E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe Associated Press
Calvin Woodward
Michele Bachmann did not intend to be taken literally when she told the Republican presidential debate Tuesday that civil-liberties activists have taken over the interrogation of terrorists from the CIA. But even as a rhetorical point, it didn't hold water.
Her hyperbole on the American Civil Liberties Union was one of the more notable stretches in the national security and foreign policy debate. A look at some of the claims and how they compare with the facts:
__
BACHMANN: "This is one thing we know about Barack Obama: He has essentially handed over our interrogation of terrorists to the ACLU. He's outsourced it to them. Our CIA has no ability to have any form of interrogation for terrorists."
THE FACTS: The CIA still has the ability to interrogate terrorists. President Obama formed the High Value Interrogation Group, which includes the FBI, the CIA and the Pentagon. It centralizes expertise so that when a terrorism suspect is caught, everyone with a stake in the issue is involved in the questioning. The CIA also can sit in on interrogations in other countries, asking questions directly or through officials of the host government.
Recommended: In GOP debate over national security, Gingrich defends long-term illegal residents
Whether the policy on interrogating suspects should be tougher is a matter of authentic debate. But the CIA is hardly emasculated. The agency has dramatically expanded its on-the-ground operations worldwide since 2001, and the U.S. killing of a succession of al-Qaida figures in Pakistan — Osama bin Laden chief among them — demonstrates the potency of the hunt for terrorists. Moreover, the U.S. killing of an American citizen abroad — the radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki — is well outside the range of action that would be condoned by civil liberties advocates.
__
MITT ROMNEY: "What they're doing is cutting a trillion dollars out of the defense budget."
RON PAUL: "They're nibbling away at baseline budgeting. ... There's nothing cut against the military. And the people on the Hill are nearly hysterical because they're not going ... the budget isn't going up as rapidly as they want it to."
THE FACTS: Paul was more accurate than Romney in describing what is happening with defense spending. Constraints in the military budget are much more modest than Romney suggested.
Both Romney and rival Rick Perry have been criticizing Obama for looming defense cuts that are triggered by the failure of the deficit supercommittee to act. But the cuts would only slow the rate of growth of Pentagon spending, which has been vastly increased because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, now winding down. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the planned Pentagon budget for 2021 would be some $700 billion, an increase over the current level of about $520 billion. The cuts agreed to last summer plus the automatic reductions would trim the projected 2021 budget by about $110 billion.
Moreover, the spending cuts set in motion by the supercommittee's failure to reach an agreement are not to begin until January 2013, which gives lawmakers time to try again to produce a debt plan. That's what Obama has in mind — using the threat of defense cuts to push lawmakers to make a deal.
Romney's figure encompasses two sets of Pentagon spending cuts, only one of which was proposed by Obama. The president's budget called for $450 billion in savings from the defense budget; the rest is fallout from the supercommittee, a creature of Congress.
__
RICK PERRY: "When you sanction the Iranian central bank, that will shut down that economy. ... This president refuses to do that, and it's another show of lack of leadership from the president of the United States."
THE FACTS: Obama, like George W. Bush before him, hasn't issued a blanket ban on dealings with Iran's central bank. Perry could try as president, but he'd find himself with some angry allies and perhaps some economic damage for the United States.
U.S. sanctions already severely restrict what contact American and foreign companies can have with Iranian banks. That has made the central bank the primary conduit for purchasing Iranian oil exports.
Blacklisting the central bank entirely would put energy companies and banks from places such as Japan in a dilemma: either find new oil sources, or risk punishment in the United States. The same applies for China, Russia, Turkey and other countries with investments in Iran — and the rush for new fuel providers could lead to a spike in gasoline prices that hampers the American economic recovery.
In reality, however, it's unlikely the U.S. would be prepared to blacklist Japan's banks for financial transactions with Iran's central bank. So the power of the sanction would be unclear.
__
BACHMANN: "Almost every decision that the president has made since he came in has been one to put the United States in a position of unilateral disarmament, including the most recent decision he made to cancel the Keystone pipeline. That would have not only created jobs, but it would have helped us in energy independence."
THE FACTS: Obama didn't cancel the Canadian oil pipeline. Instead, his administration delayed the decision in order to explore an alternative route to avoid areas of Nebraska that include wetlands and an aquifer providing water crucial to huge swaths of U.S. cropland. Bachmann also overlooked that the delay came under pressure from Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman, a Republican. When the pipeline was delayed, Heineman hailed the decision and called it "an exceptional moment for Nebraskans."
