By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist
Parents across the land are acting ignorantly on the eve of President Barack Obama's scheduled "stay-in-school" speech to students on Tuesday.
Throw some superintendents and teachers into that category, too. They unfortunately are giving in to pressure from outraged parents and now saying the president's speech won't be shown to their students.
How absurd. And how disrespectful of the office of the President of the United States.
On Sunday, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan put the best face on the issue, trying his best not to criticize the sheer nonsense spouted by right-wing parents around the nation.
"At the end of the day, if the president motivates one C-student to become a B-student or one student who is thinking about dropping out to stay in school and take their education seriously, it's all worth it," Duncan said on "Face the Nation."
The parents who are thinking of pulling their kids out of school on Tuesday are engaging in outrageous behavior.
Oh, and ignorant behavior, too.
Duncan didn't go that far, but came close.
"They can go to school and not watch," he said of students. "It's just going to be an 18-minute speech. That doesn't make any sense. … Schools can do this. They cannot do it. They can watch it during the school day. Children can watch it at home with their families. They can watch it a month from now. They can never watch it. It's purely voluntary."
As I have noted before, the Obama administration has made its share of errors regarding the address, too.
An early lesson planned called on students to write something that would help the president do his job. That stepped over the political lines.
And the administration, at the first hint of GOP criticism, could have released a text of the speech.
It will be available on Monday, which should help calm the waters a bit.
But not, of course, for all the Obama haters who will never like a single thing he does -- up to and including urging their children to stay in school, work hard and contribute to society.
Delicious
Digg
اغاني جديدة
اغاني جديدة |
اغاني خليجية |
اغاني |
اغاني سعودية |
اغاني كويتية mp3
اغاني اماراتية |
اغاني لبنانية |
اغاني مصرية |
اغاني شامية |
اغاني سورية |
اغاني عراقية |
اغاني مغربية |
اغاني عربية |
اغاني يمنية |
البومات جديدة |
اغاني MP3 |
طرب |
اغاني اجنبية |
اغاني جلسات |
اغاني شعبية |
اغاني ريمكسات |
تحميل اغاني mp3 |
اغاني طربيه |
احدث الالبومات |
احدث الالبومات الخليجية |
احدث الالبومات المصرية |
اخر الالبومات |
جديد الالبومات |
جديد الاغاني |
جديد الاغاني |
تحميل اغاني |اغاني جديده | خريطة الموقع |
اغاني طربية |
االبومات mp3 |
احدث الالبومات العربيةمنتديات السيف اون لاين ,السيف , اون لاين ,منتديات , دليل , دليل مواقع , ارشف موقعك , خريطة الموقع , الفديو والصوتيات و مقاطع اليوتيوب youtube , منتدى التصاميم والجرافيك , قسم الفيديو والتسجيلات الاسلاميه , قسـم الصـور والتصوير الفوتوغرافي , دروس سبيسات msn spaces , منتدى الشباب العربي , الديكور واكسسورات المنزل , حديث الاسبوع , منتدى الطفل المميز , منتدى الأكلات الشهيه , أكلات الرجيم , قسم الاطباق الرئيسية , قسم الحلويات , قسم المعجنات , قسم السلطات و المقبلات و الخضروات , قسم المشروبات , منتدى الرياضه , قسم الفيديوهات الرياضية , منتدى الكمبيوتر والانترنت العام , الجوالات و الاتصالات والمسجات وتطبيقات الجيل الثالث , السويتش ماكس SwishMax , مدرسه الفوتوشوب , منتدى السيارات , مواقع ومنتديات إسلامية , مواقع الـعلماء والدعاة , منتديات خليجيه وعربيه , مواقع الرحلات البرية , مواقع الثقافة والأدب والعلوم , مواقع الأدب والشعر , مواقع التسلية والترفيه , مواقع الطب والعلاج , مواقع التوظيف والعمل , مواقع التجارة والأسواق , مواقع السياحه والسفر , مواقع الصحف والمجلات , الصحف السعودية , الصحف الكويتية , الصحف الإماراتية , الصحف القطريه , إخبارية ووكالات الأنباء , مواقع قبائل وأنساب عربية , البريد الالكتروني العربية , البريد الالكتروني الانجليزية , مواقع المجموعات البريدية , مواقع تخص الرياضة , اللاعبين ومشاهير الرياضة , مواقع أندية عربية وعالمية , مواقع الكمبيوتر والبرامج , مواقع الدروس والتعليم , الصور والتصاميم الجاهزة , مواقع تقديم خدمة الأنترنت , مواقع التصميم والاستضافة , اسكربتات وبرامج المواقع , سباقات المواقع , مواقع الأدله والبحث , مواقع البنوك والمصارف , الخدمات العامة ومراكز التحميل , مواقع الدردشات , مواقع الدردشة الكتابية , مواقع الدردشة الصوتية, معرض سبيسات msn spaces , منتدى الألعاب الالكترونيه وأجهزة Playstation 3 و Xbox360 , تطوير الذات - تنمية القدرات - تنمية العقل---مطبخ الخليج دردشة شات الخليج منتديات الخليج دليل الخليج شات الخليج شات الخليج الكتابي منتديات الخليج مركز تحميل عينين كويتيات 666 منتديات كويتيات 666 كويتيات 777 عينين دردشة الخليج
I hope Keith B has health
I hope Keith B has health care insurance. I think his head is about to explode.
