Changing The Narrative: Rachel Maddow Praises Obama On Diplomacy In Libya

video

by Frances Martel | 10:18 pm, March 21st, 2011

» 117 comments

American intervention in the Libyan conflict appears to have many on all parts of the political spectrum feeling slightly queasy– after all, it is the nation’s third military front in the Middle East. But while some on the left are disappointed with President Obama’s decision to send military force there, Rachel Maddow argues that his talks with other nations and attempts to keep the Arab world at the forefront of the struggle are a sign he intends to keep his campaign promises.

“America as a country fights a lot of wars,” Maddow explained at the beginning of the segment, playing a montage of Oval Office speeches by Reagan, Clinton, and Bush announcing wars (“and those are just the ones they announced”). The significance of the profound Oval Office talk struck Maddow particularly– it’s a speech President Obama has yet to give, and this, she argues, was a deliberate choice. “He pointedly declined to do that in a way that presidents usually do,” she notes. While most presidents campaign on policies of peace– particularly jarring is footage of Governor George W. Bush proposing a “humble” foreign policy– President Obama, Maddow concludes, is giving it a shot: “The difference with Mr. Obama as president is that he appears to be walking more of that walk than just talking the talk.”

His talks with the United Nations and wait for “a clear international consensus” differ starkly from some of the more aggressive work Americans have seen from their presidents in the past. “The fact that he’s actually doing it as president is freaking out all corners of the political world that kind of liked the chest-thumping,” Maddow concludes. The idea behind President Obama’s insistence on talking to other nations, Maddow notes, is to “change the narrative.” “Do you want the narrative of America’s role in the world to be ‘America leads Western aggression against Arab countries?” she asks rhetorically. “President Obama wants the narrative to be something different” by showing reluctance to partake in the struggle, she continues. “H wants everybody to know how reluctant he was,” she concludes, while “trying to force to the forefront the Arab world.”

While Maddow neglects to mention the seemingly minor role Congress has taken in this intervention, few would be hard-pressed to disagree that President Obama is attempting to unite as many countries as possible behind military action before taking it– that France took the first step in entering Libyan airspace speaks for itself. Whether the strategy is wise or not, on the other hand, is a far deeper point of contention.

The segment via MSNBC below:

Arab League, barack obama, Bill Clinton, France, George W. Bush, Libya, military action, msnbc, Muammar Gaddafi, Oval Office speeches, Rachel Maddow, Ronald Reagan, UN

http://gordonbloyershow.com gordonbloyershow

This is just tooooooooooooo funny. Maddow the lap dog of Obama. LOL. It is sooooo hard to stop laughing. I don’t know how this clown can look at herself in the mirror. LOL
OxyCon

after all, it is the nation’s third military front in the Middle East.

First in North Africa you mean.
ImJustThatDamnGood

UN Approved unlike…
WCinWI

Haha watch it folks. We’re witnessing the live action of a media movement. Takes notes. :)
Dsiscokid

I’m amazed that she didn’t throw up after all of that spinning………
OxyCon

Is this some of that “useful information” Bill Wolff spoke about earlier? Or is it just Rachel Maddow doing her usual leftist spinning and leftist narrative crafting?

Bill Wolff: We’re not big on mission statements, I’ll confess, but, pressed to come up with one, I’d say: TRMS seeks every night to increase the amount of useful information in the world and to enunciate accurate, original narratives based solely on that information.
WildMan

Does this mean Mr. Maddow is getting thrills and tingles up the leg like Chrissy? What the hell is in the drinking water at PMSnbc? Maybve Rachael, Chrissy Matthews and Louis Farrakham need to discuss this amongst themselves.

Posted for The Church Lady
felixw

What a farce. Rachel Maddow didn’t want the US to take out Saddam Hussein. She didn’t want the US to support citizens protesting for liberty in Iran. She fiercely attacked the successful surge which turned the corner in Iraq, and put that country on the path of sustainable democracy. She won’t mention the words “Islamic terrorist” no matter how many suicide bombers kill innocent people….

But all of a sudden she becomes a hawk, when a Democrat, operating above his pay grade, mounts a half-baked bombing spree against a country that poses no threat to its neighbors and certainly none to the United States.

