Terrorist Protection Wall.Terry Gain (0a6eaf) — 1/25/2009 @ 6:30 pm
Upside down liberal logic. The guy who did everything in his power to get his country to concede oil rich Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran and who has now announced he will release 245 terrorists from Gitmo (so they can again take up Jihad) is going to be a worse enemy of al Qaeda than the man who caused al Qaeda to be decimated in Iraq-and not just by Americans, but by Iraqis as well.
Hilarious.Terry Gain (0a6eaf) — 1/25/2009 @ 6:37 pm
Comment by Terry Gain — 1/25/2009 @ 6:24 pm
So Bush gets a free pass for 9/11, but anything that happens during Obama’s presidency (including what happens during the first few months) will be his fault? I guess that is wing-nut logic for you.
Let me ask you this, as conservatives do you wish us to be attacked so that you can gloat with “I told you so” type comments on sites like these? I know your first instinct is to verbally attack me for asking the question, after all, it is all you can really do nowadays… but I really want you to search your hearts on this one.Ed from PA (836625) — 1/25/2009 @ 7:12 pm
If you never put fuel in your car, you will end up stranded somewhere. (I hope he gets stranded somewhere because he’s refusing to put fuel in his car like I told him to.)
Think about that, Ed from PA, and figure out my response to you from it. Doubtless you will not understand.John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/25/2009 @ 7:18 pm
Hitch: Well you attacked me, which is exactly what I said you would do. You see the cliff but you walk right over it anyway.Ed from PA (836625) — 1/25/2009 @ 7:21 pm
Ed, I answered your flawed question. And I rightly predicted you wouldn’t understand. Playing victim doesn’t pan out well.John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/25/2009 @ 7:26 pm
You didn’t answer my question.Ed from PA (836625) — 1/25/2009 @ 7:27 pm
Ed, he did not attack you. Learn to read.Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e) — 1/25/2009 @ 7:27 pm
You need to read for comprehension, Ed. No one said Bush got a free pass for 9/11. However, knowing what we know NOW as opposed to what we knew on 9/10/2001, and given the changes in intelligence gathering and sharing since then, ANY incoming US President should be far more aware of potential threats than in the past.
I am pretty sure that none of us here want the US to be attacked. And I’m pretty sure that none of us will be claiming that an attack was an inside job planned by Obama.Steverino (b12c49) — 1/25/2009 @ 7:28 pm
No, you disgusting POS.Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 1/25/2009 @ 7:28 pm
Ed from PA
I’ve expalined that Bush corrected Clinton’s errors and put in place measures to protect his country.
Obama, pandering to the idiot left here and abroad, has begun by announcing he is closing Gitmo. He has no idea what to do with the worst of the worst. This will buoy the spirits of al Qaeda and be a great recruiting boon. So yes, Obama owns the next attack. Obama is a weak horse. Al Qaeda attacks weak horses. Bush surpised them.Terry Gain (0a6eaf) — 1/25/2009 @ 7:30 pm
You say that now, but I seriously doubt that claim.
Are you referring to what Clinton knew and passed onto the Bush administration during the transition as what we “didn’t know”?Ed from PA (836625) — 1/25/2009 @ 7:32 pm
Ed, I answered your second question but not your first question. But you already knew that was where my answer was going since you retorted with your ready-made escape hatch–the challenge me and you attack me statement.John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/25/2009 @ 7:33 pm
“Let me ask you this, as conservatives do you wish us to be attacked so that you can gloat with “I told you so” type comments on sites like these?”
No, idiot. Conservatives, unlike liberals, put their country before their party, as anyone paying attention to the national conversation in the last 7 years knows.Terry Gain (0a6eaf) — 1/25/2009 @ 7:35 pm
Ha, so only the 14% of people who approved of Bush’s job performance were ‘paying attention to the national conversation’. Spare me, Terry. Nobody is buying that retread.Ed from PA (836625) — 1/25/2009 @ 7:41 pm
That’s fine, so long as you also accept the approval ratings of Congress. Which, after all, passes the laws in this nation.Eric Blair (e92b94) — 1/25/2009 @ 7:43 pm
Okay, I’m all better now.John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/25/2009 @ 7:43 pm
Also, folks. look at EFP’s posts. They are all about argumentation (most often automatic contradiction), even when they are inconsistent and contradictory.