Yael you are out of line.
PARENTS have a RIGHT to know what their children are being taught.
As I have said several times already, if all this is going to be is a 'study hard' and 'stay in school' speech, then fine. Make it available to parents on the web in advance so they can preview it. Many parents do not allow their children to watch anything they do not preview or watch with them. That is their right and RESPONSIBILITY.
Given the lesson plan, there is significant and legitimate concern that this was originally intended to be a policital speech encouraging children to get their parents to support the President's agenda. That is unacceptable.
In addition, the President's judgement can no longer be trusted. His appointment of a '911 Truther' as a CZAR demonstrates that. Either he has the worst vetting team in history or he knew about Jones history. In either case, his judgement is suspect until he PROVES otherwise by fixing the problems in his administration.
the irony of it all
As I have said several times already, if all this is going to be is a 'study hard' and 'stay in school' speech, then fine. Make it available to parents on the web in advance so they can preview it. Many parents do not allow their children to watch anything they do not preview or watch with them. That is their right and RESPONSIBILITY.
Given the lesson plan, there is significant and legitimate concern that this was originally intended to be a policital speech encouraging children to get their parents to support the President's agenda. That is unacceptable.
In addition, the President's judgement can no longer be trusted. His appointment of a '911 Truther' as a CZAR demonstrates that. Either he has the worst vetting team in history or he knew about Jones history. In either case, his judgement is suspect until he PROVES otherwise by fixing the problems in his administration.
Are you serious? Funny you should mention the "911 truthers" in your post because you guys are starting to sound like the conservative equivalents of those people...
Like I said before, even if you disagree with the content of the speech there's no reason to pull your children out of school for the day. Have a healthy talk with them about the speech, sure, but forbidding them from seeing it only teaches them to hide their head in the sand every time someone comes by with an idea they don't agree with. With parents like that it's no wonder the general public is so ill-informed about the issues.
This President's Judgment Can't Be Trusted?
Are you kidding me? GWB led us into a trillion dollar war based on phony intelligence and you want to tell me President Obama can't be trusted. GWB was telling the world 9/11 was tied to Iraq.
CSMonitor reported that 3 percent of Americans thought Iraq had something to do with 9/11 immediately after 9/11. Yet by Jan 2003, 44 percent Americans thought that all or 'some of the hijackers on 9/11 were Iraqi citizens.'
And you want to tell me Obama can't be trusted.
Drink some more of that Republican Kool-Aid. Y'all got your butts kicked the last two elections. If you don't WISE UP, we'll clean house in 2012. You'd better start listening to a real conservative and get your heads out of your rear ends. You'd better listen to what Newt G is telling his own party. These ain't the Republicans of RR or of 1994. Wake up and smell the coffee.
No one seems to acknowledge that
Obama's original message to the school children is what the conservatives were concerned about. Since then, Obama has changed the intended message.
.
He changed the message AFTER the uproar.
.
But don't let facts and timing get in the way of your criticism.
Where were the conservatives
Where were the conservatives when Ronald Reagan, George Bush Sr and George Bush Jr talking to our school kids and no parents were around? Reagan discussed gun control (waiting periods) and Bush Sr discussed his Education Plan. You don't think that rises to the level of indoctrination?
Even Laura Bush supports the speech and said she thinks Obama is doing a good job under difficult circumstances.
Proof? And even if he did
.
He changed the message AFTER the uproar.
.
But don't let facts and timing get in the way of your criticism.
Proof? The only thing I heard he changed was the "help the president" activity, but I hardly see how something like that can be considered partisan politics.
And even if he did have a "socialist" message to it that you disagree with, use it as a discussion point for your children rather than just holding your hand in front of their eyes...
Help the President Comment
As an educator, I'm glad someone is asking the kids what input they would have, to make a better learning environment for them. In my own county, there is so much arrogance with the local Board of Education, the teachers are blackballed and labeled if they suggest something that is out of the box from the local school board Superintendent. Meanwhile, our scores lag statewide averages, and our statewide averages lag the national averages. Students have very few advocates, our BOE continues in its arrogance and our students continue to suffer.
Who do you think understands first hand what they don't understand and what 'ain't' working for them? Note: It's not the arrogant administrators and their cronies, it's the students!
Parents are crazy...