Rachel, you should go back to parsing Sarah Palin’s tweets. Foreign policy is clearly not your forte.
Utah Johnny Montana

Mister O. had to be dragged into this by Miss Hillary , who has actual cojones . He ain’t re-luctant . He can’t make no de-cision . This is messin’ up his Spring break .
Cancon2

But I think she is right, because she a great super smart Liberal and as everyone knows, Maddow is the greatest, smartest Liberal ever created. So, for all you know nothings, never say a bad word about our clipping collecting media maven. Her brain is huge!!!!! Don’t believe me? Ask a Liberal, THEY LOVE TALKING ABOUT THAT STUFF.
http://www.libertarianism.com/ Jack Burns

“Rachel Maddow Praises Obama On Diplomacy In Libya”

Ok I see how it works. As long as you are reluctant its alright to bomb brown people… Got it Rachel
joe7

I agree with the President on some things he’s doing like not sending in ground troops or aircraft. but he has been talking himself back and forth on this and all this seems a little late. He basically just went along with the UN and approved missile fire. I see that there are things to praise, but this is in my opinion ridiculous. She is praising him for not talking and addressing Congress in the matters of bombing another country. I know checks and balances are a thing of the past, but really? Quite a hefty decision I’m sure she would not have liked if Bush asserted that much power. Still, she did criticize Bush for addressing congress so I suppose this is more favorable in her eyes. His calm and reluctant manor that she praises is odd seeing that Obama has been secretly bombing countries since he has gotten into office, and without congressional approval. How grand
OxyCon

“…and of course, the White House knew that criticism would come. – Rachel Maddow

Does Maddow even watch her own network?

Chuck Todd: White House Caught a Little Off Guard By How Much Criticism They’re Getting From Members of Congress
CHUCK TODD: “Well, brian, it has to do with the fact that they were caught a little bit off guard by how much criticism they’re getting from members of congress, part of this is geographical. It would be a lot easier if the president were sitting in the oval office and a Republican senator, like Richard Lugar, has a bunch of questions, he physically brings them in.

Yes, they were able to let them know on the Friday before the president left what they were going to do but there wasn’t real consultation. that’s one aspect. there’s some senior aides that admit it would be a lot easier if they were in Washington and they could answer some of these questions before these senators went out there and started criticizing publicly.

http://www.hapblog.com/2011/03/chuck-todd-white-house-caught-little.html
david r

felixw said:
But all of a sudden she becomes a hawk, when a Democrat, operating above his pay grade, mounts a half-baked bombing spree against a country that poses no threat to its neighbors and certainly none to the United States.

Right on. Obama is taking the easy money here by bombing Khadaffi. It sure made Reagan popular.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Barbara-Hodges/100000863918892 Barbara Hodges

It’s obvious why she has a show and many of you commentators do not. IMO
Jean-Luc

Bush invades Middle East: (>_<)p

Obama invades Middle East: (^_^)b

Rachel Maddow, ladies and gents, proving once again that she's just as partisan as you think she is, despite all her protestations of "truth-seeking" and whatnot.

I at least respect Paul and Kucinich and Nader for having the same response to the issue, regardless of which President is in office.
Jean-Luc

OxyCon said:
Does Maddow even watch her own network?

She’s way too busy chasing down “stories no one else is bringing you,” obviously.
Lover

How many times did she bring up OBAMAS GHRAIB? 50 or 60 times? Will it be the main focus of tomorrows show, too?
the real john t

felixw said:
What a farce. Rachel Maddow didn’t want the US to take out Saddam Hussein. She didn’t want the US to support citizens protesting for liberty in Iran. She fiercely attacked the successful surge which turned the corner in Iraq,

That’s funny. She wasn’t even with MSNBC when the Iraq war started or when Saddam was taken out. Did you listen to her radio show before that? It’s strange that you hate someone as mush as you do her and listen to what she has to say.
Lover

the real john t said:
That’s funny. She wasn’t even with MSNBC when the Iraq war started or when Saddam was taken out. Did you listen to her radio show before that? It’s strange that you hate someone as mush as you do her and listen to what she has to say.