It’s just more Troof to Powder stuff.Eric Blair (e92b94) — 1/25/2009 @ 7:45 pm
Point of sale? I can’t imagine anyone buying anything EFP has to say.Xrlq (62cad4) — 1/25/2009 @ 8:04 pm
You asked the question, and I gave you an honest answer. If you didn’t want to hear the answer, then you shouldn’t have asked the question.
I’m referring to Gorelick’s wall. Don’t play dumb, Ed.Steverino (b12c49) — 1/25/2009 @ 8:32 pm
That’s not what Terry said, but I’m not surprised you’re deliberately twisting his words.
And Bush’s approval rating wasn’t 14%
Wow, Ed lying again. Who’d have thunk it?Steverino (b12c49) — 1/25/2009 @ 8:36 pm
Hyperbole, Steve… though not by much.
So Jimmy had twice the approval of Bush. I guess I can expect the Carter-bashing to cease now?Ed from PA (836625) — 1/25/2009 @ 8:41 pm
That would depend on what happens, Ed. If bin Ladin surrenders tomorrow, who will you credit?
As for attacks, that also depends on the plot. If it turns out that attackers have been here plotting an attack undetected during the Bush Administration, and there was a reasonable way for us to know about and stop them, then you could lay some blame on Bush. (I, personally, tend to blame the attackers for attacking.)Pablo (99243e) — 1/25/2009 @ 8:52 pm
Ed from PA is nothing other than a routine contrarian. And not even a really good one at that.JD (8ada3e) — 1/25/2009 @ 9:39 pm
Would this be considered torture ? … or merely a WMD ?Neo (cba5df) — 1/25/2009 @ 9:48 pm
I think Obama’s air raiding villages and killing civilians has them running scared. Wait until he blows away his first wedding party. Instead of creating more terrorists like Bush did, they’ll be quitting in droves. I anticipate seeing Bin Laden’s head on a stick any day now.daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/25/2009 @ 10:15 pm
He’ll probably appoint Rep. Keith Ellison (D-CAIR) as a special envoy to help negotiate the Taliban’s surrender.daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/25/2009 @ 10:17 pm
The best part about EFP is his lack of context for the issues about which he crows triumphantly.
Yep, GW Bush has horrific approval ratings. Many Republicans don’t like him much. I’m waiting to hear Democrats criticize Biden, Pelosi, and Reid. I don’t expect them to criticize Dear Leader.
For all the claims that Republicans cheerlead their own candidates, I see much more of that kind of thing from the Left side of the aisle.
Getting back to approval ratings….
The fact that the MSM, for the last eight years, has been doing their level best to make GW Bush look as awful as possible—including attempts to falsify issues regarding him (Dan Rather, anyone?) has nothing to do with this issue, of course.
On the other hand, Congressional approval ratings are LESS than GW Bush’s….and that is with the MSM doing their level best to make Congress look good.
So if we are going to play approval ratings games, lets do so in a nonpartisan fashion. The MSM has clearly been in the tank for Democratic concerns for some time now, and it is intellectually dishonest to claim otherwise.
But the fact that Congress does worse than GW Bush, despite the MSM’s antics and unethical favoritism, is somehow missing from this kind of analysis. And let’s remember where laws originate, and it ain’t from the Oval Office.
But EFP’s commentary is not surprising, though. Teh Narrative must be maintained.Eric Blair (e92b94) — 1/25/2009 @ 10:26 pm
Does Ed from PA want to see America hit by a terrorist attack?daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 1/25/2009 @ 10:46 pm
The moment President-elect Bush became President Bush is when he became responsible. When the attack occurred, he was in charge and responded well. President Bush identified the enemy as Islamic Terrorists, and put into place a military mechanism designed to address Islamic Terrorism and defended the nation.
He was successful and subsequently, the People re-elected him.
The moment President-elect Obama became President Obama. So far, he has failed to name the enemy (a sign of weakness or a clever feint—unknown; but that strategy he implemented on day one), and has issued executive orders that have disabled many of the military mechanisms( put into place by President Bush) in favor of quasi-law enforcement mechanisms.
The words President Obama used, the messages he sent, and the strategies he implemented on day one are his alone. I hope it works.
There is no “thin-line”, as nobody wants our nation attacked (weird how you would even think such a thing).
You have returned to this line of thinking again. It seems that you are the one hoping for an attack on our Country (by hoping that others are hoping for an attack on our Country).
Conservative or liberal, republican or democrat, these are supposed to be labels not loyalties. Our loyalty is to our nation. Most conservatives and liberals are for the Country, as is the vast majority of our population.
