Megyn Kelly was so excited about her “world exclusive” interview with Obama’s terrorist pal “unrepentant terrorist” Bill Ayers that she made it the top two segments of her show last night. She even put off discussing yesterday’s Supreme Court Hobby Lobby ruling, which she excitedly described as capping off “the worst ten days of any modern presidency.” So, not surprisingly, she set up the interview with a six-minute video designed to overstate the tenuous ties between Obama and Ayers.
In February, 2008, Politico investigated the relationship between Obama and Ayers. In an article called, “Obama once visited ‘60s radicals,” Politico reported, “(T)here’s no evidence their relationship is more than the casual friendship of two men who occupy overlapping Chicago political circles and who served together on the board of a Chicago foundation.”
In October, 2008, The New York Times reported:
A review of records of the schools project (Ayers and Obama worked on) and interviews with a dozen people who know both men, suggest that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers, 63. But the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called “somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.”
It speaks volumes that Kelly made innuendoes and aired a lot of sensational footage suggesting a close connection but she never provided any actual evidence of anything more than a casual relationship between the two.
For example, in her introduction, Kelly said:
Professor Bill Ayers admits to terrorizing this country… and he got away scot free. Because this is America, he wound up as a college professor who even helped a president launch his political career.
Though you might have thought from Kelly’s description that Ayers was some kind of major benefactor or advisor, the truth is he played a rather minimal role. From Politico:
In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.
...Now, as Obama runs for president, what two guests recall as an unremarkable gathering on the road to a minor elected office stands as a symbol of how swiftly he has risen from a man in the Hyde Park left to one closing in fast on the Democratic nomination for president.
But Kelly deliberately hyped the connection by moving on to air a 2008 campaign ad from then-candidate Obama’s opponent, John McCain:
Barack Obama and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, friends. They’ve worked together for years. But Obama tries to hide it. Why?
As if in answer, we next heard Kelly saying, “He was one of the most controversial figures in Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign.” Then came a clip of Sarah Palin saying Obama is “someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country.”
Kelly did play a clip of Obama saying that it “doesn’t make much sense” to say that what Ayers did when Obama was 8 years old reflects his current values. But that was one brief soundbite in a much longer string of insinuations and accusations otherwise.
In fact, Kelly specifically echoed (and gave validity to) Palin by saying:
Bill Ayers: friend of the man who would be president and an unrepentant terrorist whose group bombed America over and over again.
But the only tie she specifically mentioned was “hosting a fundraiser for the then-Illinois senate candidate.” In other words, she had no more information than Politico on this supposed “friendship.”
But Kelly saw no reason not to suggest something sinister about their “friendship” has been hidden from America. She added, “When their friend becomes a presidential candidate, Ayers stays mostly quiet but emerges soon after the election, sounding far from remorseful.”
Part 2 is tonight. Kelly promised to further use Ayers to smear Obama discuss Ayers’ relationship with Obama.
Watch below how Kelly uses implication, rather than information, to leave the impression of a real connection between Ayers and Obama.
“2007 – American intelligence first uncovers the name of Bin Laden’s trusted courier but can’t locate him.
2009 – American intelligence identifies areas in Pakistan where courier and his brother operated.
August 2010 – Brothers residence located by American intelligence. Analysts conclude compound is too large, secluded and secured and must shelter a higher-value target than a courier.
September 2010 – CIA begins to work with Obama on assessments leading them to believe Bin Laden may be located at the compound.
February 2011 – US authorities determine sound intelligence basis to pursue aggressively and develop course of action.
March 14, 2011 – Obama begins series of NSC meetings to develop options for capturing or killing Bin Laden.
March 29, 2011 – Obama convenes council’s 2nd meeting
April 12, 2011 – Obama convenes 3rd meeting.
April 19, 2011 – Obama convenes 4th meeting.
April 28, 2011 – Obama convenes 5th meeting.
April 29, 2011 – Mr. Obama authorizes the operation.
May 1, 2011, 2pm – Obama meets with national security team to review preparation; 3:50pm – Obama told Bin Laden tentatively identified by Seal Team 6; 7:01pm – Obama told high probability Bin Laden killed; 11:35pm – Obama announces Bin Laden’s death in televised address."
