« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Rumsfeld to Obama: What Requests For Troops in Afghanistan Are You Talking About? [UPDATED]

Congress Should Investigate Those 21 Words In Obama's Speech

One line in President Obama’s orgy of blame-Bush-for-everything speech last night has prompted former Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld, who managed the Afghan war for five years, to call for the President to back up his assertions. Secretary Rumsfeld’s statement, issued in a press release this morning:

“In his speech to the nation last night, President Obama claimed that ‘Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive.’ Such a bald misstatement, at least as it pertains to the period I served as Secretary of Defense, deserves a response.”

“I am not aware of a single request of that nature between 2001 and 2006. If any such requests occurred, ‘repeated’ or not, the White House should promptly make them public. The President’s assertion does a disservice to the truth and, in particular, to the thousands of men and women in uniform who have fought, served and sacrificed in Afghanistan.”

“In the interest of better understanding the President’s announcement last night, I suggest that the Congress review the President’s assertion in the forthcoming debate and determine exactly what requests were made, who made them, and where and why in the chain of command they were denied.”

UPDATE: The Administration responds:

Robert Gibbs cheerfully responded to Donald Rumsfeld’s denial that he’d denied troops to Afghanistan with, first, a clarification that Obama had been talking about the post-Rumsfeld era of 2008.

…”I will let Secretary Rumsfeld explain” whether the war in Afghanistan “was sufficiently resourced during his tenure” … and how he thinks “history will judge whether they were or were not sufficient,” Gibbs said.

Gibbs quipped: “You go to war with the secretary of Defense that you have.”

Or, in the case of the Obama Administration, you go to war with the very same secretary of Defense – Robert Gates, the man who held the job in 2008 – that you just threw under the Obamabus. If you recall, Gates himself had testified in November 2008 (after the election) that he expected an additional 30,000 troops to be sent, but the incoming Administration put off its follow-through on that promise until March, and cut Gates’ proposal nearly in half.

21 words don’t say what they used to, do they?

COMMENTS

  • Tbone

    and made to answer by the members of the former administration. I am glad to see it.

  • fisk2521

    How many lies will this President tell before the mainstream media finally calls him on them? For them to ignore this challenge by Rumsfeld is to admit that they have no interest in the truth about issues…. and they promote an agenda that bears no resemblance to journalistm whatsoever.

    • eburke
      • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

        If Climategate succeeds in discrediting AGW, maybe the chill will spread into some part of the media. And once they remember what it means to question authority, who knows where that could go, especially when they realize that oil and gas are very useful for keeping warm in the winter.

        Or maybe their brains will freeze along with their assets.

        • AceInTX

          I don’t think it’ll happen though…they’re trying to cover for the AGW propagandists in the face of the crumbling house of cards…They’ve staked everything on AGW theory, Obama’s Messiahship and their socialist utopia and they won’t dare betray any of it because to do so would be to betray themselves!

          • voxoreason

            Hitler is attributed as saying: The great masses of the people… will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one. (This is a condensed version of a long formulation in Mein Kampf, although Goebbles used the term to describe the Jews’ use of same. Yes, it does sound like the height of hypocrisy… as so it is.)

            Global Warming is the “big lie” of our times. And yes, I think I am justified in comparing Global Warming alarmist to Hitler. They, like Hitler, are using a big lie to gain power and riches. Al Gore is at the $100 million mark, but is predicted to become a Global Warming billionaire if this big lie is successful.

            We can’t deny Big Al, now can we?

            You are NOT going to hear it exposed on ABC, CBS, or NBC. I wonder when people will realize that Fox News, while not perfect, will report more of the news that the Big, Bad 3 censors/propagandists. Liberals may be upset because they can’t dispute FNC’s reporting as lies…because they aren’t able to disprove them. That’s the best side effect of telling the truth.

            Conservatives are perfectly justified in calling ABC, CBS, and NBC as censors and propagandists. And these guys don’t require presidential kneepads anymore!

            Headline I saw yesterday: 12 Days, 3 Networks and No Mention of ClimateGate Scandal

    • AceInTX

      they’ll cover for him till the bitter end!

      • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

        there really isn’t anyone left in MSM with any integrity. (I take that back, CNN still has Fareed Zakharia.)

        We really have turned into a bipolar world of news sources. And what these idiots on the left have not yet figured out is that the more they play their games, the more viewers they loose.

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          It’s the same kinds of staffers below the on-air veneer.

          • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

            and they operate without the extreme ideological factor.

  • mschmitt
  • Section9

    Would be nice to see Dick Cheney and the Rumster go on a one-two punching bag craze with the Hollow Man.

    • dudette

      speak out! Thank you Donald Rumsfeld–and Dick Cheney, keep it coming, you are our voice!

  • rec0n

    Rumsfeld gave me my first sleepy little smile of the morning. I do enjoy it so much when he gets called on his lies.
    Although that wasn’t the only one.

    I’ll share my private fantasy life w/you all, just this once: Zero concedes to an interview with FOX, and Cheney is the surprise host.

    *moan*

    {lights cigarrette, contemplating the wisdom of posting something so personal, decides o wth.}

    • derhoosier

      I buy tickets for that one!

  • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

    When he took over there were 38,000 troops in Afghanistan. In his first surge, he added 21,000 more. Now he is promising another 30,000. And I’m sure there will be follow-on troops after those as well. This is not going to bode well with his anti-war base that thought they had elected change. Throughout his campaign Obama repeatedly said he would send thousands more troops to Afghanistan. The ant-war left didn’t listen then and are acting all shocked now.

    • GT350

      There’s a 5:00 antiwar protest today, at Powell & Mission in San Francisco.

      Bring your leftist grievances! Gay rights, abortion, healthcare-for-all, public campaign financing, racism. Hang all your intra-party dirty laundry out to dry!

  • bart

    pipe down. We’re governed by Marxists now. This will require they just make things up. Jeesh! Everyone else knows that.

  • bobojake

    obama tell your tarrot cards it is easier to tell the truth

  • Achance

    They were having to go out looking for the “Taliban” and being deliberately provocative. Other than an ocassional IED, their tour was marked mostly by boredom unless they went out and picked a fight.

    The reality is that Johnny Jihad watches TV too. He saw the Peaceniks take over Congress and then a communist and Muslim sympathizer if not secret practitioner become President. They knew it was now safe to come out and raise some Hell. When the cat’s away, the mice play. The Jihadis are probably assuming that if they cause some US and NATO casualties, the Communist in Chief will pull out, blaming Bush and Afghan corruption rather than his own fecklessness. This is becoming uncannily like what a Democrat administration did to Diem resulting in South Vietnam never again having a government with any support from the people and paving the way for communist victory.

    • nessa

      A good example of what I was talking about upthread. The Taliban talked a good game, sounded a lot like S Hussein and his “mother of all battles” bs. In the end they ran away.

      Here’s Jane’s on the Battle for Musa Qala.

      • Achance

        he was in. I’ve never pushed him to talk about it much detail. What I know of their missions looks a lot like what the US Cavalry did in the 1870s; they’d mount up and go very openly and deliberately into places they knew the Indians couldn’t stand for them to be and provoke a fight – if they could. His unit would just saddle up HumVees instead of horses and go riding out into Hostile country. They jokingly called themselves “The Towstrap Brigade,” since they spent so much time in riverbeds and having to use towstraps to get their vehicles unstuck. They were just contemptuous of the enemy as organized fighting units. The only thing they were afraid of, and the only losses they had, were the IEDs. They had one go off under a HumVee that was carring a lot of mortar rounds and between the IED itself and the secondary explosions had several guys killed and wounded. One of the KIA was a good friend of his and he still maintains contact with his family; you don’t want to get him started about that incident.

        • Marcus_Traianus

          Lots of running around the countryside chasing ghosts, followed by short engagements and long periods of boredom (especially in the winter).

          I certainly don’t suggest that was a ubiquitous experience, nor do I mean to suggest any of this is easy or without significant effort and risk for our military. However, the assertion made by President Obama, to which Mr. Rumsfeld is responding seems to be scurrilous, without merit and lacking in factual grounding.

          The willingness of Gibbs to further politicize and attempt to confound factual military operations, documented requests and on the record Executive Branch responses in order to meet some fanciful parochial meme is proof they once again are in conflict with the facts. Otherwise they would put specifics that could withstand real scrutiny out for debate and discussion- and they won’t.

