Dan Hannan Is Not a Racist

The deadly attack gerbils of the liberal-left have had a go at Dan Hannan.

The Daily Mirror, NuLav’s comically useless online propaganda outlet Labour List, and a sweet-looking boy named James Mcintyre who writes for the New Statesman, have all seized excitedly on some thoughtful, unexceptionable remarks Dan made about Obama’s “exotic” background.

Here’s what Dan said in his blog:

“Barack Obama has an exotic background, and it would be odd if some people weren’t unsettled by it. During the campaign, he made a virtue of his unusual upbringing. He was at once from the middle of the country (Kansas) and from its remotest edge (Hawaii). He was both black and white. He was a Protestant brought up among Muslims. He seemed to have family on every continent. Like St Paul, he made a virtue of being all things to all men.”

“On one level, the strategy worked brilliantly. But it could hardly fail to leave a chunk of people feeling that Obama wasn’t exactly a regular guy.”

And here, roughly, is how Mcintyre and his chums chose to translate it:

“My name is Dan Hannan. I wear a tall, pointy white hat with eyeholes cut into it. Our Enoch was right. Send ‘em all back to where they came from. No, wait, better than that: string ‘em all up. And if you think I’m the only fellow in the Tory party who thinks this way you’ve got another think coming. We’re racists, the lot of us. And this my friends is why you should not vote Conservative at the next election but vote instead for the supremely competent and utterly sane Gordon Brown.”

Now I have at least two main objections to this.

First, though it’s true that Dan Hannan holds culpable, deeply objectionable, utterly wrongheaded views about Obama, they have nothing to do with the man’s race or exoticism. They’re to do with the fact – as he brazenly admits – that he likes and admires the guy and supported his presidential candidacy.

But what I loathe and detest far more is what it tells us about New Labour and what they have done to the level political debate. As pretty much anyone with even half a brain cell now realises, Britain is almost irredeemably b***ered after 12 years under Blair and Brown. In this week’s Spectator, Trevor Kavanagh racks his brain and finally comes up with “peace” in Northern Ireland and the minimum wage as examples of two of New Labour’s achievements. Personally, I wouldn’t even give them those. They have been a total and unmitigated disaster from beginning to end.

How, though, did they get away with it for so long? Largely, I’d argue, by manipulating the media – and by extension – the voters more cleverly than the Tories did. New Labour would lie, distort, tweak, smear, exaggerate, spin, announce, re-announce, re-re-announce or anything else that was necessary to ensure that they came across as the party that could do useful things and which cared, while the Tories were the party of reaction, snobbery, racism and cuts.

This feeble and desperate attempt to smear Hannan and, by association, Cameron’s Tories is merely a continuation of the same old methods they’ve been using for the last twelve years. Two or three years ago, it might just have worked. Today, now that we’ve all wised up to their methods, it just comes across as wearisomely predictable and a bit sad – the death throes of a party which knows it’s a busted flush and knows that in the total absence of things to say in its own favour its last remaining hope is to try to slag the opposition.

I understand this. You understand it. But here’s the part that makes me worried and angry: I’m not sure that Cameron’s Tories yet do.

Even now, far too much of their policy-decision-making appears to be based not so much on doing the right thing as on avoiding trouble. The 50p upper rate tax. The ring-fencing of spending on the NHS. These are positions not of a party of principle, but a party whose inner circle reads silly articles like the ones above, and STILL actually takes them seriously.

Related posts:

  1. Don’t Vote For Hannan’s crappy blog
  2. Charlie Brooker on Hannan: not even close to being funny
  3. Reason no 12867 why not to vote Tory: the NHS
  4. Why would anyone want to vote Tory? (pt II)

 

Barack Obama: ACORN’s Manchurian Candidate? | James Delingpole

September 17, 2009

For opponents of President Obama, the ACORN scandal is the gift that goes on giving.

Here’s the latest episode (courtesy of BigGovernment) in which intrepid investigative reporters James O’Keefe (the one dressed as a pimp, with statutory cane and fur coat) and Hannah Giles (the worryingly convincing whore) decide to pay a visit to the offices of President Obama’s favourite left-wing “non-profit organisation” in San Bernadino, California. The ACORN representative gives helpful advice on how to run a whorehouse, how to keep under age whores in check (beat them); she enthuses about the pimp’s plans to use his funds to run for Congress, and names names of the politicians with whom she deals herself.