Oh, the irony.
OxyCon

Maddow repeatedly tries to camouflage Obama’s timidity by saying:

The idea behind President Obama’s insistence on talking to other nations, Maddow notes, is to “change the narrative.” “Do you want the narrative of America’s role in the world to be ‘America leads Western aggression against Arab countries?” she asks rhetorically. “President Obama wants the narrative to be something different” by showing reluctance to partake in the struggle, she continues. “H wants everybody to know how reluctant he was,” she concludes, while “trying to force to the forefront the Arab world.”

Which leads me to wonder…is Maddow willfully ignorant, or is she typically leaving out facts which would destroy her “narrative crafting”? Because as Bill Wolff would have you believe, Maddow “seeks to increase the amount of useful information in the world”. But if that were the case then Maddow would have informed her audience about the large coalitions, which included Muslim people and nations, which were formed prior to the first Gulf War and the second Gulf war.

But then again, if she were honest about it, that would have destroyed the “narrative” she was crafting, wouldn’t it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_Gulf_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq
Lover

maddow ghraib

About 407,000 results (0.41 seconds)

Ahhh, memories. ;)
the real john t

Lover said:
Oh, the irony.

So you can’t deny anything I wrote so you just make a snarky little remark just to be spouting off.
Lover

the real john t said:
So you can’t deny anything I wrote so you just make a snarky little remark just to be spouting off.

Do you watch or listen to Glenn Beck, Hannity or O’Reilly?
the real john t

Lover said:
Do you watch or listen to Glenn Beck, Hannity or O’Reilly?

Yeah, until I can’t stand it any more. So what’s your point?
Lover

the real john t said:
Yeah, until I can’t stand it any more. So what’s your point?

You’re asking me what my point is? Really? Wow.
Lover

I’ll give ya another chance to redeem yourself, ok?

Here goes…About how long do you watch or listen before you can’t stand it anymore?
OxyCon

If Maddow was as intellectually superior as she and he fans seem to think, you’d think she’d be able to tone down all of her arrogant smugness, condescension and derisiveness for at least ten minutes of her show.

She is God-awfully painful to endure watching. She’s like Keith Olbermann but with 100 times the testosterone.
the real john t

Lover said:
You’re asking me what my point is? Really? Wow.

Still can’t answer any question huh lovey.
Jean-Luc

Lover said:
Do you watch or listen to Glenn Beck, Hannity or O’Reilly?

I’m not sure it’s fair to lump them together like that. O’Reilly can be tough on the President, but I’ve seen him agree with him more than a few times as well. Hannity is forever a right-ist, but he tends to have some kind of fact, or figure, or logical argument behind what he’s saying, even if you disagree with his interpretation thereof.

Beck, on the other hand, is waaaaay off in la-la land. When I watch his show, I get the feeling he’s trying to convert me to something, not a religion, or a political movement…but like…his own personal philosophy of rightness.

And at least Hannity and O’Reilly have people that disagree with them on their shows, and pretty regularly, at that. I can’t think of a time Beck’s done that. Even when O’Reilly disagrees with him, he just smirks and mugs at the camera.
the real john t

Lover said:
I’ll give ya another chance to redeem yourself, ok?

Redeem MYSELF? You’re the one taking up for felix when he thinks Maddow was on MSNBC when the Iraq war started and Saddam was taken out. Now why don’t you face it, you’re a loser.
Lover

Jean-Luc said:
I’m not sure it’s fair to lump them together like that. O’Reilly can be tough on the President, but I’ve seen him agree with him more than a few times as well. Hannity is forever a right-ist, but he tends to have some kind of fact, or figure, or logical argument behind what he’s saying, even if you disagree with his interpretation thereof.

Beck, on the other hand, is waaaaay off in la-la land. When I watch his show, I get the feeling he’s trying to convert me to something, not a religion, or a political movement…but like…his own personal philosophy of rightness.

And at least Hannity and O’Reilly have people that disagree with them on their shows, and pretty regularly, at that. I can’t think of a time Beck’s done that. Even when O’Reilly disagrees with him, he just smirks and mugs at the camera.

He was accusing someone else ? of not watching or listening to maddow therefor claiming they had no right to criticize her. That’s why I asked him if he watched those 3 Fox News hosts because he spends a good part of his life calling all of them hateful names.
DEFENDER-90

ImJustThatDamnGood–”UN APPROVED UNLIKE”

So as long as the UN approves its good enough for you.Weather or not the constitution or congress is relevant is of no consequence to you, let’s not concern ourselves with trivialities.
Jean-Luc

“H wants everybody to know how reluctant he was,”

Typo alert, second one tonight, come on guys.
Lover

the real john t said:
Redeem MYSELF? You’re the one taking up for felix when he thinks Maddow was on MSNBC when the Iraq war started and Saddam was taken out. Now why don’t you face it, you’re a loser.