I rarely call anyone stupid, but if you held your child back from school in order to prevent them from listening to the president, you are stupid and you are teaching your children to be the same way. Even if you disagree with the current administration's policies, censorship is not the answer here. By doing so you are only promoting ignorance, not to mention depriving your child of a full days worth of school.
I wonder if these parents are so quick to pull the plug on overly sexual/violent TV show/music/video games. Something tells me that in their twisted minds watching a speech from our president is much more dangerous that seeing people kill each other...
Shut Up & Listen to President
Whoa, it's our perogative to decide if our children should listen to this man, president or not.
Why would we want our children exposed to a person who has lead us down the beaten path with one lie after another.
Hailing from Arizona, a state with unemployment over 13%, homes being foreclosed, people losing jobs, old established businesses shutting their doors and you say "Shut Up and Listen."
As Always, Annie
Reply to Annie
Annie: You were obviously asleep much of the past year. This time last year, the Bush administration had us on the verge of a total economic meltdown. Every economist on television was saying that not only were we in danger of another Great Depression, but that we were in danger of a worldwide financial collapse.
The Obama administration is not the one that has lied to you repeatedly.
Most economists now agree that via the latest stimulus package, that Obama has at least stopped the downward spiral. If you'll do some research, find out how many jobs were lost under the GWB administration. Now, any semi-intelligent person would understand that just because Obama was inaugurated, that in itself doesn't jolt businesses to begin hiring again. In other words, there has to be policies put in place. Once these policies are put in place, it generally takes anywhere from a few months up to a year and a half for the results to come to fruition.
Considering that Obama's stimulus has apparently stopped the downward spiral, that's certainly a step in the right direction. Unlike during Bush's tenure, Obama doesn't appear to be asleep at the wheel.
Ignoramus
The Obama administration is not the one that has lied to you repeatedly.
Most economists now agree that via the latest stimulus package, that Obama has at least stopped the downward spiral. If you'll do some research, find out how many jobs were lost under the GWB administration. Now, any semi-intelligent person would understand that just because Obama was inaugurated, that in itself doesn't jolt businesses to begin hiring again. In other words, there has to be policies put in place. Once these policies are put in place, it generally takes anywhere from a few months up to a year and a half for the results to come to fruition.
Considering that Obama's stimulus has apparently stopped the downward spiral, that's certainly a step in the right direction. Unlike during Bush's tenure, Obama doesn't appear to be asleep at the wheel.
The unemployment rate is now 9.7%. It was 7.7% when Bush left office. Yes, Obama's "stimulus" has done a great job.
Groenhagen, How Old Are You?
Are you serious? GWB left this country in the worst economic debacle in 70 years. Given that Obama had to get yet another stimulus package through to avert a total economic collapse in not only the U.S., but worldwide, do you really think businesses were hiring?
Tell you what. Why don't you Google "jobs created, by President" You'll find that George W Bush created around 3 million jobs in 8 years, the LOWEST number per year of any president since before Truman. You'll also see that his daddy, Bush Sr created only 2.5 million, but did it in 4 years. Even Jimmy Carter created 10 million in 4 years. Bill Clinton created 23 million in 8 years. RR created 16 million in 8 years. You want to talk about jobs? You REALLY need to do your homework. Even during 1982-87, RR's unemployment was as high, if not higher than President Obama's You're really short-sighted to say the least. Tell you what, dude. Do your homework before you spew your ignorance. You don't have a clue.
TRUST ME. You really don't.
Ranting and raving...
These conservatives who are hollering and squawking about the speech are so woefully misguided. These are the same people who think it's perfectly fine to indoctrinate kids on the Christian faith in public schools, but cry foul when the president wants to tell kids to stay in school.
The administration admitted it made a mistake in the wording of the lesson plan. They changed it. Wow, how MATURE and ethical of them, no? Then why can't you nutty conservatives settle down already? Can't you see that this president has a special story to tell, as far as staying in school and succeeding goes?
Don't you think it would benefit our country if MORE kids stayed in school and succeeded? You know our president is charismatic. You KNOW kids will listen to him, and that's exactly what you conservatives are so deathly afraid of... that our president will make more sense to your kids than YOU do!!
And just because you tell your kid he can't watch the speech doesn't mean the kid won't find a way to watch it anyway.
School speech
There is NOTHING the so-called president says or will say that my children should hear. He is a racist, anti-American Marxist. We do not need another generation of brainwashed Hitler youth.
Reply to Eastwaviking
Because he is not 100% white makes him a racist? I think Glenn Beck is much more of a racist than President Obama. (Thank God that most folks don't think like you. Obama garnered 49 percent of the white males' votes, was it not?)
Isn't it funny that bigots like yourself presumably didn't object when Ronald Reagan, George Bush Sr and George Bush Jr were talking to school kids without a parent in the vicinity? Reagan was 'indoctrinating our kids' with his views on gun control (waiting period) and Bush Sr was 'indoctrinating our kids' on his Education Plan.