__
PERRY: "When you put the no-fly zone above Syria, it obviously gives those dissidents and gives the military the opportunity to maybe disband."
ROMNEY: "They have 5,000 tanks in Syria. A no-fly zone wouldn't be the right military action — maybe a no-drive zone. ... I mean, this is a nation which is not bombing its people at this point, and the right course is not military."
PERRY: "I think you need to leave it on the table to make sure, because this is not just about Syria. This is about Iran and those two as a partnership, and exporting terrorism around the world. And if we're going to be serious about saving Israel, we better get serious about Syria and Iran, and we better get serious right now."
THE FACTS: As Romney suggested, a no-fly zone by itself wouldn't do much to stop Syrian tanks and bullets from killing civilians. Unlike in Libya, where Moammar Gadhafi used his air force to fire on cities, President Bashar Assad's government has by and large stuck to ground forces. There have been a few cases of helicopters allegedly being used, but they are exceptions.
Perry's follow-up argument that a no-fly zone in Syria could help deter Iranian terrorism and save Israel wasn't clear. He seemed to be referring to Iranian and Syrian support for anti-Israel groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, neither of which has air power. Weapons smuggling also can occur by ground or sea.
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Leave a Comment:
It is reallly good to get a check on politicians who's main job seems to be trying to scare us into giving up our freedoms and liberty. This is so that they and the government can become more and more powerful and in a better position to help their friends who supply them with the money to get elected. Eisenhower said to be careful of the military/industrial complex and he has been proven to be a sage in that.
Ah... the world according to clueless politicians....priceless
I find it a bit odd you used the word SAGE . SAGE is the TAOIST word for teacher , such as LOA - TZU . Enough said about that . You hit the nail on the head . Thoes in office now and thoes running for office now really do need a teacher . None of them really understands just what is going on in the world today .
The milirary / industrial complex has indeed run our government for many years . Troubbel is now the big banks and fat cats of wall street have taken much of that power from them . JEALOUSY -- GREED--and -- GLUTTONY are the big players in the game now . The powers that be now will stop at nothing to get what they want . Therefore all political leaders in this country have been bought and paid for . Without big money one can not run for office . In order to run they sell their soles to the devil ( big money ) .
bob
Everyone ready for the "Citizen's United" advertising slog.................
:-)
Which brings up Huntsman. He's really the only candidate with a head on his shoulders but yet the Republican party won't tell the TEA party nuts to just STFU and nominate a candidate with a legitimate chance to lead this country out of it's economic mess. It's either him or Obama. The rest of them are fruitcakes with a whole closet full of skeletons.
Sage is defined as a profoundly wise person; a person famed for wisdom.
I think the funniest thing about this whole primary is this...
Government experience discredits the candidates who are running for the position of head of the government.
This "hatred" of government expressed by conservatives, while simultaneously running for the government's highest office, is akin to watching a snake swallow itself.
There are four people in this nomination race that deserve respect and stand by their convictions. Two of them weren't even on the stage last night. They are...
They are the only GOP candidates that don't really flip flop, aren't hypocritical and stand by their beliefs. What does it say about this party that sanity, conviction, and science make you unelectable?
Let's look back at some of their highlights (??? = WTF)...
This is like a buffet of insanity. Pick your crazy and dig in. I've posted this before, but it's soooo fitting...
I'm fairly sure this primary field is a Real World cast waiting to happen...
It's a recipe that made millions for MTV, why wouldn't the Republican party try it??? I'm truly begining to believe that Americans are slaves to inane, ridiculous, reality television. If the Kardashians weren't already proof of this, the fact that our political discourse is now following reality show casting patterns says it all.
Daryl,
See!!!! This is my point, people don't even know about him. I might have spelled the last name wrong, but he's a former governor who's running on a platform of campaign finance reform, taking only small donations. And, he's really, freaking cool.
P.S. Everytime I picture Steele, I imagine the muppet, that Jon Stewart used to represent him on the Daily Show. Hilarious!
They're all bozos. They're talking through their ears. God help us.
Is there nothing these idiots would not lie about if it moved their poll numbers up just one point? It's hard to believe they will stoop to telling such transparent whoppers merely to deceive the American public into believing they are credible candidates for the highest office in this country. It's not working, by the way.
Shame.