Well, that didn’t take long, did it?
Jean-Luc

Lover said:
He was accusing someone else ? of not watching or listening to maddow therefor claiming they had no right to criticize her. That’s why I asked him if he watched those 3 Fox News hosts because he spends a good part of his life calling all of them hateful names.

Larger point is taken, however I still think it’s important to draw distinctions between the individuals. Equating them just plays into the FOX “NEWS” LIES! crowd’s narrative.
same2u

the real john t said:
Now why don’t you face it, you’re a loser.

Lover reminds me of Garth in many ways.
Lover

johnt, can you kindly show us where felix claimed maddow was on msnbc back then? Thanks.
the real john t

Lover said:
Well, that didn’t take long, did it?

You can’t refute anything I write. All you can do is make up silly little remarks. Plus why don’t you prove to everyone I spend a “good part” of my time calling O’Reilly, Hannity and Beck hateful names. You’re the one that claimed it, now back it up with proof.
Lover

the real john t said:
You can’t refute anything I write. All you can do is make up silly little remarks. Plus why don’t you prove to everyone I spend a “good part” of my time calling O’Reilly, Hannity and Beck hateful names. You’re the one that claimed it, now back it up with proof.

In due time. First, tell us how long you watch Fox News before you can’t stand it anymore.
kvon

You Conservatives aren’t even trying anymore…come on, pick up the pace!

There is not one thing on here even interesting, or so offensive that it has some interest…
Lover

also, show us where felix claimed maddow was on msnbc back then. Thanks, again.
fishchef

It seems that so many of these discussions end up in just a bunch of insults being thrown back and forth. We all know that both the Conservative Right Wing Republican side and the LIberal Left Wing Democrat side believes that the other side doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Liberals think George Bush is a moron, that he got us into this recession and the wars and that Fox News is full of liars and that rich people are causing an imbalance in the economy and they’re the real cause of unemployment and the shrinking middle class. Conservatives think Obama is a socialist determined to bring the country to ruin and Democrats want to give away the country to the Mexicans and the Lame Stream Media are a bunch of liars, and that liberals don’t have a brain. And Liberals don’t know why the idiot Conservatives don’t have a clue and Conservatives don’t know why idiot Liberals don’t have a clue. Obviously both sides can’t be right. Right? So if someone doesn’t think like you, they must be stupid because they can’t see your point of view. Well maybe there’s more than one point of view. Maybe even though you think the YOU are the one that has it all figured out, maybe you don’t. Maybe your right about some things, but not everything. Everyone has an opinion, and it’s ok for everyone to have an opinion. Isn’t it better to express your view to someone else, try to show them your side of the story and then allow them to express their opinion and maybe look at it through their eyes? Isn’t it a more productive discussion? If you’ve done some research on a subject, include it. Enlighten others.
Ah, never mind, screw it. Keep calling each other idiots.
the real john t

felixw said:
But all of a sudden she becomes a hawk, when a Democrat, operating above his pay grade, mounts a half-baked bombing spree against a country that poses no threat to its neighbors and certainly none to the United States.

Do you agree with felix on that lovey? That sounds like someone that was in the White House before Obama. Can you say Iraq?
Lover

the real john t said:
Do you agree with felix on that lovey? That sounds like someone that was in the White House before Obama. Can you say Iraq?

Now, you’re changing the subject, johnt. How come? Show us where felix said that maddow was on msnbc back then. You made the claim so at least admit you’re wrong or prove you’re right. Should be fairly simple.
the real john t

Lover said:
In due time. First, tell us how long you watch Fox News before you can’t stand it anymore.

About 10mins. Now start answering my questions to you.
the real john t

Lover said:
Show us where felix said that maddow was on msnbc back then.