Funny thing is, Bin Laden’s death is officially recorded as 1:00am on May 2, 2011, even though this timeline shows he was killed around 7:00pm on May 1st, and Obama’s announcement was at 11:35pm on May 1st. Anyway, that’s 8 months and more than six meetings with national security officers on the matter before deciding to do something about the information of Bin Laden’s location (once it was determined he must be there). And you really want to say that’s somehow better than Michael Moore’s account of President Bush remaining seated for another eight to nine minutes rather than cutting his public activity short and creating a mass panic? May I also educate you on the fact that MIchael Moore was also proven inaccurate by reporters, teachers and other people who were actually there in the room with Bush and the students in the class? Again, you don’t become aware of such facts when you simply believe what you hear from the far left (or right) without ever questioning it for yourself! I’m sorry, but we could have very easily missed Bin Laden had he decided to relocate during that 8 month span that it took Obama to make one of the easiest decisions in Presidential History; then decided to paint it as a successful victory, even though the intelligence that lead to Bin Laden’s whereabouts was obtained using methods he promised to end during his campaign. I guess it’s a good thing he failed there as well, huh?
And you really need to check your facts. Bush had nothing to do with the disbanding of the Bin Laden unit; it was a decision made by CIA officials:
“Agency officials said that tracking Mr. bin Laden and his deputies remained a high priority, and that the decision to disband the unit was not a sign that the effort had slackened. Instead, the officials said, it reflects a belief that the agency can better deal with high-level threats by focusing on regional trends rather than on specific organizations or individuals.”
And that quote is from the New York Times, NOT FOX NEWS. ~http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html?_r=0
As for the “air guitar” moment, Bush has since admitted that such moments were mistakes he had made, similar to his appointment of a friend to head up FIMA, his photo ops peering out of Air Force at the damage in New Orleans, and even his infamous Mission Accomplished speech. Again, his ability to admit such mistakes shows his ability to accept accountability and responsibility for his own actions; something Obama has never done, and never will! And that’s the difference between a president who continues to take the high road, and one that cowardly blames everything on his predecessor while trying to make us all believe that he knows how to dictate our lives better than we do! What an arrogant SOB!
See what I did there? BEFORE the name-calling, I provided supporting reasons for the label I chose. Meanwhile, you continue to call me names when you know absolutely nothing about me. Worse yet, you choose labels that simply do not apply. For example, the definition of an Internet Troll is “a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,1 by posting inflammatory,2 extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response3 or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.” I would argue that there is nothing inflammatory in my posts, as I am able to back up everything I state. And there’s a difference between simply expressing my opinion, and deliberately trying to provoke readers. Remember, it takes at least two sides to carry on a discussion. And, I would also say what we’ve all posted is relevant to the original article, as we are arguing the validity of Fox News reporting; which by the way is also relevant to this entire website, since it’s goal is nothing more than to promote incendiary criticism of Fox News.
Oh, and as for the PDB from the CIA to Bush entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside The US”, are you not aware that more than a dozen such PDBs were delivered to Clinton during his Presidency? Are you not aware that there exists many other reports and other documents delivered to other members of Clinton’s administration, some signed by Clinton himself? Here’s a reference to just one such document that is even referenced in the PDB to Bush:
“December 1, 1998: Bin Laden Actively Planning Attacks Inside US: According to a US intelligence assessment, “[bin Laden] is actively planning against US targets and already may have positioned operatives for at least one operation.… Multiple reports indicate [he] is keenly interested in striking the US on its own soil… Al-Qaeda is recruiting operatives for attacks in the US but has not yet identified potential targets.” Later in the month, a classified document prepared by the CIA and signed by President Clinton states: “The intelligence community has strong indications that bin Laden intends to conduct or sponsor attacks inside the US.” [US CONGRESS, 9/18/2002; WASHINGTON POST, 9/19/2002; US CONGRESS, 7/24/2003 pdf file; US CONGRESS, 7/24/2003] This warning will be mentioned in the August 2001 memo given to President Bush entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US” (see August 6, 2001).”
This is common knowledge, for those willing to accept the truth. Problem is, no other network ever bothered to report it, except Fox News. It only takes a few seconds to verify it if you’re willing to look it up. Many of the documents are now declassified and available to the general public. Again, facts can be rather inconvenient when you become accustomed to drinking the Kool-Aid!
OK — this is proof that this sockpuppet (whichever one he is) is not to be taken seriously.
If you think (1) shutting down the CIA unit that was tasked with finding ObL, and (2) playing air guitar in LA while New Orleans drowns, constitutes “react(ing) to some of the toughest challenges ever . . . on the home front and abroad”, you were either asleep or brain-dead from 2001-2009.
