EU Presidency: Obama Plan is “A Highway to Hell’

 Fox NewsSTRASBOURG, France —  A top European Union politician on Wednesday slammed U.S. plans to spend its way out of recession as “a way to hell.”
Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, whose country currently holds the EU presidency, told the European Parliament that President Barack Obama’s massive stimulus package and banking bailout “will undermine the stability of the global financial market.”

A day after his government collapsed because of a parliamentary vote of no-confidence, Topolanek took the EU presidency on a collision course with Washington over how to deal with the global economic recession.

Most European leaders favor tighter financial regulation, while the U.S. has been pushing for larger economic stimulus plans.

Topolanek’s comments are the strongest criticism so far from a European leader as the 27-nation bloc bristles from recent U.S. criticism that it is not spending enough to stimulate demand.

They also pave the way for a stormy summit next week in London between leaders of the Group of 20 industrialized countries.

 

The United States plans to spend heavily to try and lift its economy out of recession with a $787 billion economic stimulus plan of tax rebates, health and welfare benefits, as well as extra energy and infrastructure spending.

“We need to read the history books and the lessons of history and the biggest success of the (EU) is the refusal to go this way,” he said.

“Americans will need liquidity to finance all their measures and they will balance this with the sale of their bonds but this will undermine the stability of the global financial market,” said Topolanek.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510445,00.html

Post Script: Apparently, Prime Minister Topolanel is a fan of the Austrailian Rock Band AC/DC.  The Prime Minister states that he has been misquoted – the statement above should read  – “Obama’s Plan will put us on the “Highway To Hell”. Something didn’t translate quite right. The Prime Minister had recently attended an AC/DC Concert and the song was stuck in his head. “Highway to Hell” references in political speeches! “Stairway to Heaven” as musak in elevators. I guess ” the times they are a changin”.      

VIDEO: O’Reilly vs Frank – The Fannie & Freddie Collapse – Barney Frank denies everything

“With Surrogates Like These” – A Conservative Commentary on the Obama Campaign Strategy; By FOX New’s Andrea Tantaros

September 12, 2008

For a candidate who has made the concept of change the hallmark of his entire campaign for President of the United States, Barack Obama has mobilized an echo chamber that is reflective of anything but. Policy positions aside, this crucial juncture calls for surrogates who will highlight and bolster the reform message, not negate it.

Webster’s defines a surrogate as a substitute for oneself. If that’s accurate, why is the “agent of change” turning to the same stable of Democratic spinners?

When it was time to pick a Vice President, a commitment to one’s skill set, a partner and a mouth piece, the pick was…Joe Biden? Not only is Biden the furthest thing from change, he is also one word away from the political equivalent of a Janet Jackson “wardrobe malfunction.”

 

Politicians are prone to word, not wardrobe, malfunctions. And Biden is a repeat offender. Just this week, rather than laud Hillary for her achievement, he admitted Obama should have picked Senator Clinton instead. I couldn’t agree with you more, Joe. And after that sentiment everyone can see why you’re right on this one. Can’t wait for the debates.

When the wheels started to come off Barack’s bus thanks to Sarah Palin’s epic rise with American females he ran to…Hillary Clinton? Let’s get one thing straight. Biden was right. But a symbol of change she is not. Obama dispatched her anyway. She wasn’t good enough for the ticket but she was good enough for a cat fight? Putting a political institution like Hillary, as popular as she may be, to go a few rounds with a peripheral prize fighter like Palin only contrasted the change verses experience argument to Obama’s detriment. To her credit, Hillary was much too smart to take the bait.
Next in the change conga line? None other than Bill Clinton. You know it’s bad when the Obamas are dispatching Bubba. Unpredictable, often off message and a relic of our country’s political past, Clinton adds no refreshing shift in direction and runs in direct contrast to Obama’s alleged “different kind of politics.” Bill is damaged goods from a primary season of Days of Our Lives drama and hits rewind as a reminder of the scandal plagued 1990’s.

When it comes to really profound political friends and allies, we can’t forget the epicenter of political change and diversity: Hollywood. The sprinkles on the icing have been the immergence of Democratic deities like Matt Damon who recently compared Sarah Plain to a bad Disney movie. If Palin equals Disney then Obama’s film genre is Ben Affleck: grossly over hyped, hard to follow, anemic on substance, and poised for a disappointing ending.

McCain, on the other hand, has looked mostly outside of the beltway for his motley messengers: Huckabee, Romney, Rudy, and best of all, Sarah Palin.