I suspect you are not capable of understanding this because faith in the American People is required. As revealed by your desires, you simply do not have such faith in our Country or our People.
Nevertheless, people from all around the country, with all kinds of labels, will defend the nation—whether you believe it or not.Pons Asinorum (500dfa) — 1/25/2009 @ 10:52 pm
On the WaPo article – what I found interesting was the article’s unintentional, and implicit, validation of the Bush administration’s stance towards terrorism in general and Al Qaeda in particular. Although it was rife with an elevation of Obama as a greater threat to AQ because (and I see it as a misperception) of his popularity among muslims, it concedes that AQ hasn’t changed its stance toward the US, only its tactics. For all those who believe that somehow the US has brought this struggle against terrorism upon itself, this article may in fact indicate that it is becoming clearer to them that no matter our position or our leaders, those who wish us harm will continue to do so. They may only change the way in which they accomplish their goals.Thorne (985d7f) — 1/25/2009 @ 10:57 pm
PA, ask yourself this question. Were there politicians who tried to undermine the war effort—by making overstated claims about funding, doubting that the surge would work, claiming that innocents were being specifically targeted, and so on? Were there politicans, serving in Congress, who said that we were “in the wrong”?
Then ask their party affiliation.Eric Blair (e92b94) — 1/25/2009 @ 11:11 pm
“I believe … that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week,”
This was said while Americans where fighting and dying in the field; what great words of comfort and reassurance for our enemies who were killing our soldiers.Pons Asinorum (500dfa) — 1/25/2009 @ 11:24 pm
May that serves as his tombstone epithet.Pons Asinorum (500dfa) — 1/25/2009 @ 11:26 pm
Hairy reed, isn’t that a cat-tail?John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/25/2009 @ 11:31 pm
Cat o’9 tails, no?JD (8ada3e) — 1/25/2009 @ 11:39 pm
Can you guys be any more racist?!JD (8ada3e) — 1/25/2009 @ 11:43 pm
And sexist and homophobic, JD.Eric Blair (e92b94) — 1/25/2009 @ 11:56 pm
Xenophobic, don’t forget me.John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/26/2009 @ 12:04 am
Oh yeah, jingoistic and xenophobic bigots too.JD (8ada3e) — 1/26/2009 @ 12:04 am
I saw this same WaPo story, and I wanted to blog about it. I would have written about the same thing you did, Patterico, but almost certainly wouldn’t have done as well, because my head was too close to exploding by the time I finished the article.
I commend you for your attitude, and I hope that you are right that “Right-leaning bloggers are going to play a more important role during Obama’s administration than we did during Bush’s.”
The temptation is to shout, “Fine, damn you, have it your way and after everything has gone to hell in a handbasket, then it will be time for sanity again.” But that’s selfish and self-indulgent.
Thanks for your good example, my friend.Beldar (ea7dca) — 1/26/2009 @ 1:36 am
(To shout to the WaPo reporters and their ilk, not to YOU or right-leaning bloggers. Sorry.)Beldar (ea7dca) — 1/26/2009 @ 1:37 am
So that’s what Ed from PA was trying to say: He thinks that just because he wanted Americans to die under Bush’s watch, we must want Americans to die under Obama’s watch. And here I thought Murtha was that state’s worst possible respresentative.Jim Treacher (796deb) — 1/26/2009 @ 5:29 am
Way to contradict one sentence with the subsequent one, Mr. Blair.Ed from PA (836625) — 1/26/2009 @ 6:22 am
It looks like the message about renewed love and respect for the US and Baracky’s new way forward hasn’t reached Afghanistan.
I’m pretty sure Baracky had those people killed in a spirit of friendship with a deep and abiding respect. But I think we’re gonna need to send in His face.Pablo (99243e) — 1/26/2009 @ 6:27 am
Let me go on the record as saying that I do not wish our country to be attacked by terrorists. Do you know who has a vested interest in this subject? New Yorkers. Who did they overwhelmingly vote for?
I know the answer, so don’t bother; it was a rhetorical question.Ed from PA (836625) — 1/26/2009 @ 6:27 am
Rudy Giuliani?carlitos (98b5b2) — 1/26/2009 @ 6:29 am
Hillary Clinton?carlitos (98b5b2) — 1/26/2009 @ 6:29 am
Eliot Spitzer?carlitos (98b5b2) — 1/26/2009 @ 6:31 am
Lou Tobacco?carlitos (98b5b2) — 1/26/2009 @ 6:32 am
I will repeat something that your remedial arithmetic teacher told you last night at study table: Keep tryin’, Carlitos!!!