          • Marcus_Traianus

            Gee, Obama should have read this as he was dithering around the WH and playing golf while our troops were waiting for reinforcements. Maybe it would have changed a few lines in his political diatribe. Some highlights;
            - U.S. troops in Afghanistan increased by over 80% in the first five months of 2008
            - Troops surged by 21,643, bringing the total U.S contingent in Afghanistan from 26,607 in January to 48,250 in June
            - In September, 2008 – President Bush an increase of up to 4,500 U.S. troops

            Sounds to me like they were getting everything they asked for- Oh and notice no time lines or budget gimmicks to cut their funding

          • Achance

            We talked to him every week or so and I had a weekly mission of getting a case of Red Bull at Costco for him. You could get 21 of the 24 cans in a USPS Priority Flat Rate box and ship it to Afghanistan for $8.65. It would usually get there in a week. Anyway, they start missing their mail and he’s complaining bitterly about no mail, meaning no Red Bull that he was selling for exorbitant sums, so much so that I dropped a line to Sen. Stevens who tuned somebody up and they started getting mail regularly again. This goes on for a month or two and all he wants to talk about is getting mail and the “Air Force Pukes” who won’t fly it in. Finally, he gets a bunch of mail and calls home to tell us. Just in passing he asks me if I can find him a foam pad or an air mattress and send it to him because he’s tired of sleeping on a sheet of plywood; he’d been there for months! When he gets home, he has pictures of that fire base; a bunch of Conexes, some makeshift huts, and tents all surrounded by mountains of sandbags because of mortar attacks; it was a grim-looking place. He really had no use for our gallant NATO allies but came to appreciate them when they left and he had to do the sandbag filling duty they’d been performing.

            And if the fire base wasn’t primitive enough, they’d go on patrol for a week or two at the time and live on the ground the whole time and eating MREs.

          • nessa

            …we would go weeks without it in Iraq in 03, we heard a rumor a mail truck was hit in an ambush once, the nightly conter-IED Patrols took on a whole new seriousness, we wanted vengeance.

            Evil Blackhawk flies most of the mail in Afghanistan, the USAF does some but mostly blackhawk, 20,000 lbs some days. If I was flying on blackhawk air we invariably wound up helping load and unload mail. Holidays were swamped, several times while we were loading we would run out of room, each passenger would volunteer to give up his seat, we’d fill them one at a time till either the mail was gone or everyone had given up his seat and we couldn’t squeeze another letter into a crack. We all knew there was nothing we could provide that would compare with the mail.

            Alot of the Combat Outposts (COPs) are built over-night. They may or may not stay in place very long and the newer ones are at the bottom of a long list to get modern comforts. The guys who are training the Afghan National Army have it even worse, they live with their Afghan counter-parts. Infantrymen are almost unanimous in their opinion that the greatest equipment the Army ever fielded is the “smoking jacket” (field jacket liner) and “woobie” (poncho liner).

  • Castor

    SAME OLD SAME OLD.
    They should change the word to falsehoodprompter!

  • RedBeard

    But he was right a lot more than he was wrong.

    And he had one big thing going for him while serving in the administration, something the Obama gang doesn’t have. Patriotism.

    • Dan McLaughlin

      nt

      • mschmitt
        • RedBeard

          Patriotism, experience, and a spine.

          There we have three characteristics that Obama would not recognize if they walked up and bit him on the derriere.

    • dudette

      near perfect in my estimation.I miss him in our govt. I can’t wait til this bunch of america haters is gone–it is a long time til 2012. This O-hole is a serious menace along with all his little czars and peons

  • merryj1

    … in either order! Boy, does this current speechifier make me miss W and the days of “misunderestimation.” There were some blunders, but never subversion or fingers pointed at the last guy.

    • Richard Mullins

      I’m hoping that it would be the alternate for me if another Cruddy candidate gets nominated in 2012.

  • Academic Elephant

    Turns out that according to Robert Gibbs when the President talked about how “Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban” they only did this in 2008 and the person who denied the repeated requests was Secretary Gates so it is okay and no investigations are needed!

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1209/Gibbs_responds_to_Rumsfeld.html

    • mschmitt

      … but Obama didn’t fib. After all, Politico found a quote from an Afghan official asking us for more military hardware — and that’s clearly equivalent to our commanders asking for troops (isn’t it?)…

    • ecroper

      The Lie Revisor Czar. Fibb Reviser. Are those guys(the new regiem) trying to outdo each other?

  • Academic Elephant

    …President Obama was lamenting that the repeated requests of the commander he summarily relieved of duty were denied by the Secretary of Defense he kept on the job and pledging to right the mistake. I can only assume he’ll apologize to General McKiernan for firing him because Secretary Gates didn’t give him the resources to do his job?