*Sarah-3043284*
Cain is not the only token canidate here, Bachmann is as well. In the last election cycle, the democrats made history with President Obama and Hillary Clinton campaign run. The republician are desparately trying to make it appear as thou they are willing to elect a black man or a woman for president. This is the reason for the unelectible cast of characters that the republicians have running now.
At the present, the hatred by the republician party for President Obama have blinded their eyes to reality. They have become hitleristic in their politics... They can care less about this country's well being. The repblicians brand of politics are worse than socialism, communism, and marxism combine. Very unamerican.
Obama: we created millions of jobs and saved the world
THE FACTS: CBO says "liar, liar. Pants on fire".
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/obama-stimulus-fewer-jobs/2011/11/23/id/419003
Hey! Calvin Woodward.....can to postulate as to why the Big O Administration isn't pushing for "NATO" air strikes against Syria? After all, according to his reasoning as to ordering the strikes in Libya, Assad has far surpassed the number of civilians killed.
Here's the link for the CBO report...
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/123xx/doc12385/08-24-ARRA.pdf
The report is pretty straight forward and differs from what newsmax stated. Liar? Not so much.
And we seriously have no idea what Obama and Clinton are pushing NATO on regarding Syria, but I'm sure it will be measured and will consider all the facts... unlike the war mongers that have been debating of late.
Sorry Mr Ponders, President Obama never said that. Newsmax is not a journalistic magazine. Zero for two. Sorry.
Sarah . . . not only have you spelled his name correctly you've also properly included him in the short list of potential candidates Republicans should be considering . . . I'm not sure I'd consider including Dr. Paul on the list at this point in time, as his debate performances have cast him . . . shall we say . . . as a bit odd . . . but maybe keeping the company of clowns does that to a person . . .
Larry (#1.4), I was going to bring up Huntsman. but you did it for me, I've mentioned him before in blogs, but I realize he is a moderate, therefore anathema to the Tea Party, Grover and the impotent, gutless Congressional GOPers who kiss their buttocks.
By the way, my initial reaction to Fallon's group playing Lyin @$$ B1tch to introduce Bachmann was that it was totally inappropriate, and have posted so before. However, after reading her latest and greatest, I may want to temper that criticism somewhat, and suggest that the title be pluralized and applied to Romney, Perry, and Gingrich as well. I can't believe how far down the party I used to support has fallen. Perhaps I should change my handle to "forever Independent" (I still can't support a lot of the DEM agendas, although right now, they look liker the lesser of two evils). God give us a 3rd party, dedicated to the Middle Class and Main Street.
The probable reason we haven't done anything in Syria is that NATO hasn't decided to do anything. In Lybia we only helped because our agreements with our allies said that's what we should do to support our allies, Obama thought it was a good idea and cost us nothing really in return (cue the dramatizations about his 5 million dollar vacations and how Lybia cost us a bajillion dollars).
We have to support our allies but we can't afford the loss of life and cash to be the worlds police. Go ahead and start talking about leading from behind, but it was the right call and it ended well. I still don't understand how you can call Obama a war monger, then turn around and say he's not leading at all. And what was so bad about leading from behind? We didn't really spend a lot of money, we didn't sacrifice a single soldier, we gained our allies confidence, and we saved civilian lives. Should we have landed troops on the ground like some of your candidates wanted us to?
I don't think you even bothered to read the CBO report LMarcT.
The figure newsmax and other media outlets thought relevant is the 700,000 jobs figure. That would be REAL jobs directly created by the 825 billion dollar bill. The rest is just guessing. Which they admit.
Capiche?
Here's a fact---These goons have no clue what their talking about...
but they have come to agreement not to make each other look too bad, but to point all the blame at Obama, while making these "clueless statements" !!!
I always thought, and am now convinced:
Republicans live in an alternate dimension and have an alternate reality. Appears that alternate dimension is located somewhere on that river in Egypt, "Denial." Facts do not fit their spin and talking points, so they pretend it just doesn't exist....
sad.
These people are unbelievable. I'm not so sure the dems are any better, either.
here's a great article someone posted yesterday. It's a little long, but very good reading.
if the link doesn't come through, search on "how the GOP became the part of the rich" from Rolling Stone.
Tiggle, good read . . . Thanks for making us aware of the article . . .
Perry is in over his head. He has no clue about running a country the size of my back yard, never mind our country with the largest economy in the world. We would be in a world of sheet if he were to get elected.
....but he knows how to create more minimum wage jobs than anyone else...... (rolls eyes).