Where do you think he came up with this fabrication from?

felixw says:
March 21, 2011 at 10:31 pm felixw(Quote)
13 4
What a farce. Rachel Maddow didn’t want the US to take out Saddam Hussein. She didn’t want the US to support citizens protesting for liberty in Iran.
IsaacHale

Thanks for the writeup, but I take issue with you saying that “Maddow neglects to mention the seemingly minor role Congress has taken in this intervention”. She spends her ENTIRE NEXT SEGMENT (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#42204168) talking about that!

Come on. You have to do your homework before making criticism. This is pretty basic.
TfT

This is the dem agenda tht rachel is pushing. Her liberal friend and colleague andrea mitchell pushed the exact sme line earlier in the day. The thought isn’t even original to rachel – she has to mimic her elder at nbc

She is not a serious journalist

She is laughable – rachel and andrea are liberal loons together. Whaat a joke
Lover

the real john t said:
About 10mins. Now start answering my questions to you.

Hey, now we’re getting somewhere and you didn’t even call me any names. I appreciate that and gladly accept your apology for calling me a loser, earlier. Now, show the class where felix said that maddow was on msnbc way back when like you claimed he did.
Jean-Luc

fishchef said: TL;DR Both sides call names.

I gave you a thumbs up for content, but you need to learn to use paragraph breaks.
the real john t

Lover said:
I appreciate that and gladly accept your apology for calling me a loser, earlier.

I never apologized to you idiot. Now prove where I spend a lot of my time calling O’Reilly, Hannity and Beck hateful names or just admit you lied about it.
Lover

the real john t said:
Where do you think he came up with this fabrication from?

felixw says:
March 21, 2011 at 10:31 pm felixw(Quote)
13 4
What a farce. Rachel Maddow didn’t want the US to take out Saddam Hussein. She didn’t want the US to support citizens protesting for liberty in Iran.

How do you know felix didn’t listen to her radio show on a regular basis back then? Also, if recall, she used ti fill in for Keith Olbermann every time a story broke that he didn’t want to cover which was fairly often. The point I’m trying to make is you put words in his mouth and that’s not fair at all. Would you like it if I said that you said something that you in actuality didn’t really say? Of course you wouldn’t and I’m quite sure you would start calling me names.
the real john t

Lover said:
The point I’m trying to make is you put words in his mouth and that’s not fair at all. Would you like it if I said that you said something that you in actuality didn’t really say?

You’ve already done that to me.
the real john t

BTW lovey, why are you taking up for felix? Could you be one and the same?
Lover

the real john t said:
You’ve already done that to me.

I did? Where?
http://www.libertarianism.com/ Jack Burns

fishchef said:
It seems that so many of these discussions end up in just a bunch of insults being thrown back and forth. We all know that both the Conservative Right Wing Republican side and the LIberal Left Wing Democrat side believes that the other side doesn’t know what they’re talking about..

Hey to us Libertarians its better then watching two rabid pit Bulls fighting to the death. Good stuff here!
Jean-Luc

the real john t said:
Where do you think he came up with this fabrication from?

felixw says:
March 21, 2011 at 10:31 pm felixw(Quote)
13 4
What a farce. Rachel Maddow didn’t want the US to take out Saddam Hussein. She didn’t want the US to support citizens protesting for liberty in Iran.

I’m just gonna leave this right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3epPRpt2wHY
the real john t

Lover said:
I did? Where?

Lover said:
That’s why I asked him if he watched those 3 Fox News hosts because he spends a good part of his life calling all of them hateful names.

With out any proof of it when asked for it. WOULD you like to apologize now?
Lover

I think jean-luc has something for ya. ;)
the real john t

Lover said:
I think jean-luc has something for ya. ;)

OH! So now you don’t have anything to say about mu last comment?
fishchef

Jean-Luc said:
I gave you a thumbs up for content, but you need to learn to use paragraph breaks.

Thanks.

For the tip.
Lover

http://www.blogger.com/profile/05837926732257281436
Lover

johnt, you owe felix an apology, too.
the real john t

Lover said:
http://www.blogger.com/profile/05837926732257281436

Is that suppose to mean something, stalker? Like I said before, are you and felix one and the same?
the real john t

Where did olby sucks err felix err lover,etc,etc go? Oh, thats right, he’s got to log in and off and back on under his many sockpuppets to vote on the thumbs. That kid leads an exciting life.
Michael Charles

Hey Lover…

I just checked out that link you posted. I guess you are about the dumbest son of a bitch that ever showed up here. Leave. Shut up.
Lover

Michael Charles said:
Hey Lover…

I just checked out that link you posted. I guess you are about the dumbest son of a bitch that ever showed up here. Leave. Shut up.