What if all the parents who were Democrat during each of these speeches were as shallow and narrow minded and ignorant as you seem to be?
Be above that. We've had 8 years of a failed, lying administration. It's time for a change in America. Like it or not, he's your president. Not that YOU give him that power, but that the power given to him that covers us all is the US Constitution, a document that the Bush administration, vis a vis Dick Cheney, seemed to think did not apply to them.
Obama Haters
It's not too difficult to dislike Obama. If you believe in this country and what it stands for you will dislike the rapid shift towards Socialism (which is basically Communism Light.) By his actions you will dislike Obama, the people he surrounds himself with, his policies and his actions.
Obama has proven himself to be a shameless lair who consorts with radicals. So true Americans like myself will align together and do our best to peacefully stop his aggressive move towards Communism.
So Mr. Abouhalkah I will not shut up and listen to Obama. Also you and your kind should STOP calling yourself reporters until you start reporting without your liberal, pro-Obama agenda slant.
PhilD in Ohio
Reply to Phil D in Ohio
Could you explain exactly how we're being led to socialism? First off, Social Security is a socialist program. I've never read a post online here where you were against Social Security. Medicare is a socialist program. Yet, I haven't read where you've objected to Medicare either. If we stretched the definition, I guess we could say that public education is also a form of socialism.
It seems funny to me that while the Republicans were in office, all hell seemed to break loose. In fact, even though the Republicans are usually the ones who like to claim that government is NOT the solution, they are the ones who've expanded government over the last 40 years. (Reagan over Carter, Bush Jr over Clinton.) Yet, we never seem to hear anything that is remotely truthful; its usually rhetoric. Unfortunately, that's all it appears to be. The Republicans don't seem to govern like they talk. (Bush Sr's "No New Taxes" campaign ended up how? "Brand New Taxes)
It seems that for all of you folks who want absolutely no government intervention, that your policies seem to fail the test. (Greed without oversight brings down financial institutions, etc etc) . . . that's a whole other discussion altogether.
Isn't it also funny that you claim that Obama is marching us toward socialism when it was the Bush administration that thought it could totally disregard that document we lovingly refer to as the US Constitution.
We could start with the 4th Amendment and go from there. We could also talk about the 10th Amendment.
ACORN, Teleprompters, Socialism, Health Care and GWB
Let's see. You think Obama deserves this treatment because Bush was criticized for 8 years? Well, let's review the Bush record.
(1) Iraq didn't have squat to do with 9/11, yet that's where our focus has been. Can you say "trillion dollar error in judgment?" (2) There were no WMDs in Iraq when we invaded that country; even Bush's CIA differed with him on that issue. Don't you find it peculiar that we can find Saddam Hussein hiding in a 3 ft wide hole in an area the size of California, but we can't find WMDs, even with the world's most advanced satellites and technology? (3) Plans to attack Iraq were drawn up BEFORE even Bush's INAUGURATION, much less before 9/11. You can thank Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz (who later was forced to resign as President of the World Bank over ethics issues) for that plan and for the policy which became known as the "Bush Doctrine." (4) The worst economic debacle in this country in the last 70 years; we teetered on a world economic collapse. (5) A squandered budget surplus left by Bill Clinton – the first U.S. budget surplus since Richard Nixon in 1969. (6) US isolation in the world among even our allies. (7) VP Dick Cheney, who continues to state he should have had virtually unlimited powers as Vice President. In essence, he is telling us to screw the 4th Amendment and the intent of our Founding Fathers. As you'll recall, the authors of the Constitution were concerned about too much power in the hands of the government and not enough rights for the citizens; hence, the Bill of Rights were incorporated into that great document. It doesn't seem of import that Bush's NSA wiretapped its' own citizens' phone calls - presumably seeking out information on 80 year American nuns and their terroristic intents. (8) Millions of jobs lost due to Bush's economic policies. (9) Increased federal and state expenditures due to unemployment benefits being paid out for those job losses. (10) Significantly less federal and state tax revenues due to fewer people working, thereby causing budget issues and reduced services at every level of government. (11) Halliburton, whose former CEO was Dick Cheney, given nearly $30 billion in uncontested contracts in Iraq. If you were a Halliburton employee, stockholder or former CEO turned Vice President, you probably benefitted nicely by the invasion of Iraq. (12) The outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame over her husband's refusal to play the game and claim significant amounts of uranium were going from Niger to Iraq, in order to justify the Iraqi invasion. It is also noteworthy that Scooter Libby had exposed Plame to NY Times reporter, Judy Miller, six days before Robert Novak published his article from information given by Richard Armitage. I believe this fits the description of TREASON, does it not? (13) The torture of innocent individuals in overseas CIA prisons. Two of thes architect of those prisons are now in prison themselves for bribery and other ethics issues. (14) Bush's Secretary of Treasury Paulson reneges on his promise to Congress on first stimulus package and allows $18 billion of the first $350 billion to go for bonuses after assuring Congress of just the opposite (15) for 5 years, refused to secure the Mexican borders where 4,000 illegal and presumably undereducated immigrants walked over daily – and presumably educated members of al Qaeda were doing the same (16) bin Laden still on the loose while focus has been on Iraq (17) national debt increased over 72 percent under George Bush's tenure (18) refused to veto Republican initiatives despite costs to federal government, yet Republicans now want to pontificate concerning government spending (19) fought tooth and nail against an increase in the federal minimum wage (20) renegotiated with Big Oil companies for oil taken from federal land, giving additional billions in tax breaks to the Exxons of the world; Exxon was already the most profitable company in the history of the world. New agreement from Bush Interior Department was pennies on the dollar versus previous agreement (21) administration (D Cheney) circumvented intelligence reports that didn't support their objective to invade Iraq; can you spell Halliburton profits? (22) replaced official that originally estimated the war at $150 billion and replaced him with a guy that estimated the war cost at $50 to $60 billion; that estimate was some $900 billion - and counting - ago. Etc, Etc, Etc.