(But thanks for the quote, Paul — this is one for the "wingnut HOF quote thread, if its still available in the forum)
Also, how can you act like there’s nothing to be embarassed about when it comes to Obama’s obismal failures. Many of us pointed out his inexperience, failure to lead, corrupt tactics and ignorance of foreign policy; and now it’s sickening that much damage had to be inflicted on our country before everyone is beginning to see that we were right. Just look at the results of that Quinnipiac University Poll that came out yesterday. Or was it not reported on your preferred networks who rarely even report their own polls’ negative results on Obama’s record? Talk about embarassing.
Anyway, it’s been six years now, so can we finally stop playing the blame Bush game already? When willyou start holding Obama responsible for his own failed policies? If never, then that only proves your bias and closed mindedness that causes you to never have the guts to criticise your own party. How about a little accountability for a change?
“Resolve and conviction”?? ROFLMAO — Dumbya’s “resolve and conviction” consisted of continuing to read “The Pet Goat” to schoolkids with his usual dumb look on his face while an aide tells him the nation’s capital and largest city are under attack . . . and his “willingness to commit to the effort” consisted of the following words just six months after 9/11:
“We haven’t heard much from him (bin Laden). And I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don’t know where he is. I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run.”
As for the rest of your screed: TL/DR
In contrast, Obama took two major blows from the Supreme Court withing a ten day period. One ruling confirmed that Obama broke the law when he issues executive orders to bypass Congress and made recess appointments when Congress wasn’t even in recess. The second ruling (Hobby Lobby) was a major blow to his signature legislation because now the government can’t impose fines on businesses who opt out of four specific kinds of contraception (while still providing 16 other forms of contraception). This will result in even higher overall costs for Obamacare.
All that’s bad enough, but then you add the news about his inaction regarding the story of a US citizen being one of the kidnapped and murdered teenagers in Israel, then his announcement that he will continue to abuse executive powers, and his doubling down on his “fake scandals” comments, and you have a presidency that is imploding. Again, a huge contrast from the integrity and respect with which Bush brought to the highest office in the land!
Even worse than September 11-21, 2001?
And after reviewing your simple, straight forward site rules, I can honestly say that I have not even come close to violating any of them. The others in this discussion however have however, including inflammatory remarks and making uncivil, personal attacks just because I do not agree with them. So please, take that into consideration before removing any of our posts in this thread or banning any usernames. That’s a tactic that too many bloggers employ on their sites in an attempt to silence their critics. I truly hope this site is above such behavior!
Voting record on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 – http://bit.ly/1mkVuto
Congressional Budget Office report “Updated Estimates of the Effects of the Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act, April 2014” – http://bit.ly/1qQYyN2
Internal Revenue Service official income tax statistics – http://bit.ly/1qQYUDw
Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment rate by year – http://bit.ly/1qQZeC9
News Story: ISIS Captures Iraqi Chemical Weapons Facility – http://bit.ly/1qQZFMI
National Debt by Year (including citations to original sources) – http://bit.ly/1qR11ax
Anything else you need supporting documentation for? I don’t have all day to do your research. Perhaps you can focus on one key point I made that you wish to refute, and I’ll provide at least three sources to back me up. Can you do the same?
And if you really believe we were lied into two wars, where’s the evidence? If it existed, wouldn’t the Democrats have long since charged Bush and Cheney as war criminals (as many far left loons have insisted)? If there were no traces of WMDs in Iraq when we went in, why is it now reported that ISIS just last week took control of a chemical weapons plant in Iraq that still contains nerve agents and other chemical warfare agents? These are the very items Bush and the UN repeatedly demanded evidence of their destruction. Also, it is well documented that there were many reasons for going into Iraq, not just the hope that we could capture WMDs. Sadaam’s repeatedly firing upon US pilots patrolling the no-fly-zone alone to me alone were acts of war and ample reason for us to respond. I would love to see you visit Iraq and interview one of the thousands of women who sifted through the millions of bodies dug up from mass graves wondering if any of them could be their husband, father or child who was taken from their home, tortured and killed. Why not try to tell them it was a senseless and unjust war? The same could be said about Afghanistan. Both countries were better off because of our action, and now Obama is disgracing the sacrifices our troops and their families have made for that effort by allowing Iraq to be turned over to ISIS, a terrorist group even Al Qaeda wanted nothing to do with and who has already threatened the US when their leader said “see you in New York”. I know Obama and the left don’t like to acknowledge inconvenient truths such as the war on terror, but ignoring it will only result in another 9/11 (whether on the scale of New York, or Boston).