🙂Ed from PA (836625) — 1/26/2009 @ 6:34 am
Ooooh! Oooooh! Pick me!Princess Caroline (99243e) — 1/26/2009 @ 6:35 am
Ah, a ridiculous personal insult that has nothing to do with the argument at hand, and really couldn’t be further from the truth (I tutor Algebra to high-schoolers, asshole).
I see why people don’t take you seriously. My mistake for having fun with a rhetorical question.carlitos (98b5b2) — 1/26/2009 @ 6:37 am
PS, are you going to post your source for the assertion that the Gitmo prisoners are “random foreigners” or are you just hit-and-run posting stuff that you can’t back up.
As a constitutional conservative, I do not align myself with a particular party, seems I have no political party to represent me. I am concerned about the rhetoric from both sides, democrats seem vindictive and petty, and republicans seem vindictive and petty. You people have forgotten the whole reason we are here, The constitution of the United States.
The other night while listening to a national news cast the announcer stated,” During his fist week in Power president obama,” and he went on to list his stellar achievements. Last time I checked we are not ruled by a monarchy, or did I miss something during the night.
I am concerned about the attitude the democrats and media seem to have, that theirs is the only true path. They seem to be more concerned with getting into power and not letting go than they are truly representing their districts.
The discussion is rather lively, however, there are several that ignore reality,and are not willing to admit they are wrong. Ed form PA. Sir, you really need to read what is being written. Why do you feel the need to assign blame? Is that what justifies your position and political view? If so, how petty of you, our world does not revolve around you and those like you.
When presidents are elected he or she is not and should not be the savior of the people or the country. Societies get in trouble when they start looking to one person for the answers.
I realize that the people are frustrated with the direction of our country. The only one you can blame is yourself; you are responsible for the Congress and the Senate, which is where your true representation is housed. If You are unhappy then YOU need to do something about your local, state, and federal representation. Spend less time complaining and finger pointing, and get involved. When I say get involved, know who represents you. Spend the time and effort to educate your self on the issues at all levels. One of the key issues is to know who is supporting your representatives and make sure you keep them accountable for their actions. That is what our founding fathers had in mind when they created this great country; they grew weary of the king and his omnipotent hand dictating their every move.SnakeDoctor (a4aba3) — 1/26/2009 @ 7:03 am
You say that now, but I seriously doubt that claim.Jim Treacher (796deb) — 1/26/2009 @ 7:29 am
Carlitos, Jim Treacher:
Hey, you can see now that EFP is just a knee-jerk reactive troll. When you actually call him on his statements, he goes to the insult. Which is fine.
He isn’t here to debate.
“Random foreigners,” indeed.
And I continued to be amazed at how…boy, his type hates this term—“projective” people like EFP are: they denounce other people for things that they themselves do.
Gotta get with Teh Narrative, you see.Eric Blair (e92b94) — 1/26/2009 @ 7:35 am
SnakeDoctor, your points are certainly valid…but your solutions require people actually do some work.
It’s so much easier to sit around and complain rather than present constructive alternatives that are “less bad” than what we have. The world is not so cut and dried as many folks suspect. Regardless, we all need to do more, to take *our* government back from the fat cats who are lining their own pockets and playing politics with vital issues.
And that is a nonpartisan issue.Eric Blair (e92b94) — 1/26/2009 @ 7:38 am
I think it’s funny that people like EFP use polling data to show that conservatives aren’t popular, but when it comes to the popular vote on issues like Prop 8, or Prop 108, popular opinion doesn’t count.Steverino (69d941) — 1/26/2009 @ 9:02 am
Someone I admire once said to me:
“There are three kinds of people in the World:AD (cb5311) — 1/26/2009 @ 9:51 am
There are people that make things happen;
There are people that watch things happen; and,
There are people who look around and say ‘What Happened’!”
[…] Post: Obama has terrorists rankled Patterico has a thought-worthy take on the Washington Post article suggesting Obama has gotten under terrorists’ skins. Maybe someday, but in his short time in office, I sort of doubt that right now, especially […]Washington Post: Obama has terrorists rankled « Wellsy’s World (d7de83) — 1/26/2009 @ 4:05 pm