And you want to tell me WHAT about President Barack Obama? You guys need to (1) take the blinders off, (2) turn off Fox News Network and (3) quit drinking the Republican Kool-Aid that has absolutely poisoned your mind and taken ALL forms of reasoning and common sense from you. You need to GET REAL, for a change.
I realize Republicans couldn't run on their own record last election and no Republican politician wanted to be seen with George W Bush on the campaign trail, but y'alls crap needs to stop!
Now, it's a matter of criticizing President Obama with his speech to the nation's school children. Where were you guys when Ronald Reagan, George Bush Sr and George Bush Jr were talking to America's kids, without a parent in sight? Reagan spoke of gun control (waiting periods) and Bush Sr spoke of his Education Plan.
Parents of these kids didn't behave in the childish behavior we're seeing today, despite many of those parents being Democrats. Why the hypocrisy? You don't believe Reagan's speech on gun issues or Bush Sr's speech on his Education Plan would be considered "indoctrination," given the right wing nutcases' own definition?
Folks, you're doing nothing but poisoning America with your spewing of lies and hatred, from ACORN allegations, to citizenship claims, to teleprompter talk, to socialism rhetoric.
Imagine what you're doing to your kids with the same.
For the record, not a single illegal vote was cast from those registered by ACORN. The citizenship issue appears nothing more than right wing lunacy. And do you REALLY believe Obama needed a teleprompter when he was drumming Sen John McCain in the debates? This is a guy who took on the Clintons and won.
On the other hand, perhaps McCain, Sarah Palin and George W Bush might have been better off using more teleprompters!
Socialism? Get real. The majority of right wing nutcases haven't complained about Social Security, Medicare and (if you wanted to stretch the definition), public education.
Get real and get over it. Debate the real issues. Debate from a baseline of truth when you do and not make it sound as if Obama is out to kill grandma and grandpa.
Quit making mountains out of mole hills.
The very folks who stir the pot (the Rush Limbaughs, Glenn Becks, and Sarah Palins of the world) are making millions to keep you guys stirred up.
Grow up. This is America. Speak your mind, but make it something of substance, not pettiness. Conservatives should expect more from the Republican party. The Republican party should expect more of itself. More important, America deserves more from both.
You support spending a trillion dollars for a war in which only Halliburton stockholders, employees and presumably a former CEO-turned VP profit, but fight tooth and nail against providing health care to every American for the same - or less - net cost?
And THAT's the American policies you're proud of?
Yes I agree!
President Obama is a real human being. I trust him. He is actually moderate who is letting everyone have their input, and is willing to compromise.
I recommend using PolitiFact,Snopes and FactCheck.com and follow things on C Span, to filter through all the claims.