We can all join Texas in the race to the bottom.
I'm not sure about the "Fact Check" claim to this article. Seems to me more of a rebuttal of talking points than a straight fact check.
Almost seems like a politician wrote this...
It may very well turn out to be a SPIN DOCTOR did. But they still don't have a clue .
bob
They are all easily verified facts.
What Republicans not believing facts, who'd of thunk !
Only those opposed to facts would take this position. Find honest, intelligent, and capable candidates and you wouldn't have to defend ignorance and lies.
That's what a "fact check" of debate points is...either a rebuttal or a confirmation. It should be clear why this fact check appears to be a rebuttal.
The explanation of why a no fly zone would not work may take on the appearance of a rebuttal but the dispute of the cuts to the military are not. They are facts that can be checked.
The explanation of why a ban on Iranian banks would not work is common sense. We are at a point where the oil producing countries already want to use the Euro as the standard currency for oil sales so alienating other countries by hurting their business would definitely cause a backlash.
What amazes me is the amount of stupid statements being thrown out there to give people misinformation and the news media does not even challenge it. A lot on people will go on believing as fact what these idiots have said and they will argue with others until they're blue in the face that they are right. Just because they heard it on TV.
When is MESS-NBC going to start a "Fact and Lie" check for "57 State" Obama? "Unemployment will not go above 8%." It hasn't been BELOW 8%. "There will be No Earmarks." His whole tenure is an "EARMARK." "The US is No longer a Christian Nation." Since when does this Morally Bankrupt, Clueless IDIOT get to make that call? "I wasn't there when rev. (WRONG) wright said those things?" The what Church WEREN'T you in? No we Can't take another Four Years of this DISASTEROUSAmerican DISGRACE. Say Good-Bye "little man." You have FAILED, FAILED and FAILED some more. Try running on that record, instead of sending your lackeys after you rivals.
Those are all covered between these two sites. All shown to be false except the silly 57 state thing, which is "mixture of truth and false". Senator Obama was saying he has visited 47 states and he said 57 by mistake:
www.snopes.com
www.politifact.com
I don't know what rock you've been living under but you may want to pay a little closer attention.
The unemployment rate was not created by this administration, it's a direct result of the Bush regime and it's policies of deregulation of the banks and large corporations. President Obama inherited the financial crisis that was created as a direct result of the Bush administration policies.
Earmarks? Name one.
This will come as a shock to you but this country has never been a Christian nation. In fact the founding fathers went to extraordinary measures to insure it would never acknowledge the establishment of a single religion. It's called freedom of religion and it's guaranteed in the first amendment of the constitution. You might try reading it sometime, who knows, you might learn something.
Morally bankrupt? Really?! There has not been one single question ever brought up about his moral fortitude. His character is beyond reproach.
As for the rest of your senseless babble, it just doesn't warrant a response except to say that the only little man here is you and you are quite pitiful in your ignorance.
Alan,
I love the complete lack of logic when people try to tie the "57" mistake, which was an obvious misspeak, to in depth, substantive answers given by these people that are completely wrong. Simply mistating something, is a lot different then thinking out an answer and debating a premisis that is ignorant or made up, or just plain wrong. You do realize Alan, that Obama doesn't actually think there are 57 states, that's the big difference.
The rest of your examples are failed campaign promises, not things he was ignorant of or wrong about. Again, that's a big difference. Personally, broken campaign promises don't really bother me, there kind of par for the course, especially with the amazing congress we currently have.
And, by the way, the U.S. was never a Christian nation to begin with...
So if Obama said that, he was actually protecting the country from crazy, fundementalist, Christians that are trying to spin things to suit their religion.
Otherwise, can you back up, or provide credible examples, can you post anything substantive, or just rant???
Congratulations on avoiding the article at all in your comments. Maybe you're a morally bankrupt, clueless idiot. Oh, look. I called you a name. That was sure easy.
Re: Alan's post: The accident of saying 57 states instead of 47 is the only part of the above that the President said. The rest are made up. I don't know which bothers me more, the hateful tone, the disconnection from facts, or the ignorance of the terminology he throws around. Maybe it doesn't matter.
sorry links won't post . . .
PSA: To prevent your link not showing up, try not posting the whole link, ie skip the http (colon) part...it's not needed anymore anyway...you can even leave out the www
EX: for msnbc home page, type this instead:
msnbc.msn.com/
That's the simplest method
And it can be copied and pasted into anyone's browser if they want to follow the link.