British readers may be somewhat puzzled by the excitement this is generating in the US blogosphere. Isn’t it just an amusing Candid-Camera-style stunt? Why should anyone care what a few rather sorry-looking people in some run down local charity offices say?

The first point is, ACORN isn’t the Salvation Army. ACORN (Association Of Community Organizations For Reform Now) is the largest radical group in the US with “a 1960s-bred agenda of anti-capitalism, central planning, victimology, and government handouts to the poor.”

Sol Stern gives chapter and verse on this in an excellent City Journal investigation.

“It is no surprise that ACORN preaches a New Left–inspired gospel, since it grew out of one of the New Left’s silliest and most destructive groups, the National Welfare Rights Organization. In the mid-sixties, founder George Wiley forged an army of tens of thousands of single minority mothers, whom he sent out to disrupt welfare offices through sit-ins and demonstrations demanding an end to the “oppressive” eligibility restrictions that kept down the welfare rolls. His aim: to flood the welfare system with so many clients that it would burst, creating a crisis that, he believed, would force a radical restructuring of America’s unjust capitalist economy.”

“The flooding succeeded beyond Wiley’s wildest dreams. From 1965 to 1974, the number of single-parent households on welfare soared from 4.3 million to 10.8 million, despite mostly flush economic times. By the early 1970s, one person was on the welfare rolls in New York City for every two working in the city’s private economy. Yet far from sparking a restructuring of American capitalism, this explosion of the welfare rolls only helped to create a culture of family disintegration and dependency in inner-city neighborhoods, with rampant illegitimacy, crime, school failure, drug abuse, non-work, and poverty among a fast-growing underclass.”

The second, even more important point to remember is what this suggests about President Obama’s core values. I say “suggests” because nobody save the President, his wife, and his trusted political associates (such as his team of often highly dubious czars) seems actually to know what they are, and this is what has got at least one half of America very worried.

We know that he has worked closely with ACORN in the past and that he remains a great admirer. Stanley Kurtz showed in an investigation for National Review last year that Obama helped train ACORN staff, that some of his colleagues were involved in “direct action” like the storming of Chicago city council and that his “long service”led many members to serve as his “shock troops” in his early political campaigning. But no one has yet got to the heart of what his precise involvement was – or indeed is.

Could it be that Obama is ACORN’s Manchurian Candidate – imposing on the US the hard left welfare agenda of his sponsors, soulmates, and fellow travellers in the innocuous guise of healthcare reform, “bailouts” for the economy, and environmentalism?

Obama’s libtard supporters would no doubt dismiss such theories as “Conservative wing nuttery”.They’d probably say the same about some of the very telling questions posed by MSher1 below my last piece on this subject:

1. His father was a radical in Kenya. The best friend of his maternal grandfather, who raised him, was an avowed communist. We have no information on his mother or stepfather. Not his fault who his ancestors are, but children of communists tend to be communists. Candidate Obama certainly used the word “redistribution.” Continual references to tax cuts for 95% or some such percentage of the population, when only about 30% or some such percentage pay taxes certainly means redistribution. What are his beliefs? No one has asked.
2. Speaking of family, what has happened to his Kenyan aunt who turned out to be living illegally in the U.S. in publicly funded housing? How is it that family-man Obama didn’t know about his aunt, and millionaire Obama wasn’t financially helping her?
3. Speaking of millionaire Obama, the millions supposedly come from book sales. (We won’t bother with his obscure financial dealings with Tony Resko, who has close links with people who were lobbyists for Iraq. Neither the financial dealings or Resko’s links to Iraq have been investigated.) But let’s go back to the books. Two of them published before he was a national figure. Now how did that happen? Not so easy, as an unknown, to get books published. And, before he was a national figure, who actually bought the books? Any chance that those who had been “mentoring” (i.e., grooming) him got those publishing contracts and arranged purchases of copies as a way of getting money to him?
4. There has never been a discussion of why he spent a year in Pakistan as a young man, how he got there, what passport he used and what he did while there. Without details of that trip, he would never get a basic security clearance.
5. Speaking of young man Obama and those who have been “mentoring” (i.e., grooming) him. He started college at Occidental, a not prestigious school. By his own admission, he was a poor student there. Yet somehow he transferred to a Columbia, a very prestigious university. Lateral transfers of bad students from a small-time school to a big-time elite university doesn’t happen, unless someone influential makes it happen. Who made that happen? Who had identified Obama as worth helping so early in his life, and why? No one has ever asked.
6. Obama’s early career as a “community organizer” has never been explored. Who did he organize to do what? The press has never asked. The one thing known is that he was a lawyer to the group ACORN – oddly enough, a group very involved in registering voters and now involved in numerous scandals regarding voter and other kinds of fraud. Oh, ACORN is funded with federal funds. There was going to be a Congressional investigation of ACORN, then it was scrubbed. No explanation.