Oh, and do you really want to get into a discussion about our economy? How’s all that “Hope and Change” working out for Detroit? And if you want to look at unemployment, how about examining the true unemployment calculation that factors in underemployment, temporary workers, and those who have given up and left the job market? How about insisting that the Obama administration start reporting factual unemployment rates, instead of consistently correcting them to worse numbers in the two weeks following their monthly release? How about examining the unemployment rate among blacks, women and Latinos? How about looking at the estimated impact of Obamacare on businesses and the unemployment rate for years to come? And what about other important job-related statistics, like the one that says 50% of all college graduates are unable to find employment in the first two years on the market?
As for Gitmo, if you are truly against it, why aren’t you demanding that Obama deliver on his campaign promises six years ago to close it? Again, actions speak louder than words. You guys voted for this guy based on his promises to fix the economy, correct unemployment, deliver the most transparent government ever and change Washington from being business as usual. Sorry, but he’s failed on every front!
You say the points I made have been “debunked”. If so, how about some links to the direct sources that conflict with what I posted? Stop the name-calling and be prepared to back up your talking points, otherwise, you have none.
@visitor 55: Once again, you prove my point. I didn’t see any facts, statistics, cited resources or direct quotes of any kind in your reply to support your side of the argument. That’s exactly what “trolling” is, baseless posts designed to simply get a rise out of followers and draw attention to the forum. You say I’m the stupid one? How about posting something to back up your ideology? How about referring to something that’s actually credible? How about proving to us you at least agree to accept some responsibility for your statements by posting under your actual name, instead of an anonymous username like Visitor 55? How about not displaying your own ignorance by using the term “teabagger”, which is a phrase that describes a vulgar act committed in video games and has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, or with the Tea Party for that matter?
Again, I am more than happy to have an intellectual debate with anyone up to the task, but I refuse to have a battle wits with an unarmed person. When you can come back with nothing but name-calling and personal attacks, it only proves that you have nothing to support your argument!
@roger W: Thanks for referring to my previous reply as a well-defended post. If you truly wish to see this website gain the notariety, respect, viewership and fairness that Fox News is known is, thereby providing a viable alternative, then you must embrace the fact that everyone is entitled to their own opinions. However, you must also acknowledge the facts that also challenge your point of view. That is when you stop being a Kool-Aid drinker and begin being an intellectual who doesn’t mind their positions being questioned. It is much more effective to defend your argument when you can back it up. Anyone insisting I have nothing but talking points should provide a link to where those talking points are made available, because I sure didn’t get a memo telling me what to believe. And if you really want to argue against the facts I provided, please, by all means provides material that backs up your claims. In kind, I would respond with the same, but they’re readily available to anyone who wishes to look them up. Congressional and Senatorial bills and votes are well documented on the government’s website, as well as the detailed voting record of each representative/senator. So, one can easily research who voted for what and when. For example, why not go and research the vote for military action in Iraq in 2003? I believe you’ll find many of your beloved Democrats and Liberals on the list of those who voted for it (and then proceeded to call it an illegal war). You can also find the entire text of the Obamacare legislation (you know, the one that even Obamacare now refers to as its proper name in order to distance himself from it). You’ll quickly find the section that allows for the creation of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) (aka “Death Panel”); you know, the one all the other media outlets insists doesn’t exist?