Be realistic - did anyone actually expect these twits to have any real knowledge at all? As long as they criticize President Obama, no matter what misinformation they spew, the teabaggers and Faux News are happy to believe it.
So true.
@ Janet
Speaking of misinformation:
I was concerned that President Obama pitched his Payroll Tax Cut extension without explaining that he, in essence, is giving us back our own money at the expense of our future benefit. But to "pay" for it, he again wants the 1% to answer the call. I'm not sold on the "we need to raise taxes", but we're going to cut taxes while we still need to raise taxes. (redundancy intended)
I understand the situation, but in all fairness, we the people don't deserve to get smoke served to us...
A couple of them do have actual foreign policy knowledge. Both Bachmann and Santorum have worked on foreign affairs committees. I don't like either of them, but they both had their best debates to date, since this was right in their wheelhouse. Jon Hunstman probably has the most knowledge of the subject matter, besides being arguably the most intelligent of the group.
Of course, Herman Cain knows they have mountains in Iran...
no Janet, I for one did not, and I don't think I will watch any more of these republican "circus events"
It was supposed to be a debate about what these folks would do in certain situations. To criticize the current administration when you are answering how YOU would do things is just plain dumb.
Many of them had good thoughts and ideas. None of them seemed to be the shining light of future guidance. Even Romney had awkward moments and avoided questions like what he would do with the 11 million illegal immigrants.
It was supposed to be a debate about what these folks would do in certain situations. To criticize the current administration when you are answering how YOU would do things is just plain dumb.
Many of them had good thoughts and ideas. None of them seemed to be the shining light of future guidance. Even Romney had awkward moments and avoided questions like what he would do with the 11 million illegal immigrants.
When Michelle Bachmann looks like the most knowledgeable one in the room, you know the field has problems.
Any imbecile would be an improvement over obama.
Hey Barney, Mayberry is missing it's village idiot. Time for you to go home.
Barny, is the republican party trying to prove your statement? I really don't like your line up of imbeciles.
So Barney, are you getting into the race?
Go to www.faircampaignreform.us and get involved in the Popular Amendment Movement to take away the power elite from our election system. It is well past time to end all non-individual campaign contributions and "third-party" advertising. It is also well past time to change the election system to a much shorter period. Romney has been campaigning for six years for this office?????
“Personally” I like the longer campaigning, as long as it’s not on the public dime and "fact check" stays on top of it. The more exposure they have the more transparent they become. That's probably why Mitt is doing so well (sarcastic).
3 months is all you need for an election campaign (Canada usually takes 60 days)...if the candidates can't express their points in that amount of time they aren't very organized and probably aren't worth your vote anyway. It would also majorly reduce the amount of money needed and/or spent on campaigns to boot (not to mention the degree of BS and mudslinging concocted. I would also make spin and lies punishable by jail time and force broadcasters allotted public airwaves (which means all of them) to dedicate 10% of their time slots to political advertizing and debates for which they would be compensated at nominal public rates rather than normal free market rates.
How on God's earth did these ne'er-do-wells and ignorant schmoes get elected in the first place. Are their constituents morons? Did no one in Texas, Massachusetts or Minnesota ever attend school? What is it that when people hear half-truths, exaggerations, and downright lies from politicians, they are driven to send them piles of cash and vote for them and scream and cry to have their babies? I truly believe the republicans and tea-baggers have totally lost the ability to think independently. And America is worse of because of it.
I am from MN Bachmann is not in my district where she from is the religious right and so sad they are just dummy.
M.J. - CT......
Why don't you tell us which facts presented (in this article, in check of the candidates' statements) that you challenge?
Better yet: Tell us which of the candidates' assertions you believe.
President Obama has the best foreign policy instincts and record of any president in recent memory.
Let's see, apologize for being an American, apologize that we are a great country, treat our allies like dirt, and embolden a group of people that want our country destroyed by supporting their actions, and even support them with our own military.
Yeah, he's all over it with it "foreign policy instincts" alright.
Interesting that they NEVER seem to factcheck Obama. Oh wait, I forgot, he's got the most "transparent" administration ever, right?
Of course it's completely transparent when 75% of ALL Dept of Energy loans go to Obama staff, bundlers, and supporters. It's completely transparent when you lock the doors to the nation and write the most massive, expensive, welfare program in history and mandate that every American, for the first time in our history, will buy it. It's completely transparent when hundreds of new regulations are shoved down the banks and industries throats and Obama blames the banks for not lending, and corporations for not hiring. It's completely transparent when the Republican offer hundreds of billions of dollars in new tax revenue on the Super Committee going against their own party, Democrats fight making any cuts of any kind keeping with the party line, and Obama blame Republicans.