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/12/todays-qs-for-os-wh-1222009.html

    • Marcus_Traianus

      What happened? All the mendacity, attempted refuting of facts, grandstanding, amateur night politicing get your trunk in a twist?

      Furthermore, what kind of perverse ideologue believes he can stand up in front of a crowd of people who spend a great deal of time studying factual outcomes and risk based on historical truths to feed them political falsehoods and tepid, parsed plans for retreat?

      • janis

        ignorant of recent history and so besotted with his own supposed cleverness that he didn’t think anyone would call him on his lies. I would not want to be the person who crosses Donald Rumsfeld, a man for whom I have the most profound respect.

        So much so that I would love to see his name on the ticket in the near future. “Keith Olbermann has massive stroke. Film at 11″

    • spainishirish

      Records should clear it up, but I know where I would put my money already.

    • rbdwiggins

      It appears as though President Obama simply can’t stop criticizing his predecessor, but whoever wrote the speech is woefully ignorant, or wantonly dismissive, of the facts, and the smartest, brightest and wittiest press secretary ever cheerfully dug the hole a whole lot deeper.

  • southcoast

    Now that Barak “Neville Chamberlain” 0bama has just sold out Afghanistan to the Taliban, err sorry Tahleebahn, I expect as the last Americans leave Afghanistan we will see the same blood bath as Clinton, I mean the U.N., presided over in Rwanda.

  • bobojake

    as van jones

    • Scope

      n/t

      • ecroper

        Lets keep things in perspective, also FIBBs is obamas real life personal tellalier.

  • Sundayjack

    GIBBS: I — again, I’ll let him explain to the American public whether he believes that the effort in Afghanistan during 2001 to 2006 was appropriately resourced. You know, you go to war with the secretary of defense you have, Jake.

    TAPPER: That’s cute. The — the question, though, is what specifically was President Obama talking about when he said that?

  • wesley1

    In fact, Obama would not be president.

    • Scope

      we did win in Iraq, and, Afghanistan didn’t fall apart until Obama took office.

      • Achance
      • wesley1

        Not when Obama took office. You give Obama too much credit.

        • skorrent1

          Turned into “an Incompetent Kleptocracy” as soon as the MSM and the other peaceniks could no longer blame Bush for everything. They need a reason to abandon the “necessary war”.

          The big joke is to hear those Chicago thugs in the White House accuse the Afghan government of “corruption”.

          • nessa

            if our gov’t is teaching theirs how to be a democracy, how could they be anything other than corrupt?

      • wesley1

        When Bush stood under a Mission Accomplished sign.

        • DONTREADONME

          We technically won the war in Iraq last year when we started pulling assets out of theater, and we started losing the war in Afghanistan this year when I starteds directing assets there about 5 months ago. Yeah, when you’re on the inside you pretty much know whats going on.

          • aesthete

            From what I’ve gathered, Afghanistan hasn’t gone particularly well relative to Iraq and others.

          • wesley1

            My main point was if Bush and Rumsfeld had been competent warfighters, this would all be over and we would not have Bambi dealing with this mess.

          • Vegas_Rick

            How does it help us going forward? Your arm chair quarterbacking adds nothing to the discussion.

          • Vegas_Rick

            Bush and Rumsfeld bad, so don’t criticize Obama. Is that it?

          • janis

            of the last 6 administrations to be able to call Obama the equivalent. And I’m not sure that would even scratch the surface at this point.

            Mostly I see this little weasel as just an ordinary lib who can’t stand to see his little tinhorn fake messiah being criticized by the grown-ups in the room.

          • DONTREADONME

            next time do not make such a stupid comment. Bush and Rumsfeld were perfectly capable of handling the Afghanistan issue, unfortunately Rumsfeld didn’t do to well with the Iraq war.

          • gekster

            Keep reading

          • DONTREADONME
          • gekster

            you will see he became Bagdad Bob

          • DONTREADONME
          • gekster

            LOL

      • aesthete

        for awhile, esp. from 2004-06. I’d love to say that we did a great job with it before Obama came along, but that’s just not true. I’m not overly critical of Bush and co. on this, as the country is notorious for its difficulty to subdue, but I don’t see that as sufficient reason to paint the results that we’ve had there as stellar.

        • Scope

          and that many Libertarians believe we should not be involved an any wars. I understand that many Libertarians believe that we should bring our troops home from around the world. Is that why you have adopted the opinion on Afghanistan that you have? While Afghanistan may not have been a volitile region in 2004-2006, or that many have reported, why do you say that it was a craphole then, as opposed to the fact that Afghanistan has been a craphole forever. What should have been done differently in 2004-2006? That surely is when the Republicans were in the majority.