I can’t help it cause johnt has the lamest blog on the internets. Take it up with him, “michael charles.”
Lover

the real john t said:
Where did olby sucks err felix err lover,etc,etc go? Oh, thats right, he’s got to log in and off and back on under his many sockpuppets to vote on the thumbs. That kid leads an exciting life.

WTF? What is it with you people?
the real john t

Lover said:
I can’t help it cause johnt has the lamest blog on the internets. Take it up with him, “michael charles.”

I don’t have a blog on the internet. Now would you like to apologize? Or go back under your many sockpuppets and vote on the thumbs? Or maybe you could try getting a life.
Lover

the real john t said:
I don’t have a blog on the internet. Now would you like to apologize? Or go back under your many sockpuppets and vote on the thumbs? Or maybe you could try getting a life.

It’s just a coincidence that all the people on your “friends” list post at newshounds? ROFL!
Lover

Lemme guess, you’ve never heard of Count Istvan, right?
Lover

Never heard of visitor55, either, right?
Lover

I’m done ridiculing you. Actually, you did it for me. Well, jean-luc helped, too. Wait, is that me, too?
the real john t

Lover said:
It’s just a coincidence that all the people on your “friends” list post at newshounds? ROFL!

It’s just a coincidence that you go by ‘mrbody’ over at the Dollar Dump.

Lover said:
Lemme guess, you’ve never heard of Count Istvan, right?

Yeah, I’ve heard of him and like him a lot. But I haven’t been on that blog for over a year. Now would you like to apologize?

Really, I don’t want an apology from a sorry ass like you, but I’m just throwing back at you the shit you Dollarettes throw around. You’re always demanding someone apologize to you. Like your self esteem is so low you cry out for sympathy.
louda

Don’t worry about lover he’s te typical teabagger that ignores your points when he can’t respond to them.
Lover

Now I’m mrnobody, too? OMG! What’s a dollar dump? Another one of your blogs you don’t have?
WCinWI

I’ve had to deal with Mr. T.. He’s quite a rude poster. There are many more rude ones that he, but he’s still rude. :)
WCinWI

Lover said:
Now I’m mrnobody, too? OMG! What’s a dollar dump? Another one of your blogs you don’t have?

Yessssssss, you know that whole right wing conspiracy on poster fraud. Our organizations is called W.A.L.N.U.T.S..
WCinWI

P.S. I’m tired of Rachel ALWAYS wearing black or gray. Can MSNBC not afford a bigger wardrobe budget? Sheesh.
the real john t

louda said:
Don’t worry about lover he’s te typical teabagger that ignores your points when he can’t respond to them.

Yeah, you’ve got that right. He can’t respond to anything except to make snarky little remarks.

WCinWI said:
I’ve had to deal with Mr. T.. He’s quite a rude poster. There are many more rude ones that he, but he’s still rude. :)

Saya the woman that’s got a communist governor of her state that she praises.
the real john t

WCinWI said:
P.S. I’m tired of Rachel ALWAYS wearing black or gray. Can MSNBC not afford a bigger wardrobe budget?

Then don’t watch her, DUUUUHHHH!!!
Lover

louda said:
Don’t worry about lover he’s te typical teabagger that ignores your points when he can’t respond to them.

What points?
Lover

the real john t said:
Where do you think he came up with this fabrication from?

felixw says:
March 21, 2011 at 10:31 pm felixw(Quote)
13 4
What a farce. Rachel Maddow didn’t want the US to take out Saddam Hussein. She didn’t want the US to support citizens protesting for liberty in Iran.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3epPRpt2wHY

This point?
the real john t

Lover said:
What points?

You never answered one question I asked you. You always came back with some juvenile remark. Just shows how ignorant you are.
WCinWI

the real john t said:
Then don’t watch her, DUUUUHHHH!!!

I don’t. :) Did I say that I watched her? I think you’re letting those pesky little things called facts get in the way again.

Obama the neocon….how’s that bumper sticker gonna work? :)
the real john t

Lover said:
This point?