Cheryl, can you provide even one link that substantiates your claim that Obama apologized for anything that didn't warrant an apology? Same with "treating our allies like dirt"?
Take your time.
@ Ian Emdee
First; call a hyperbole a hyperbole.
Second;
An opinion backed by "facts" that were comparing whatever the author chose to compare to. Didn't see a straight up comparision or explanation of Romney's context.
Third;
Last time I checked, that was one man's opinion..
I'm just commenting on what I consider poor reporting. Don't care what side, especially since everyone's choosing sides is taking our attention away from what is right.
Yes, Cheryl, please. Enquiring minds want to know!
CherylLM.......
Disregarding your patently false, off-topic remarks (i.e. energy policy), consider your statement (below):
President Obama has promised to VETO your party's attempts to repeal the sequestration that was AGREED UPON should the "super committee" fail in its mission. Do you call that fighting "any cuts"?
You do agree (with President Obama) that these sequestration cuts should proceed....right?
(Your) George W. Bush was a dismal failure in foreign policy. He (your side) managed only to embarrass themselves and our country. We don't apologize for America. We apologize for you and those you elected. It's much like feeling obliged to apologize for a weird loud relative who stands too close in conversation and tends to spit while speaking with his mouth full.
President Obama never went around the world apologizing for the United States. Rated PANTS ON FIRE lie:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/22/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-repeats-claim-obama-went-around-world-/
Yes Cheryl, can you provide proof to back up your statement.
My money's on Cheryl not coming back. I've got $20 bucks, anybody wanna take that bet?
M.J. - CT........
This isn't the first time you have defended Mrs. Bachmann's words with spun interpretations.
Are you supporting Rep. Bachmann's candidacy for POTUS? Or, are you merely running an ER for gunshot republican feet?
Perhaps Mrs. Bachmann "did not intend to be taken literally" when she announced her candidacy.
Fact checkers will never be popular among the GOPeaParty.
Amazing CherylLM - Over a three paragraph diatribe and not a fact or true statement in it. I wonder where you get your news?
Ooooh, oooh, I know!!!!! I know where she gets her news, Doc. Here's a hint, it starts with an F and ends in an OX.
Please guys, like the politicians she supports, Cheryl has no use for facts.
"THE FACTS: Paul was more accurate than Romney in describing what is happening with defense spending."
Let's fact check your "FACTS", shall we? Oh, look, you go on to describe that Ron Paul was RIGHT and Romney was WRONG.
Why not just print that Paul was RIGHT and Romney was WRONG? Indicating that Paul was "more" right supposes that Romney was also correct...which he wasn't.
Like Rodney Dangerfield, Paul gets no respect.
THE FACTS: Paul was more accurate than Romney in describing what is happening with defense spending."
Let's fact check your "FACTS", shall we? Oh, look, you go on to describe that Ron Paul was RIGHT and Romney was WRONG.
Uh squire, you just said the above. If they went on to describe that Paul was right and Romney was wrong then I believe they DID print it. Do you always ontradict yourself in your rants about imagined wrongs?
What a pitiful display. Surely there is a non-moronic Republican out there actually qualified to run for the highest office in the land. Or not.
There is !!!!! But they are in hideing !! Don't want to be assoicated with these fools .
My 2 cents. Who in their right mind would take on the presidency in 2012. Yes they are hiding and rightfully so. I believe if a republican wins, the dems will return the favor. And do nothing, become the party of no, make him a 1 term president, like so many are doing now. We are in deep ____! I do believe, "What goes around comes around".
Huntsman, Roemer, and Johnson. Of course they all believe in science, and don't want to cruxify all the Mexicans and Muslims. They actually understand and want separation of church and state, and of course don't appeal to the "base", as they actually have experience and intelligence. This freak show is like watching a snake swallow it's own head, everybody talking about the "evil" government, while simultaneously attempting to became the head of that "evil" government. This whole debacle is an example of breathtaking hypocrisy.
Yes. In marketing it is very important to protect your brandname. The brandname, GOP, has become tarnished and is getting much harder to sell.
But wait! Soon there will be a brand new, and improved GOP! At your neighborhood corporation, soon.