Wow
(1) Iraq didn't have squat to do with 9/11, yet that's where our focus has been. Can you say "trillion dollar error in judgment?" (2) There were no WMDs in Iraq when we invaded that country; even Bush's CIA differed with him on that issue. Don't you find it peculiar that we can find Saddam Hussein hiding in a 3 ft wide hole in an area the size of California, but we can't find WMDs, even with the world's most advanced satellites and technology? (3) Plans to attack Iraq were drawn up BEFORE even Bush's INAUGURATION, much less before 9/11. You can thank Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz (who later was forced to resign as President of the World Bank over ethics issues) for that plan and for the policy which became known as the "Bush Doctrine." (4) The worst economic debacle in this country in the last 70 years; we teetered on a world economic collapse. (5) A squandered budget surplus left by Bill Clinton – the first U.S. budget surplus since Richard Nixon in 1969. (6) US isolation in the world among even our allies. (7) VP Dick Cheney, who continues to state he should have had virtually unlimited powers as Vice President. In essence, he is telling us to screw the 4th Amendment and the intent of our Founding Fathers. As you'll recall, the authors of the Constitution were concerned about too much power in the hands of the government and not enough rights for the citizens; hence, the Bill of Rights were incorporated into that great document. It doesn't seem of import that Bush's NSA wiretapped its' own citizens' phone calls - presumably seeking out information on 80 year American nuns and their terroristic intents. (8) Millions of jobs lost due to Bush's economic policies. (9) Increased federal and state expenditures due to unemployment benefits being paid out for those job losses. (10) Significantly less federal and state tax revenues due to fewer people working, thereby causing budget issues and reduced services at every level of government. (11) Halliburton, whose former CEO was Dick Cheney, given nearly $30 billion in uncontested contracts in Iraq. If you were a Halliburton employee, stockholder or former CEO turned Vice President, you probably benefitted nicely by the invasion of Iraq. (12) The outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame over her husband's refusal to play the game and claim significant amounts of uranium were going from Niger to Iraq, in order to justify the Iraqi invasion. It is also noteworthy that Scooter Libby had exposed Plame to NY Times reporter, Judy Miller, six days before Robert Novak published his article from information given by Richard Armitage. I believe this fits the description of TREASON, does it not? (13) The torture of innocent individuals in overseas CIA prisons. Two of thes architect of those prisons are now in prison themselves for bribery and other ethics issues. (14) Bush's Secretary of Treasury Paulson reneges on his promise to Congress on first stimulus package and allows $18 billion of the first $350 billion to go for bonuses after assuring Congress of just the opposite (15) for 5 years, refused to secure the Mexican borders where 4,000 illegal and presumably undereducated immigrants walked over daily – and presumably educated members of al Qaeda were doing the same (16) bin Laden still on the loose while focus has been on Iraq (17) national debt increased over 72 percent under George Bush's tenure (18) refused to veto Republican initiatives despite costs to federal government, yet Republicans now want to pontificate concerning government spending (19) fought tooth and nail against an increase in the federal minimum wage (20) renegotiated with Big Oil companies for oil taken from federal land, giving additional billions in tax breaks to the Exxons of the world; Exxon was already the most profitable company in the history of the world. New agreement from Bush Interior Department was pennies on the dollar versus previous agreement (21) administration (D Cheney) circumvented intelligence reports that didn't support their objective to invade Iraq; can you spell Halliburton profits? (22) replaced official that originally estimated the war at $150 billion and replaced him with a guy that estimated the war cost at $50 to $60 billion; that estimate was some $900 billion - and counting - ago. Etc, Etc, Etc.
And you want to tell me WHAT about President Barack Obama? You guys need to (1) take the blinders off, (2) turn off Fox News Network and (3) quit drinking the Republican Kool-Aid that has absolutely poisoned your mind and taken ALL forms of reasoning and common sense from you. You need to GET REAL, for a change.
I realize Republicans couldn't run on their own record last election and no Republican politician wanted to be seen with George W Bush on the campaign trail, but y'alls crap needs to stop!
Now, it's a matter of criticizing President Obama with his speech to the nation's school children. Where were you guys when Ronald Reagan, George Bush Sr and George Bush Jr were talking to America's kids, without a parent in sight? Reagan spoke of gun control (waiting periods) and Bush Sr spoke of his Education Plan.
Parents of these kids didn't behave in the childish behavior we're seeing today, despite many of those parents being Democrats. Why the hypocrisy? You don't believe Reagan's speech on gun issues or Bush Sr's speech on his Education Plan would be considered "indoctrination," given the right wing nutcases' own definition?
Folks, you're doing nothing but poisoning America with your spewing of lies and hatred, from ACORN allegations, to citizenship claims, to teleprompter talk, to socialism rhetoric.
Imagine what you're doing to your kids with the same.
For the record, not a single illegal vote was cast from those registered by ACORN. The citizenship issue appears nothing more than right wing lunacy. And do you REALLY believe Obama needed a teleprompter when he was drumming Sen John McCain in the debates? This is a guy who took on the Clintons and won.
On the other hand, perhaps McCain, Sarah Palin and George W Bush might have been better off using more teleprompters!
Socialism? Get real. The majority of right wing nutcases haven't complained about Social Security, Medicare and (if you wanted to stretch the definition), public education.
Get real and get over it. Debate the real issues. Debate from a baseline of truth when you do and not make it sound as if Obama is out to kill grandma and grandpa.
Quit making mountains out of mole hills.
The very folks who stir the pot (the Rush Limbaughs, Glenn Becks, and Sarah Palins of the world) are making millions to keep you guys stirred up.
Grow up. This is America. Speak your mind, but make it something of substance, not pettiness. Conservatives should expect more from the Republican party. The Republican party should expect more of itself. More important, America deserves more from both.