There are plenty more questions where those came from – scroll down below the blog and have a look.

Call me a Right-wing nut, but I reckon the Manchurian Candidate has got some answering to do.

Related posts:

  1. How conservative pranksters made idiots of Obama’s favourite left-wing charity ACORN
  2. My problem with Barack Obama isn’t that he’s black…
  3. How ‘tech-savvy’ Barack Obama lost the health care debate thanks to sinister Right-wing blogs like this one
  4. Why did Congressman Joe Wilson need to apologize for calling Obama a liar?

 

How Conservative Pranksters Made Idiots of Obama’s Favourite Left-Wing Charity ACORN

A skinny white prostitute and her pimp turn up at the office of Barack Obama’s favourite US “poverty action” charity ACORN (Association of Community Organisations for Reform Now). They want advice on a few problems, like how best to bring over a “couple” of – well, 13, actually – underage girls from El Salvador to work in this brothel they’ve got planned, without attracting too much heat from the authorities. How can they get a mortgage, how should they deal with their tax affairs, how do they legitimize their immoral earnings and so on?

ACORN’s expert advisers are more than happy to oblige, as this hilarious video – first posted at the BigGovernment site – reveals.

Hilarious because, of course, the footage is a stitch-up. It was filmed with a hidden camera and acted out by two very brave young US investigative journalists – Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe, keen to expose the dubious moral standards of the radical left organisation. (Using methods not unakin to those advocated by Obama’s preferred leftist agitator Saul Alinsky)

Since then they have struck twice more. First at one of ACORN’s Washington DC offices. Most recently in New York – where, among the advice they were given was to hide their illicit gains in a tin and bury it in their back yard.

A neat little scoop which has already caused several heads to roll at ACORN, and, as Toby Harnden reports today has led the US Census Office to break its controversial links (for chapter and verse see Stephanie Guttman’s blog on this) with the notorious organisation. But is it really any more significant than that?

Well, of course, those on the liberal-left would have you believe not. It’s just another of those typical right-wing smear campaigns that conservative “nut jobs” like Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart have so cynically concocted to discredit Democrats in general and the saintly Obama in particular.

Naturally I beg to differ. As something of a professional conservative nut job myself, I find that one of the hardest struggles of my daily existence is persuading the world that I’m not in this game just to be wilfully contrarian and I’m not in it because I’m a heartless, evil bastard who is never happier than when crushing the aspirations of the poor, the disabled or anyone from an ethnic minority.

The reasons I’m a conservative are a) because I do care actually and b) because I’ve seen the alternative and it sucks.

For a shining example of b) look no further than these ACORN video exposes, which show exactly what’s wrong with practical socialism. 1. Big government takes your hard-earned money. 2. It spends on it an organisations like ACORN so rotten to the core and with values so inimical to your own, that frankly it would easier if you’d taken 40 per cent of your income in a big suitcase down to the nearest housing project, allowed yourself to be mugged – and cut out the middle man.

Related posts:

  1. Barack Obama: ACORN’s Manchurian Candidate?
  2. How ‘tech-savvy’ Barack Obama lost the health care debate thanks to sinister Right-wing blogs like this one
  3. Why we need more conservative madrassas
  4. Gove v Humphrys: reason enough to vote Conservative

 

How ‘Tech-Savvy’ Barack Obama Lost the Health Care Debate Thanks to Sinister Right-Wing Blogs Like This One

If theres one thing President Obamas good at, you would have thought, it would be harnessing the powers of new technology. Hes got the Blackberry addiction. Hes got the Twitter feeds. Hes the most tech-savvy POTUS in US history, who quite possibly wouldnt even be doing the job hes doing now if it werent for his supreme, almost Neo-like mastery of that thing we call the Interweb.

So how come he has just gone and managed to lose the most important debate of his political career so far over health care largely as a result of being beaten hollow by his opponents in the conservative blogosphere?

This is the question being asked by the new media monitoring organization Market Sentinel, in its latest report, pithily entitled How Obama lost the healthcare debate online.