You didn’t answer that idiot.
the real john t

WCinWI said:
I don’t. :) Did I say that I watched her? I think you’re letting those pesky little things called facts get in the way again.

Then why are you bitching about what she wears?
Lover

the real john t said:
I don’t have a blog on the internet. Now would you like to apologize? Or go back under your many sockpuppets and vote on the thumbs? Or maybe you could try getting a life.

http://www.blogger.com/profile/05837926732257281436

Or this point?
Lover

the real john t said:
You never answered one question I asked you. You always came back with some juvenile remark. Just shows how ignorant you are.

Are you bombed out of your mind or what? Wow.
The Tea Weasel®

WCinWI said:
P.S. I’m tired of Rachel ALWAYS wearing black or gray. Can MSNBC not afford a bigger wardrobe budget? Sheesh.

Wow. Now there is one woman’s sharp critique of another. No wonder women can’t seem to break the glass ceiling. Too busy beating the crap out of each other with tampons and stabbing each other with eyeliner pencils.

Do you attack her because you are still feeling remorse over your college lesbian dalliance? Just don’t tell your future ex-husband, otherwise he will make you pray with him every day for forgiveness.
Lover

the real john t said:
Then why are you bitching about what she wears?

Free country?
the real john t

Lover said:
Are you bombed out of your mind or what? Wow.

Yet another juvenile comment.

Lover said:
http://www.blogger.com/profile/05837926732257281436

What are to trying to prove with that stalker, that you’re an asshole. Well I think you’ve already done that.
the real john t

the real john t said:
What are to trying

What are ‘you’ trying…
WCinWI

the real john t said:
You never answered one question I asked you. You always came back with some juvenile remark. Just shows how ignorant you are.

No, I think Lover pretty much said that Rachel didn’t have to be on her show in order to think the thoughts expressed by Felix or whomever. Also, Rachel has filled in for Keith in the past (Keith liked to take MANY, MANY days off) and seeing as Keith is a progressive, likely fit Keith’s characteristics on war. Chris Hayes also filled in for Keith and Rachel on numerous occasions so he’d be a good war barometer.
WCinWI

the real john t said:
Then why are you bitching about what she wears?

Because I’m a chick and that’s what chicks do.

Clue for $500 Alex.
Lover

If you don’t want people to know you have a blog maybe you shouldn’t call it “johnt.”
WCinWI

the real john t said:
Then why are you bitching about what she wears?

Oh and let’s try not to swear.
WCinWI

The Tea Weasel® said:
Wow. Now there is one woman’s sharp critique of another. No wonder women can’t seem to break the glass ceiling. Too busy beating the crap out of each other with tampons and stabbing each other with eyeliner pencils.

Do you attack her because you are still feeling remorse over your college lesbian dalliance? Just don’t tell your future ex-husband, otherwise he will make you pray with him every day for forgiveness.

I wouldn’t comment on the “making fun of women” idea there TW. Just saying.

Do not open that can.
the real john t

Lover said:
If you don’t want people to know you have a blog maybe you shouldn’t call it “johnt.”

Just to show how ignorant you are, I don’t have a blog. Why don’t you give the name of the blog and people can go there and see if I’ve been on there for the last year. No, you won’t do that because you know I am right and you’re lying out your ass.
Lover

john t

“”My Blogs”

Team Members
Banned And Dangerous Ministries! Count Istvan Jonathan Yakki.Psd RalphyFan
Lover

Looks to me like it says “My blogs.”
Lover

I forgot, you haven’t been there for a year so it’s not your blog.
the real john t

Lover said:
Looks to me like it says “My blogs.”

Like I said, give the name of the blog and let people go there and see if I’ve even been on it for the past year or stfu about it. You’re just showing your stupity.
Lover

Nobody wants to see your dumb blog.
Lover

Apparently, even you think it’s dumb. ROFL!
the real john t

Lover said:
I forgot, you haven’t been there for a year so it’s not your blog.

It was never my blog. It was Count Istivans. Now give it up you ignorant POS.
Lover

I voted you up to make you feel better about yourself. ;)
Lover

nite, sweetcheeks. ;)
the real john t

Lover said:
I voted you up to make you feel better about yourself. ;)

Oh WOW!!! Like I really give a shit about those thumbs votes. Shouldn’t you be logging off and on to vote on them like you usually do?
hanyue321

I enjoyed reading your nice blog. I see you offer priceless info. Congratulations, and keep posting to us. Do have some sort of email system where your blog posts emailed to me?
bobmoses

““a clear international consensus”?

