White House officials announced Friday that they know exactly how many jobs were created or saved through stimulus spending – down to the exact number.
That’s right! The White House has created or saved 640,329 jobs.
The only problem is that with all of their specificity they can’t tell you the difference between private sector jobs and government jobs.
Something smells fishy here, and never mind that just one day earlier, the Associated Press determined that the Barack Obama’s administration overstated stimulus jobs by the thousands.
You’re just supposed to buy this arbitrary number because.
No one’s buying the lie. Imagine if Bush was the one shoveling this steaming pile.
Update: Good news. After a few days traveling around the globe, I have created or saved 52,746,152 jobs. I can’t tell you where I created or saved these jobs, and I can’t tell you what kind of jobs I created … or saved. But I did it.
Prove me wrong.
You might think that after seventeen out of eighteen families told President Obama that they did not want their lost loved ones photographed with him that he would get the message. Most people can take a hint after one or two rejections. But not President Obama.
Only recently did Liz Cheney come out and say that President bush visited families of fallen soldiers. He did it without an entourage of photographers. Imagine how the media would react if Bush did it.
Note: This image has been modified to make a point. President Obama did not do this.
John “the censor” Kerry is at it again. This time he wants to censor a report from the Law Library about the military-backed coup in Honduras. From McClatchy:
The chairmen of the House and Senate foreign relations committees are asking the Law Library of Congress to retract a report on the military-backed coup in Honduras that they charge is flawed and “has contributed to the political crisis that still wracks” the country.
The request, by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. and Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., has sparked cries of censorship from Republicans who say the Democrats don’t like what the August report said: that the government of Honduras had the authority to remove President Manuel Zelaya from office.
Senator Kerry is all for free speech as long as it doesn’t affect him.
Unfortunately, Congressman Grayson is a bit misinformed about the
plans Republicans have presented, but were repeatedly rejected, to
President Obama.
Following are just some samples of what Republicans have presented but
but were rebuffed:
During then candidate Obama’s campaign, he made the same promise that if he was president he would begin the immediate removal of troops from Iraq:
In May 2008, Obama promised to end the war in 2009.
Obama: “When I promise that we are going to bring this war inIraq to a close in 2009, I want the American people to understand that I opposed this war in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, so you can have confidence that I will be serious about ending this war.”
(Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At The North Carolina Democrat Party 2008 Jefferson-Jackson Dinner,Raleigh, NC, 5/2/08)– Click Here To View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyxPxjtqDso
In April 2008, Obama reaffirmed his 16-month timetable; he did not say that it would be dictated by security on the ground.
NBC’s Meredith Vieira: “You’ve said when, Senator. You’ve said if you are elected, that within 16 months you’re going to bring all the troops home fromIraq. Senator McCain said yesterday that that is a reckless promise that you cannot possibly keep, a failure of leadership. And even military leaders say that any withdrawal of troops would be dictated by security on the ground. So how can you guarantee you can pull out those troops in just 16 months?”
Obama: “Meredith, I’ve been very consistent in saying that we are going to set a timetable and we will have a prudent pace of withdrawal, one to two brigades per month. At that pace we can have combat troops out within approximately 16 months.”
(NBC’s “The Today Show,” 4/8/08)In March 2008, Obama said he would “Immediately Begin To Remove Our Troops From Iraq And Have Them Out In 16 Months.”
Obama: “In order to end this war responsibly, I will immediately begin to remove our troops fromIraq. We can responsibly remove one to two combat brigades each month. If we start with the number of brigades we have inIraq today, we can remove all of them 16 months.”
(Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Iraq, Fayetteville, NC, 3/19/08)– Click Here To View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJlBF26y-O0
In November 2007, Obama said he would have troops out of Iraq “within 16 months”.
Obama: “I’ve been absolutely clear in terms of the approach that I would take. I would end this war, and I would have our troops out within 16 months.”
(NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 11/11/07)– Obama: “As president I will end this war in Iraq. We will have our troops home within 16 months.”
(Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At The Democrat National Committee Annual Fall Meeting,Vienna, VA, 11/30/07)– Obama said he would remove troops from Iraq in 16 months because “the overall strategy has failed.”
Obama: “But the overall strategy has failed, because we have not seen any change in behavior among Iraq’s political leaders. And that is the essence of what we should be trying to do in Iraq. That’s why I’m going to bring this war to a close. That’s why we can get our combat troops out within 16 months.”
(Sen. Barack Obama, CNN/Nevada Democrat Party Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate,Las Vegas, NV, 11/15/07)In September 2007, Obama called for the U.S. to “immediately begin to remove our combat troops” from Iraq.
Obama: “So let me be clear. There is no military solution in Iraq. There never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year, but now.”
(Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Iraq,Clinton, IA, 9/12/07)
Currently there are about 150,000 troops in Iraq – nowhere near a drawdown that was initially forecast. To be fair, President Obama said he would have the troops out by August of 2010, but we are not seeing hundreds of troops coming home month after month, right?
So why the change?
For one, Obama knew that he would have to listen to the commanders on the ground:
Obama: “I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed … And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.”
(Jeff Zeleny, “Obama: Open to ‘Refine’ Iraq Withdrawal Timeline,” The New York Times’ ”The Caucus” Blog, 7/3/08)
Now, it seems Obama is more inclined to listen to Senator (General?) Kerry ( instead of listening to General McChrystal’s recommendations from August) when it comes to adding more troops in Afghanistan:
Senator (General) John Kerry
“I am convinced, from my conversations with General Stanley McChrystal – and I’m grateful to him for the time he gave me there and even on the telephone since – he understands the necessity of conducting a smart counterinsurgency in a limited geographic area,” he said. “But I believe his current plan reaches too far, too fast.”
“We do not yet have the critical guarantees of governance and of development capacity – the other two legs of counterinsurgency,”
“I define success as the ability to empower and transfer responsibility to Afghans as rapidly as possible, and achieve a sufficient level of stability to ensure that we can leave behind an Afghanistan that is not controlled by al-Qaida or the Taliban,”
Which is it, President Obama?
And what if Bush did it?
This is the first post for “If Bush Did It …” blog, and already many other sites are wondering the same thing.
Ed Morissey at HotAir.com discusses Josh Gerstein’s article at Politico:
A four-hour stop in New Orleans, on his way to a $3 million fundraiser.
Signing off on a secret deal with drug makers.
Freezing out a TV network.
Doing more fundraisers than the last president. More golf, too.
Gerstein makes the point clearly:
But others say there’s a larger phenomenon at work — in the story line the media wrote about Obama’s presidency. For Bush, the theme was that of a Big Business Republican who rode the family name to the White House, so stories about secret energy meetings and a certain laziness, intellectual and otherwise, fit neatly into the theme, to be replayed over and over again.
Obama’s story line was more positive from the start: historic newcomer coming to shake up Washington. So the negatives that sprung up around Obama — like a sense that he was more flash than substance — track what negative coverage he’s received, captured in a recent “Saturday Night Live” skit that made fun of his lack of accomplishments in office.
The media helped define Obama and they shielded him from scrutiny. If he fails they fail along with him.