Simply amazing.....
That article would be comical if it weren't for the fact these republican jokers are dead straight serious when they say this stuff. Sadly though, if your not a person that reads things for yourself and questions things, you would probably think a presidential hopeful would be accurate.
Not the case if your a republican. GOP = LIARS
G
@ Critical
How do you define a political liar?
And I think you chose the wrong use of "critical" to modify your thinking.
If you need an explanation for political lying look at Mitts ad,he edits Obama into a lie...POLITICAL>>>>>LIAR>>>>>
@ Cowboy
Sadly, we're at a point where one side calling the other side is about as revealing as yelling the "shy is blue".
The point is, both sides misrepresent data, offer partial information, and pitch facts out when it's at the opponents expense. I would have thought we have come a lot farther as a nation than that.
I partially blame the media. Just like the alleged "Fact Check" article. A thinly veiled rebuttal of opinions, rather than an apple to apple fact check.
What do you want mj, an example?
Okay... how about, "A corporation is a person".... Obviously, that is an un-truth; un-truth=LIE.
So, in answer to your question, one part of the answer is MITT ROMNEY.
Pretty simple, huh.
Where do you disagree? Where do you believe the Republican nominees were mistreated or misrepresented in the article?
I love that woman!! She alone will keep Stewart and Colbert loaded with ammunition.
Seriously, the only jobs these jokers create are assistant writer positions on the late night circuit. The comedians can't handle all the material being sent their way, you know.
I've just started to post on these blogs, but the "Alan" dude keeps on bringing up the "57 states" gaffe. If you want to see some gaffes, go to "youtube" and do a search on GWB gaffes. Don't drink anything while you are watching them, as you'll spit it out from laughing so hard. Seriously, they are tear forming, belly gut laughs. You won't be disappointed.
The republican candidates can spew all the rhetoric they want in a debate with each other, but whomever ends up running against P. Obama, they are going to look nothing but foolish trying to debate him on this topic.
Hey CD this is the GOP crazy ass right wing talking point. This and the TelePrompter use...its all they got other than to question his citizenship...and Trump bombed on that...so...its pathetic that thats all they can come up with,but hey,they are in deep doodoo....
At the start this was going to be sooooo easy for the TP/GOP to win the presidency. Country was in the pits. Unemployment was high. We were involved in 2 wars. Had an oil spill to clean up, and the price of gas was of course rising.
It was the TP/GOP's presidential campaign to lose. And beyond anyone's imagining they chose the right people to lose it. Why, why, why? What were they thinking? Really, what were they thinking?
Do hostile foreign combatants have the same protections as US citizens under our laws? NO. If captured in armed conflict they face a military tribunal and the protections afforded US citizens on trial in US Courts do not apply. The military is governed only by the UCMJ, not libtard wishes. If you don't like the way the UCMJ controls the treatment of captured hostile combatants, change it. But if they are found under the UCMJ to be terrorists they earn a bullet in the head, not life in prison.
I think the issue is whether we can torture them, which most people think water-boarding is torture.
I guess bfitz is unaware that the US Military is not a stand alone entity that does what they want when they want how they want. They have a commander-in-chief.
Bfitz,
Um, I don't think so. The UCMJ is federal law, and as such is subject to the Supremacy Clause and the bounds of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court also has appeals jurisdiction over it, and has ruled that enemy combatants are entitled to due process in our courts. Go check out Boumedience v. Bush.
The military is governed "only by the UCMJ"? I'm pretty sure, when I was serving, that we also followed the constitution. If you could just point me to the part in the constitution where it says it's inapplicable to the military I'd appreciate it.
And the bigger problem is the people in Gitmo aren't "hostile foreign combatants." They are "detainees." If we actually declared them hostile foreign combatants they'd get the Geneva Convention protections. We keep them in quasi-military and quasi-civil detention just so we don't have to give them any protection or process. We shouldn't be telling the rest of the world to follow the law when we abrogate it at our will here.
All i can say is that fallon was exactly right in his music selection for bachman. It fits her to a tee. And whenever i see bachman the music will be playing in my mind. Because i know what comes out of her mouth is lies, lies, & more lies and she is definitely a bitch.
No, let them all keep talking. Fools rush in....and all that.
Amazing how even with debate preparation (except for Newt since he boasts he knows everything already) already) these class clowns can spew such wrong, out of touch, inaccurate and often intentionally misleading statements. Even a high schooler prior to his/her first debate would have done better, merely by studying the facts.