You support spending a trillion dollars for a war in which only Halliburton stockholders, employees and presumably a former CEO-turned VP profit, but fight tooth and nail against providing health care to every American for the same - or less - net cost?
And THAT's the American policies you're proud of?
This guy's post should have come with a Moonbat Alert. It must have been posted from a padded cell somewhere.
Reply to Groenhagen
I try to be thorough and do my research, instead of just sitting around watching Fox News tell me all day what I'm supposed to think.
Why don't you check your sources and your dates on your other reply and tell me how they fit in. Your theory certainly runs counter to the Commission's report, not to mention your assertion that bin Laden was going to send Bill Clinton a message doesn't seem to bear weight. When Groenhagen, after the 1997 interview, does bin Laden show Bill Clinton anything vis a vis, Iraq?
Moonbat? Perhaps. Done my homework? Most definitely. Your argument? Not logical, based upon your own statements. Check the dates. Turn off Fox News, take off your blinders and quit drinking the Kool-Aid that the GWB administration let you sip on for so long. The 9/11 Commission is the authoratative document.
I'd ALSO like to direct you to an interview on FOX NEWS in 2004. The Director of Central Intelligence, McLaughlin with Chris Wallace.
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/press-release-archive-2004/pr07192004.html
I won't go into all the Q and As, but at one point, the discussion henges on President Bush asking George Tenet (CIA Dir) about evidence on WMDs, "is this ALL we've got?" etc etc.
ALso, Bush makes the distinction between Saddam and bin Laden. Interesting reading. And it's EVEN from that great CONSERVATIVE news source, FOX NEWS.
You're an extremely ignorant person
Why don't you check your sources and your dates on your other reply and tell me how they fit in. Your theory certainly runs counter to the Commission's report, not to mention your assertion that bin Laden was going to send Bill Clinton a message doesn't seem to bear weight. When Groenhagen, after the 1997 interview, does bin Laden show Bill Clinton anything vis a vis, Iraq?
Moonbat? Perhaps. Done my homework? Most definitely. Your argument? Not logical, based upon your own statements. Check the dates. Turn off Fox News, take off your blinders and quit drinking the Kool-Aid that the GWB administration let you sip on for so long. The 9/11 Commission is the authoratative document.
I'd ALSO like to direct you to an interview on FOX NEWS in 2004. The Director of Central Intelligence, McLaughlin with Chris Wallace.
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/press-release-archive-2004/pr07192004.html
I won't go into all the Q and As, but at one point, the discussion henges on President Bush asking George Tenet (CIA Dir) about evidence on WMDs, "is this ALL we've got?" etc etc.
ALso, Bush makes the distinction between Saddam and bin Laden. Interesting reading. And it's EVEN from that great CONSERVATIVE news source, FOX NEWS.
You've obviously never read the transcript from bin Laden's interview with CNN. He explicity noted that al Qaeda would attack the U.S. in response to Clinton's policies vis-a-vis Iraq. The "messages" were sent in August 1998, October 2000, and 9/11.
Ignoramus.
Wrong, Keith
(1) 9/11 didn't have anything to do with Iraq, yet that's where our focus has been. Can you say trillion dollar mistake?
You lied with the very first item. Read bin Laden's 1997 interview with CNN. He clearly said that al Qaeda would send Bill Clinton "messages with no words" in response to Clinton's policies vis-a-vis IRAQ. Unless you think he meant he would blow kisses to Clinton, I think it's clear that those "messages" included several attacks on the U.S.
www.sinsofthehusband.com
Response to Groenhagen
You state that bin Laden in 1997 interviewed with CNN and bin Laden said he would send Bill Clinton a message. Considering there were no significant attacks vis-a-vis Iraq and the WTC attack didn't happen on Bill Clinton's watch (post the 1997 interview), how can you possibly state this as a connection?
The very dates that you cited discredit your own argument. If bin Laden was going to send Bill Clinton a message (in attacking the WTC vis a vis Iraq), he would have done it before Bill Clinton was out of office, would he not?
Your argument doesn't pass the test. Bill Clinton wasn't in office on Sept 11, 2001.
Your illogical statements are even exclusive of the 9/11 Commission's report.
9/11 Commission Findings as Reported in Washington Post 6-17-04
The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.
Even Bush's own CIA discredited his administration's assertions.
Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."
But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.
The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."
The finding challenges a belief held by large numbers of Americans about al Qaeda's ties to Hussein. According to a Harris poll in late April, a plurality of Americans, 49 percent to 36 percent, believe "clear evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found."
As recently as Monday, Cheney said in a speech that Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda." Bush, asked on Tuesday to verify or qualify that claim, defended it by pointing to Abu Musab Zarqawi, who has taken credit for a wave of attacks in Iraq.
Bush's Democratic challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), sought to profit from the commission's finding. "The administration misled America, and the administration reached too far," Kerry told Michigan Public Radio. "I believe that the 9/11 report, the early evidence, is that they're going to indicate that we didn't have the kind of terrorists links that this administration was asserting. I think that's a very, very serious finding."