          • aesthete

            our intervention in Afghanistan, but I think that we should do it right, and admit when we screw up. The initial invasion was handled well, but since then we’ve been at a loss for a comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan. Personally, I’m happy that we found the right strategy for Iraq before the Dems could screw it over, and I wish we could have found the right one for Afghanistan. I just think we should be realistic and acknowledge that not all was sunshine and roses under Bush and co. (though I certainly can’t blame them, given the difficulty of the task).

            BTW, I think that Afghanistan is still salvageable under the right President and conditions, and had we someone with Bush’s tenacity as President, we might have found a strategy that worked. Oh, well.

        • montanan

          Iraq blew up so badly there for awhile before the troop surge, with Afghanistan relatively quiet in comparison, Bush and Rumsfeld had no choice but to direct what resources they had to Iraq. And lets be honest, we’ve not actually had the strength to successfully prosecute a war on two fronts since the second world war. And with Congress being the way it was back in 06′ ( and still is) the guys at the top couldn’t requisition enough money to train enough men and equip them to hold two warzones. If anything, the current debacle in Afghanistan has nothing to do with Bush and Rumsfeld being bad strategists and everything to do with Congress being a blind and petty pain in the @$$. I am pretty sure that if Congress hadn’t been so busy trying to get revenge on republicans by stripping funding from the troops, we would’ve put together another division or two so that we could finish the job.

          • aesthete

            I think we did better than the historical average in the two conflicts. That is a far cry from saying that they’ve been run smoothly, though.

          • Scope

            The Clinton administration cut the defense budget to a point that it was considered “stripped.” Bush was only in office for less than a year, I believe, when 9/11 happened. As I’ve read somewhere, you go to war with the troops and equipment you have. With a Democrat contingent in Congress, trying to stop the wars at any cost, and, a reliant MSM trashinging Bush at every turn, true or not, you have a bad public opinion of the war, and, Code Pink. If the public has given up on amy war, the war is lost, just as in Vietnam. In all, I think you are wrong asthete, because I really believe your view of war all comes down to the dollars spent on it. You have said in your bio that you are a fiscal conservative. I think that there are many that believe that our country’s security means a little more than just dollar signs. Ron Paul put dollar signs on everything. I am not saying you follow Ron Paul, but I do have to question your desire for victory in Afghanistan, especially when it may come from the cost perspective.

          • aesthete

            and his minions :)

            I fully support the war in Afghanistan. I think that victory in Afghanistan is definitely worth the cost, and I think that it is still salvageable. I don’t, however, want to embrace the fantasy that everything in Iraq and Afghanistan were peaches, any more than I want to pretend that Bush did a good job domestically. Again, I think that he did a pretty good job in Iraq and Afghanistan given what he had, his level of experience, and the difficulty of the two missions. I simply take issue with the assertion that all was fine in Afghanistan until Obama showed up. There’s plenty to criticize about Obama’s handling of the war without deifying Bush’s handling of the wars, and Jeff (who is of course infinitely more knowledgeable and experienced than myself) has a fantastic write-up of them on RS. I hope that clarifies my position better for you.

        • DONTREADONME

          unique perspective in the rear echelon. My company had been having an easy time getting volunteers to go to Afghanistan to work signals intel before this year began, (heck I considered for the $$$$, wife said NO). Now the lack of support outside the wire and convoy security has caused many from my company to want to get out. The taliban have crawled back into the country and we abandoned the outskirt areas and surrendered positions.

          I personally am watching the Corps run circles in the last 5 months trying to redirect what they can to Afghanistan to deal counterinsurgency, and do not forget morale is in the crapper over there. We will send the Marines back in force and clean up that mess.

          BTW, from what I am hearing from the trainers I work with over there they are preparing to take this fight back to the outskirts, Now the troops over there need all of the assets available in Iraq for Afghanistan, finish the job and get the hell home. Get ready the MRAPs are coming, good luck with the ambushing of convoys.

          • aesthete

            I could very well be wrong; I would sure like to be, anyways!

    • rbdwiggins

      congressional democrats had not attempted to undermine the war effort at every turn, the insurgency in Iraq and the terrorists in Afghanistan would not have been emboldened, Iran would not be this close to realizing its nuclear ambitions, we’d be much closer to peace in the Middle East and the democrats would still be the minority party.