What? China, Russia and Germany all oppose this war.

France is with us this time. Big deal. Sorry, cupcake. France’s participation is not the only determinant on what is “international consensus”. Bush got far, far more European countries to actually participate.

The liberal hypocrisy regarding Libya and Iraq is laughable, but expected.
Nationman

bobmoses said:
““a clear international consensus”? What? China, Russia and Germany all oppose this war. France is with us this time. Big deal. Sorry, cupcake. France’s participation is not the only determinant on what is “international consensus”. Bush got far, far more European countries to actually participate. The liberal hypocrisy regarding Libya and Iraq is laughable, but expected.

the arab league and the un security council all voted in favor of it, so yes there is a lot more support for it.
Steve_27

Oh my Lordy, I forgot what a mess this shaved down Olberman look-a-like is.

“Governer” Bush’s “humble” foreign policy invocation was obviously BEFORE 9/11. Nah! An incident like that doesn’t change anything! “Jar” yourself from a high window Frances!

I know libs stay stupid because they just read other libs, but shouldn’t someone with her own tv show get her head out of her ass? Bush had more countries involved with his wars then BO does with his futile bad decision. Does she really not know this, the dumb bitch!

She stay’s on stupid, showing concern that we wouldn’t want the narrative to be “America leads western aggression against Arab countries.” This does not matter to our real enemies. We are already and have been THE GREAT SATAN for decades! If Germany Englan and France, alone, started a war anywhere over there and BO said “Hi” to Sarkozy via the land line, they would still be screaming “Death to the infidels” and you would be a schmuck to think we wouldn’t be on the poo list.

Showing “reluctance” is exactly the problem! Either you do it right and take the lead or sit the hell out! We are only seen by our enemies as weaker and that is all that matters. Not some community organizers idiotic concern that we’ve been unnecessarily bullying other countries and that we need to now make up for it.
felixw

david r said:
Right on. Obama is taking the easy money here by bombing Khadaffi. It sure made Reagan popular.

Remember that Reagan was responding specifically to Libyan confrontations with US air force over the right to fly over international waters in the Gulf of Sidra, as well as to terrorist acts Libya was funding in other countries. Libya had instituted its so-called “line of death” in the Gulf and was directly confronting the US. And in response, Reagan authorized a single bombing mission, which successfully deterred Libya from further escapades in the Gulf of Sidra.

Compare with Obama. Currently Libya poses no threat to its neighbors, and certainly not to the United States. Yet Obama has engaged on an open-ended mission with no clear goals or exit plan — while already involved in two other military operations. I only wish Obama had Reagan’s wisdom in such situations.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Bob-Hubble/100001340708758 caconservative

It’s interesting that Obimbo waited to make his announcement when Congress was not in session, and he was in Brazil. This clown is trying to maintain that this a humanitarian effort. Under the PA this, or any other presidential jerk cannot not order military action on their own unless the U.S. is in imminent danger. Does any part of that prerequisite apply to Libya?
http://Mediaite.com uggugg

Following is the scenario I personally would like Obama to explore in order to bring this new war to a quick ending for the benefit of all involved, to make America look like a true peace maker and a fair player along with being looked at as a excellent ally. To start with I would phone a few of our potential future allies and a few of our present allies and see who may consider accepting Gaddafi as a leader in exile. If I had any success with this idea, I would proceed to calling Gaddafi himself and in the most diplomatic voice possible, I would explain the dangers that are facing him and his opponents in as few as words as possible and at the same time ask him his opinion as to where he thinks this new uprising will end along with letting him know I have taken it upon myself to contact a few other nations on his behalf to see if any of them would accept him in life with peace where he can live out his Senior years without harassment or fear of retribution. I would tell him to think this over for three days then I will call him back. After our next phone call, if he declines the offer this time, no more offers will follow and he is on his own. This offer is too good for Gaddafi but it is the very best offer for the rest of the world without going into detail of the benefits awaiting the rest of the world if Gaddafi leaves Libya as soon as possible. Is this fair? NO. Is it right for the rest of the world? YES