A Bush campaign spokesman countered that Kerry himself has said Hussein "supported and harbored terrorist groups." And Cheney's spokesman pointed to a 2002 letter written by CIA Director George J. Tenet stating that "we have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade" and "credible information indicates that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression." Cheney's office also pointed to a 2003 Tenet statement calling Zarqawi "a senior al Qaeda terrorist associate."
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the commission finding of long-standing high-level contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq justified the administration's earlier assertions. "We stand behind what was said publicly," he said.
Bush, speaking to troops in Tampa yesterday, did not mention an Iraq-al Qaeda link, saying only that Iraq "sheltered terrorist groups." That was a significantly milder version of the allegations administration officials have made since shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that Sept. 11 mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official before the attacks, in April 2000 in Prague; Cheney later said the meeting could not be proved or disproved.
Bush, in his speech aboard an aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003, asserted: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda and cut off a source of terrorist funding."
In September, Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press": "If we're successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
Speaking about Iraq's alleged links to al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 attacks, Cheney connected Iraq to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by saying that newly found Iraqi intelligence files in Baghdad showed that a participant in the bombing returned to Iraq and "probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven." He added: "The Iraqi government or the Iraqi intelligence service had a relationship with al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s."
Sins
June 17, 2004 Washington Post
9/11 Commission findings No Saddam - bin Laden connection.
The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.
http://voices.kansascity.com/node/5761#comment-34758
More hypocrisy from the Mountain Goat
"How absurd. And how disrespectful of the office of the President of the United States."
NOW he's concerned about the office being disrespected. Where was he during the Bush-Cheney administration?
And, again, Obama forced his own daughters to sit in the pew during the racist and anti-American sermons delivered by Jeremiah Wright. What gives him the moral authority to tell my children what they should do?
Shut up and listen to the president
Our hyper-political president is accused of wanting to indocrinate schoolchildren. Professors who were educated in the 1960's have been doing that for years. Perhaps Obama himself did that when lecturing on constitutional law. However, transmitting directly into the classroom is another thing. For one thing, teachers will be forced to listen, too. And the truth is, no one needs the president in the classroom. Assuming his speech is innocuous, of the study hard and do your homework variety, is his speech necessary? Will children have to listen to Senator Foghorn next, and Representative Grifter, too?
Seems like Obama said
Seems like Obama said something about Conservatives should shut up, also. Well Yael, we will all remember that when your out of a job when the barf bag newspaper you work for goes out of business.
We don't trust Obama because he clearly is a Marxist fraud.
So don't tell us to shut up. We don't listen to you or Obama or Marx as obediant little children.
Shut Up and Listen
Mr. ABOUHALKAH's command to "shut up and listen to the president" reminds me of why I stopped subscribing to the Star years ago. I had effectively silenced Mr. Aboualkah by not reading the Star, but today, unfortunately, I stumbled on his headline via Google. Like Obama, it seems he is interested in mandating at the expense of reason.
Love to see a shrink's interpretation, Yael
Parents across the land are acting ignorantly on the eve of President Barack Obama's scheduled "stay-in-school" speech to students on Tuesday.
How absurd. And how disrespectful of the office of the President of the United States.
The parents who are thinking of pulling their kids out of school on Tuesday are engaging in outrageous behavior.
Oh, and ignorant behavior, too.
But not, of course, for all the Obama haters who will never like a single thing he does -- up to and including urging their children to stay in school, work hard and contribute to society.
A very revealing headline here, Yael I would love to see a shrink's interpretation of your vitriolic rant against those who do not share your acolyte views of all things Obama.
I agree that the whole event is silly. The problem though was in the arrogant approach the administration took to the speech.
Had he presented a speech outline and simply presented his hopefully helpful plan in a non-partisan way he would have found almost no opposition....as it should be.
Obama blew it ....not the people.....he or (likely more accurate) his minions politicised what should be a very simple non political event. Bush league, inexperienced thinking.
Your hyperbolic rant against an objecting group of his constituents says far more about you than it does either the objecting group or Obamas "mafia".....get a grip.
I think there is something terribly wrong when a past school...
board president in my school district said just a couple of years ago that he is not concerned with kids dropping out of school since WE need more unskilled labor and that same school district locks the front door to the President of the U.S. who wants to talk to the kids about staying in school and working hard.
My school district got an earfull from me and I don't regret saying anything that I told them. They will fawn over this past school board president who spews that drivel and yet won't let a highly educated President to speak to the children. You wonder why we have problems across our nation - this is a perfect example of why we have the probelms and more will come if this type of behavior is advocated.
Teachable Moment
After the President of the United States speaks to school children about the value of education, Republicans will make opposing comments extolling ignorance.
See:
http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/obamas-dangerous-message-to-our-children/