      • wesley1

        nt

        • nessa

          nt

        • penguin2

          Both houses of Congress, remember Wesley?

          • wesley1

            Let me know if you want me to clarify anything else, Mr. Penguin.

          • rbdwiggins
          • janis

            Show some respect for your betters. See there, I only called you nice names. The tone in which I said them, though, leaves a lot to be desired. As does your ability to articulate some coherency on this issue.

        • gekster
        • rbdwiggins

          Or, it could be that you won’t admit the significance of Jumpin Jim Jeffords’ defection in May 2001, nor acknowledge the results of the 2006 mid-terms.

      • JadedByPolitics

        IF the tools on the left had just gone all in after they voted for the war instead of undermining our men and women on the battlefield there is no doubt in my mind Iraq would have been won by 2004 and Afghanistan would have gotten the last four years of attention BUT they had to play politics with our troops lives and by extension our lives and for that they should burn in hell upon their deaths!

        • rbdwiggins

          of the situation in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan, and the war on terror in particular.

          We are less safe today, and the entire Middle East region is more unstable, because the democrats chose to politicize the war.

    • mriggio

      n/t

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
      • RedBeard

        Bob’s gone, just when we needed a javelin catcher for the Red State Games.

  • noyoucant

    Former President George W. Bush has just been appointed the Obama Adminstrations Blame Czar

  • freedomfunds

    Rummy say is

    “I am sorry”

    • JadedByPolitics

      The man SAVED this country from jihadists he had a plan to set up a base in the Middle East from which to fight them over there and he was RIGHT. The man is an American hero you freaking TOOL. Do you think for one minute anyone who is not a LEFTIST buys into your crap about Rumsfeld because if you do you are truly STUPID!

    • Richard Mullins

      I’m ready to hit you hard. Rumsfeld doesn’t need to say he’s sorry but you do. You should be sorry for your leftest choice for President. Yeah, they the current one that rode the Zombie Time express. I’m sure I don’t need to say the name it’s on the tip of your tongue.

      • bs

        Neil whacked him an hour or two ago. Sorry, man…this one wasn’t my doing :-)

      • nessa

        Kind of like John Wayne in an old western movie. “I’m not gonna hit’cha… the Hell I’m not!” Or “We’re gonna give you a fair trial and then we’re gonna hang ya.”

        Or maybe Clint and Chief Dan George in the Outlaw Jose Wales,
        Clint: “Every time I get to liking somebody, they ain’t around long.”
        Chief Dan George: “I notice when you get to dislikin’ somebody, they ain’t around long neither.”

      • ecroper

        Youall are vicious, I must say though, you mak me laugh in the morning and I need to laugh. Thankyou. you all are funny!!

        • Richard Mullins

          I hope you get a lot more laughs as time goes along. We seem to have a lot of Wack-A-Mole contestants that come here and go on their Kammakazze raids. Leftists are as predictable as rain(well only when there’s a 100% chance of rain.)

  • blooch
  • anotherindyfilmguy

    but… perhaps the fromer administration should line up all the slader and sue the O for slander… make him defend himself in court… just a thought…

  • anotherindyfilmguy

    I meant “former” should sue for “slander”…
    yar…

  • http://itsonlywords55.wordpress.com itsonlywords

    Gibbs is a moron. Do you suppose he even knows who was Sec Def in 2008?

    • bk

      and ask each other how Obama managed to pick someone with the attitude of Ari Fleischer and the competence of Scott McClellan to be his front man. And I bet they long for the good old days when they could drool over Dana Perino instead of being forced to sit there while a buffoon like Gibbs talks down to them.

      • dudette

        He was great, Tony Snow was the greatest that ever did the job, but Ari was terrific IMHO

        • bk

          Ari was condescending to the press because he knew they hated his guts and were opposed to almost everything Bush did. Gibbs is condescending to them even though they are on his and Obama’s side 98% of the time. How stupid is that to piss off the people who want to paint your side in a positive light?

          • http://itsonlywords55.wordpress.com itsonlywords

            Of know that no matter or condescending or arrogant he is with the press, it’s still highly likely that they’ll paint the Administration in a positive light.

            I wish the press would hurry up and get tired of being taken for granted.

  • fayers

    When the big take over comes ( The Dictatership) the press is the first thing that will be taken over. The dummies don’t have enough sence to realize it.
    Fred Nashville, N.C.

  • brolis

    The reason Obama blames Bush for everything is that Bush is to blame for everything.