It reports:

Our research suggests that Obama – the candidate who wrote the rules for achieving political success on the Internet – has lost the argument online.

To show this Market Sentinel took just one strand of that debate (comparisons between Obama’s proposals and the UK’s NHS service) and used citation analysis to identify who has influence in relation to the topic.  For the technically minded, this means that we crawl the internet looking for pages which are about the topic, then we track mutual references between people, institutions, entities mentioned in the context.  The resulting structure gives us a mathematically verifiable measurement of “authority” in the context.  This analysis began on August 28th and was completed on September 3rd.  We have sorted the results according to a sentiment metric where the negative quadrants represent hostility to state run healthcare (as exemplified by the NHS) and the positive quadrants show support for it.

graph

Note the dismal performance in terms of influence by the dead tree press. Note too the mighty power ascribed to Telegraph blogs (led, of course, in this instance by the great Dan Hannan). OK, so were not exactly Fox News yet. But if Market Sentinel is to be believed, than two key points emerge:

1. The Blogosphere is now more powerful in shaping the worlds political agenda than the Dead Tree media.

2. Right wing blogs (Fox News; DT blogs, etc) trump Libtard blogs (Huffington Post, Matthew Yglesias, etc) every time.

Look carefully at the chart and you will also noticed an appearance on the right by Michael Moore. Almost certainly the first time in the mans life he has ever been thus categorised.

Related posts:

  1. Barack Obama: ACORN’s Manchurian Candidate?
  2. The climate alarmists have lost the debate: it’s time we stopped indulging their poisonous fantasy
  3. My problem with Barack Obama isn’t that he’s black…
  4. How conservative pranksters made idiots of Obama’s favourite left-wing charity ACORN

 

Van Jones Was Just the Start: Now We Need a Yekaterinburg of ALL the Czars

Hmm. I wonder which of the many glorious aspects of Mother Gaia it was that first attracted President Obama’s “Green Jobs Czar” Van Jones to the environmental movement.

Was it, perhaps, his love of fluffy bunnies – especially those ones with the long floppy ears and the sweet pink noses?

Was it the sight of the mighty redwoods in Northern California or the sea otters frolicking amid the kelp off Big Sur or the manatees basking so cutely amid the  shimmering propellors of the Everglades?

Was it the long weekend trips he regularly takes with his pit bulls Fidel, Josef, Chairman, Lavrenty and Malcolm to experience the heart-stopping majesty of America’s National Parks? (Those that haven’t been closed, that is, due to budgetary restrictions).

Naah. Like so many in the modern green movement, Van Jones (or rather Anthony Jones as he was christened: he adopted the name Van at school because he thought it would make him look more “rad”) has about as much genuine interest in nature as socialists do in the plight of the poor. Which is to say, it’s a nice thing to mention once in a while to make yourself sound at once high-minded and caring, but it’s most definitely not the real issue. For hard-core greens, the real issue is the same as it is for their socialist kindred spirits: control.

Van Jones’s only mistake – and this is what has just cost him his job as “Green Czar” – was to be so slapdash in disguising his real agenda. A self professed communist with links to radical Maoist group STORM and hard-leftist ACORN, he made quite clear in his bestselling book The Green Collar Economy that his real aim was the socialization of America.

As Phil Kerpen summarizes it at Fox News:

“He urged adoption of a carbon cap-and-trade program, renewable electricity mandates– including Al Gore’s outlandish and impossible goal of eliminating fossil fuel use by 2018, large taxpayer-funded green jobs programs, a so-called smart grid for electricity, more mass-transit subsidies, higher fuel efficiency standards for automobiles, federal funding for organic farms, a ban on new coal plants, expanded ethanol mandates, and even a spirited, multiple page pitch for a cash-for-clunkers program–he called it “Hoopties for Hybrids.”

The problem is, as Kerpen reminds us:

“Green jobs are not economic jobs but political jobs, designed to funnel vast sums of taxpayer money to left-wing labor unions, environmental groups, and social justice community organizers.”

Van Jones, in other words, was and is a watermelon: green on the outside, red on the inside.

So how come this hard-left activist – barmy enough to believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy organised by George W Bush – managed to get a senior appointment in the Obama administration, with responsibility for the allocation of millions of dollars worth of taxpayers’ cash?

Simple. Because this is what socialist regimes do, as I tried to explain earlier this year in my book Welcome To Obamaland: I’ve Seen Your Future And It Doesn’t Work.