Sorry guys, but believe it or not, the public is tired of all the rhetoric on both sides of the aisle. Obama won his first election because the majority believed the “blame Bush” tactic that the media played at the time, and that Obama continues to play ‘til today (I mean seriously, when does Obama begin owning his own presidency)? Whether you choose to admit it or not, that “fair and balanced” approach by Fox News has earned it the title of the number one cable news network for 12 years straight as a direct result of delivering what the people want. And what the people want is honest reporting, journalists that aren’t afraid to ask the tough questions of the President or any other public official, and reporting that can stand up to any challenge. Unlike other news networks that consist of scandals of their own because they were caught shaping news stories fit their agenda (anyone remember the Zimmerman case, or the Duke LaCrosse Case), Fox News rarely ever has to issue retractions. When others do challenge their reporting, they actually cover that too. Compare that to the recent flood of apologies and retractions some of the other networks were forced to put on the air in just the last few months. All one has to do is look at the public ratings to see where the people are turning to for reliable news reporting. Fox News has better ratings during their late night rebroadcasts than all other networks do during the primetime hours COMBINED. I know those facts tear at the heart strings for some of you, but they are the facts. And that is the only reason so many Liberals love attacking Fox News, because the truth hurts. They don’t want to deliver both sides of any argument. They only believe in freedom of speech and press when it fits their ideology. I’ve participated in several other conversations like this on other biased websites in the past, but nearly every one of those conversations were quickly taken down by their moderators. I didn’t use any vulgar language, personally attack someone, or violate any of the other rules posted on their website, but they chose to silence me anyway. Sorry people, but actions definitely speak louder than words. Either you really are for free speech, expression and press, or you’re not. And those freedoms are never as important as when the message they are protecting is not your own! So, I say, put up or shut up.
With that said, back to your typical liberal response. You Kool-Aid drinkers always resort to name calling like little children backed into a corner when you realize you can’t possibly stand a chance debating the topic at hand.
You really want to compare Obama’s presidency to ANY other? More and more Democrats are distancing themselves from Obama as the campaigns gear up, and even some of his most loyal supporters in the media are beginning to turn on him. Just today a newspaper basically printed an apology to the American people in their editorial page and admitted they were wrong to backing Obama’s campaign, citing many of his failures from environmental to economical and foreign policies. Not even Carter’s presidency was as bad as this guy. This is the same guy who called Bush unpatriotic for racking up over $4 Trillion of debt, then proceeded to rack up over $7 Trillion in debt in just six years (compared to Bush’s entire eight). And the only campaign promise he kept was delivering Obamacare, which the CBO estimates will cost us over $1.76 trillion through 2022 (88% more than the original estimated cost Obama touted of $938 Billion). So, even though he delivered the law as promised, it’s nothing like what his supporters expected; especially the whole deal about not being able to keep your existing plans, resulting in nearly twice as many people being dropped from coverage as those who have reportedly gained coverage (sorry Obama, but Medicaid does not factor into that statistic; so stop thinking we’re that stupid.) So, not even his signature legislation is successful, with the overall costs continuing to climb, people and business opting out left and right, wavers being granted to Democratic supporters, and some insurance companies even pulling out of state markets entirely. Yeah, great plan!
You want to talk facts? How about the national debt, national deficit, unemployment rate among blacks and women, the difference in pay when it comes to women vs men in Obama’s own administration, the number of former Guantanamo Bay prisoners that have been recaptured on the battle field, the laundry list of scandals from the DOJ to the IRS, his horrible foreign policy that has now lead to Iraq being on the brink of becoming a terrorist run state…do I really need to go on here?
You can’t possibly defend the worst presidency in history, with spending far exceeding the total of ALL previous presidents combined! In fact, you can’t name a single one of Obama’s policies as a success, and provide facts/statistics to prove it. And you certainly can’t say that denial of the many scandals, his overreach by way of executive orders, blocking the delivery of subpoenaed documents to congressional oversight committees, and his refusal to account for his whereabouts during the eight hour long attack on our consulate in Benghazi adds up to transparency.
So, if you want to stop the bitching and childish name-calling behavior and actually have an intellectual debate based on the merits of both arguments, I’d gladly participate. Otherwise, I suggest you go and do your own research and stop referring to what you hear on biased sources such as this site and the mainstream media as facts, simply because they agree with your own ideology. You’d do yourself better to think for yourself for change, because that childish behavior only eliminates any credibility you may have.
As to your comment, then please explain why the FoxNoise folks have spent the last FIVE years (he only took office in Jan 2009—I know you teabagger-types have trouble with difficult subjects, like simple math but really, there is help if only you’ll seek it) smearing Obama if what you wrote was true. Of course, Obama hasn’t “tanked” his presidency (compare Obama’s time in office to Dubya’s—now THERE was a guy who knew how to tank his own presidency).
You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but you’re NOT entitled to your own facts. (For that, you have to wait until you form a corporation—thanks to the right-wing morons at SCOTUS.)
Sorry, but just the man’s name makes my hair stand on end/
His badly distorted judgment, btw, is exemplified by the fact that he consented to go on Kelly’s show.
Almost every single day this scumbag is on the air, he brings them up.
Kelly obviously got her talking points from Hannocchio!