Thanks to the GOP, Mr. Obama should have clear sailing! Obama in 2012...woo-hoo!
Will somebody tell me what the hell Newt said about a giant magnetic attack !!!!
Sure sounded like a lot of unfounded, unrealistic, red meat to me. Huntsman & Paul sounded sane but the rest of them? If this is what they really think our foreign policy should be, it scares the bejeezus out of me. Sounds like a bunch of them would love to get their finger on that big red button (Rick - it's not the on/off switch for nuclear energy, Herman - if Israel starts lobbing nukes, that probably IS THEIR PLAN for success)
yea but there's all those mountains !!???
I like Huntsman and Paul has been consistent even when it didnt score pointsd with the hard core right wing
The "magnetic" thing Newt was on about has been known for years...it's proper name is EMP or Electromagnetic pulse and can be produced by a high altitude nuke explosion with the effect of taking out any unshielded electronic equipment, including computer control devices such as those found in cars.
Newt's hyping it like it's something new but it's been around since the early 60's as a concept. Just more fear junk. I'm personally far more afraid of the general well-oiled nativist ignorance Newt panders to than any exploding nuke.
It's truly amazing that they think they can get away with lies and distortions like this.
But then with the anti-Obama hateful fervor that the right wing has fomented, it's not much of a surpise - these right wingers would just about anything these clowns say.
@ FormerMarineSgt
So you're in agreement that the lastest Congressional waste of effort was indeed an unilateral failure?
You are talking about a group of baggers getting together to debate. All that they have are lies and misinformation. They have nothing constructive to show since the 2010 elections. All that they've done is to try and take away civil rights, destroy the EPA and NPR, and deny women the rights to their own bodies, and take up frivilous antics like naming post offices.
The TP/GOP are even goofing up their primary mission, make President Obama a one term president. Didn't they think they needed a viable candidate? Didn't the think the mentally slow, knowledge challenged group they put up there on stage to sell would slip and allow us to see the real cardboard cutouts that they are?
What were they thinking when they gathered these candidates? I just don't know.
I'm not...I mean think about Ford naming one of their cars a Galaxy 500.
Puhleeeze.
Unfortunately not many will even read any fact checking articles. Once it comes out of their mouths it is considered fact for a great many. They ought to have fact check there when they say it so everyone can see how much they lie or plain just don't know what they are talking about.
OH MY!!! I just had a flashback of Sarah Palin standing there talking to the teabaggers and in the background they were shoving live turkeys kicking and screaming,into the dreaded turkey stripping machine....Funniest thanksgiving memory in years....God I miss her...NOT..........HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO ALL !!! EVEN MY GOP FRIENDS !!
Oh, there goes my keyboard again! Coffee all over it. Knock it off Cowboy17! LMAO
I'll say it again.
Which political demographic knows the least about the Republican Party?
Their Supporters! (If they believe any of the crap that spews forth as fact).
@ Kevin
The irony... given that the Republican Party was originally a segment of the Democratic Party; breaking off because they didn't support slavery.
I know that fact is irrelevant, but I am throwing out a fact.
MJ..Good Point.
Too bad they will not go back to what made them a great political party.
I know....I'm an Ex-Republican and cannot support what they stand for.
Ah, Teddy Roosevelt was betrayed similarly by the republicans. When will the USA ever learn?
At least this time we know before they can get in.
How come all the GOP candidates sound worse the Sara Palin!
Sara was the bottom of the barrell ---- This group is under it !!!
It's like they saw Palin's success as related to her stupidity, so they all decided to double down on stupid.
Let's be honest, every politician democratic and republican has a staff that slants things. One poster pointed out the shear absurdity of Obama pushing tax cuts and raising taxes at the same time to spend more money on policies that have clearly failed. The author of this piece knows everything how? Yet a good majority of people here believe Calvin Woodward is some kind of sage. He knows more than anyone. Let me tell you over the years he has been as wrong as anything said by any candidate in any of these debates. He trys to compare what a military budget would be in the year 2021, if mandatory cuts were put in effect, when everyone here has seen that projections 10 years out are a fools game at best. I might suggest before you call any republican or democrat a liar predicting the future is just that. Predicting the future.
I've been through many campaigns, and this republican campaign is shaping up to be the stupidest I've ever seen. ROFL
IMHO
Well you know who their audience is, so we need to realize that the GOP is competing with Survivor and the other "REALITY" shows!