In it, I warned the US of the “smorgasbord of scuzzballs, incompetents, time servers, Communists, class warriors, eco-loons, single-issue rabble-rousers, malcontents and losers who always rise to the surface during a left-liberal administration.”

“You’ve seen some of these types in action before. The John Murthas and the Chuck Schumers. The James Carvilles and the Al Sharptons. The Barney Franks and the Henry Waxmans. And it’s bearable when there’s not too many of them. Almost amusing even because they can act as bogeymen: the whacko villains you just love to hate.”

“Where it becomes a problem – as you’re about to discover, if you haven’t already – is when your ruling administration consists of nothing but these people. No longer do they qualify as light relief. They become your daily nightmare.”

It’s OK, you don’t have to hail me as the new Nostradamus. Making these predictions was a no-brainer because it’s exactly the same process as we’ve witnessed in Britain these last twelve years under New Labour. Rather than having all his cronies go through the tedious and unedifying process of having to stand for parliamentary election, Tony Blair simply handed them their political jobs on a plate by appointing them Health Czar, or Race Czar, or Climate Change Czar or whatever. In this way, he could stuff his new governing class with politically-sympathetic placemen – with the added advantage that they were completely unaccountable to the democratic process.

Similar rules apply, of course, to the 1,160 Quangos which have flourished under New Labour, such as the Charity Commission currently headed by a woman calling herself “Dame” “Suzi” “Leather”, formerly a freelance consumer consultant, but relentlessly promoted under Tony Blair and later Gordon Brown because of her suitably left-liberal political views. She is currently acting as Britain’s Shrill Bitterness And Class War Czar, responsible for fomenting ever deeper social resentment, grinding her stiletto heels in the faces of the middle classes, and smashing the private school system. And a very splendid job she is making of it too.

President Obama has learned the Blair lesson well, having appointed mostly leftist chums to no fewer than 32 Czardoms (31, now that Van Jones has thankfully gone). Glenn Beck, the US talk show host who was instrumental in forcing Van Jones’s resignation, lists them in full on his website. They include a Domestic Violence Czar,  an Energy and Climate Czar (the terrifying Socialist Carol Browner) and even a Guantanamo Closure Czar.

As I suggested in my headline there can only be one sensible solution to this embarrassment of Czars, and its one that Bolsheviks on both sides of the Atlantic will be cheerily familiar. Think Czar Nicholas II. Think Yekatarinburg. Think July 1918. Its the only language these people understand.

Note: The original Telegraph page is not available even via the Wayback Machine.

Related posts:

  1. What Dave and his chum Barack don’t want you to know about green jobs and green energy
  2. ‘I want to be remembered for the science’ says Phil ‘Climategate’ Jones to chorus of titters
  3. The case against Dr Phil ‘Climategate’ Jones
  4. Climategate 2.0: the not nice and clueless Phil Jones

 

Stephen Hawking would not have been left to die by the NHS | James Delingpole

August 14, 2009

Gosh, I’m not half enjoying all the horror stories American Conservatives are using to try to sabotage President Obama’s plans for universal healthcare. I particularly like the one about the Death Committee (do they mean NICE?) which sits to decide whether or not our elderly are to get life-saving treatment. But I fear the one about Stephen Hawking was pushing it a bit.

Don’t get me wrong. I think the Land of Freedom needs NHS-style universal healthcare like it needs an Ebola pandemic or Al Gore. But if you’re going to fight a propaganda war, I do think it’s important not to give ammunition to the other side. Choosing Stephen Hawking as your poster boy to ‘prove’ that President Obama’s healthcare proposals will be a disaster is probably not a good idea when a) he’s one of Obama’s “deep” admirers and is about to get feted by him at an award ceremony and b) when what you claim about him isn’t actually true.

No of course – contrary to the claim in a US business magazine – Professor Hawking wouldn’t have been allowed to die by the NHS if he had been British. We know this because he is, er, British and was being treated by the NHS for his Motor Neurone Disease long before he got famous writing the world’s most unread bestseller and became easily rich enough to afford private.

But I’m still not sure what this proves. The fact that Professor Hawking was not left to die by the NHS seems to me in no wise to demonstrate that our stagnant, creaky, wasteful system is not ripe for an overhaul. In one of the parallel universes possibly envisioned in his Brief History Of Time (don’t know: never read it; I’ve done War And Peace, though, which is a corker), it is quite possible that one Britain is running a much cheaper and infinitely more effective, Dan-Hannan-approved Singapore style health system; and that another Britain is abrim with splendid, clean, MRSA-free hospitals run by stern, buxom matrons and paid for by philanthropists who can afford to do so because of the splendidly low tax regime of a prime minister who very obviously isn’t Dave Cameron.

We just don’t know, do we?

Related posts:

  1. How to alienate all my readers: I love Stephen Fry too
  2. How ‘tech-savvy’ Barack Obama lost the health care debate thanks to sinister Right-wing blogs like this one
  3. Obama: when all else fails, blame Dubya and the CIA
  4. Reason no 12867 why not to vote Tory: the NHS

 

Obama: When All Else Fails, Blame Dubya and the CIA

Did you hear about the captured Russian gunship pilot shot down in Eighties Afghanistan? (If you’re of a squeamish disposition, I’d skip to the next par). First they gave him tea; then they gave him heroin, then they chopped his foot off, then they raped him; then, once he’d recovered from the first amputation – nurtured of course by traditional Pashtun hospitality – they raped him some more, before chopping off another of his limbs. And so on – nice, nasty, nice, nasty – until they had tired of their plaything and granted him the mercy of death.

The only detail of that true story that I’m not sure I’ve got exactly right is when they administered the heroin: was it before or after the amputations? But I don’t think anyone familiar with Afghanistan would doubt its essential veracity. Similar stories come out of Helmand every day: girls having acid thrown in their faces for attending school; school teachers being hung, drawn and quartered or crucified for having the temerity to teach girls or disobey the Taliban. It’s just how the Afghans are: tough on human rights; tough on the causes of human rights; definitely not the kind of people you’d ask to babysit your kitten while you were away on your summer hols.

President Obama: palpably upset and concerned at being forced, much against his will, to blame his predecessor for EVERYTHING.

So how come this message appears completely to have eluded the current President of the USA? Has none of his advisors read Kipling? Or the first Flashman book? Or heard or read a single thing about Afghanistan or the bad stuff that happens there? Only President Obama appears to have got it into his head that what the Afghans are really crying out for now to make everything better is for the US to launch an inquiry into how the human rights of certain captured Taliban might have been abused in November 2001 by an Afghan warlord Gen Abdul Rashid Dostum. To whit, he killed the lot of them – 100s, if not 1000s and buried them in a mass grave.

Now, POTUS has promised to launch a full investigation into the incident – for reasons of course which have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Dostum was on the payroll of the CIA and therefore, by extension, of the Evil Bush Administration. (Hat Tip: Jake Tapper)

“If it appears that our conduct in some way supported violations of the laws of war, then I think that, you know, we have to know about that,” said Obama.

Really? Of course, one is saddened by the terrible fate administered to those peace-loving Taliban by the horrid Gen Dostum; of course, it is a grievous pity that they are no longer around to blow American, British and Canadian boys to pieces with IEDs or throw acid at schoolgirls or mutilate schoolteachers. Yes, it goes without saying that this is not the way Western forces ought ever to be encouraged to treat their prisoners.

But the point surely here is that these prisoners weren’t in the hands of Western forces. They were in the hands of an Afghan general who found an Afghan solution to an Afghan problem. And isn’t this, after all, the thing the Allied coalition is supposed to be encouraging in Afghanistan right now? We have, after all, come to accept after eight years of near-fruitless slog that we’re not going to win total military victory, let alone transform Afghanistan into a Western-style democracy. So where’s all this nonsense suddenly coming from that the US’s most urgent priority there is to investigate the killing of Taliban  by a non-American in the chaos and mayhem immediately following 9/11? (And incidentally if killing Taliban – plus sundry innocent civilians – is really such a problem, oughtn’t Obama to be investigating himself?)

Surely it can have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Obama’s poll ratings are falling, his economic policy is failing, unemployment is rising, his universal healthcare plan stalling, his cap n trade running into serious opposition, and his Afghan adventure looking more and more likely to turn into his Vietnam?

Surely a man as palpably noble and decent as Obama would never be so unprincipled as to try – for a second time in three months – to court cheap popularity with his nation’s enemies by undermining his own intelligence services and blaming everything on the CIA and George W Bush?

Related posts:

  1. Obama’s won the Nobel Peace – WTF?!
  2. Where have Action Man’s gonads gone?
  3. Is ‘Kojak’ Obama losing all his hair?
  4. Benghazi and Obama: the media is trying to shore up this desperate administration