Obama interpreted the Webster’s meaning precisely. If surrogates are a substitute for oneself, his team is a clear indicator we’re not poised for change you can believe in, but more of the same we should run from.

Andrea Tantaros is a Republican political commentator, media consultant and former Press Secretary to the House Republican Conference. For more click here

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/09/12/atantaros_0912/

VOTER FRAUD – “No Match – No Vote” to be Enforced in Florida

ABC’s Gibson Interview of Palin – The Bush Doctrine Question – Gibson got it Wrong Again

Charles Krauthammer, the Columnist credited with coining the term “Bush Doctrine” says Gibson got it wrong again!

FOX News – September 12, 2008 – By Bill Samon

ABC News’ Charles Gibson, who is being credited with stumping Sarah Palin on the definition of the “Bush Doctrine,” has himself defined the nebulous phrase in a variety of ways, including one that mirrored Palin’s disputed explanation.

Gibson and his colleagues have been all over the map in defining the Bush Doctrine over the last seven years. In 2001, Gibson himself defined it as “a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated.”

But when Palin tried to give a similar definition on Thursday, Gibson corrected her.

“I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation,” Palin said in her first interview since being nominated as the GOP’s vice presidential candidate.

Gibson countered: “The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us.”

Much has been made of the fact that Palin had to ask for clarification when Gibson inquired: “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”

“In what respect, Charlie?” the Alaska governor said.

“The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?” Gibson challenged.

“His world view?” Palin queried.

“No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war,” Gibson said.

That’s when Palin talked of ridding the world of “Islamic extremism,” prompting Gibson to define the Bush Doctrine instead as preemption.

The term “Bush Doctrine” was first coined by columnist Charles Krauthammer three months before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 and has undergone profound changes as the war against terror has evolved.

There is no single meaning of the Bush Doctrine,” Krauthammer noted in a forthcoming column. “In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.”

Richard Starr, managing editor of the Weekly Standard, agreed.

Gibson should of course have said in the first place what he understood the Bush Doctrine to be–and specified that he was asking a question about preemption,” Starr observed. “Palin was well within bounds to have asked him to be more specific. Because, as it happens, the doctrine has no universally acknowledged single meaning.”

Starr pointed out that other ABC journalists, including George Stephanolous, George Will and the late Peter Jennings, have defined the Bush Doctrine on the air in a variety of ways.

Ben Smith of the Politico said the Bush Doctrine exchange was “not a great moment” for Palin. But he conceded that critics are unfairly “pouncing on Sarah Palin’s apparent unfamiliarity with the Bush Doctrine as last night’s gaffe.”

This isn’t an easy question,” Smith noted. “Commentators have offered a range of meanings for the phrase, from the principle that countries that harbor terrorists are responsible for their actions to broader statements about the spread of freedom.”

Starr added: “Preemptive war; American unilateralism; the overthrow of regimes that harbor and abet terrorists–all of these things and more have been described as the ‘Bush Doctrine.’ It was a bit of a sham on Gibson’s part to have pretended that there’s such a thing as ‘the’ Bush Doctrine, much less that it was enunciated in September 2002.”

Bill Sammon is Washington Deputy Managing Editor for FOX News.

BLOGGERS NOTE:This writer will post a BLOG tomorrow on this topic. To add to this confusion – their have actually been 2 separate “Bush Doctrines” – the second superseded the first – that version has undergone at least 4 revisions as noted above. The Bush doctrine contains 4 separate components  1). Military Action / Terrorism, 2) Political – Spreading Democracy, 3) Economic and 4) Post War Recovery and the roll of Democracies. The complicated Doctrine borrows from both the Truman Doctrine and the Monroe Doctrine. 

Gibson’s definition was not incorrect it was simply incomplete. Governor Palin’s request for more detail wasn’t surprising. The Governor’s response was equally correct but incomplete. A complete correct answer was impossible in the format – the interview was only 1 hour long.

FOX NEWS – ABC misquotes Palin in Gibson Interview. Tape edited. Palin objection edited out of TV broadcast. Written transcript proves point.

FOXNews – September 12, 2008                                                                              ABC MISREPRESENTS PALIN QUOTE IN HOLY WAR QUESTION

Millions of TV viewers who watched ABC News’ interview with Sarah Palin Thursday night never saw her take issue with a key question in which she was asked if she believes that the U.S. military effort in Iraq is “a task that is from God.”

The exchange between Palin and ABC’s Charlie Gibson, in which she questioned the accuracy of the quote attributed to her, was edited out of the television broadcast but included in official, unedited transcripts posted on ABC’s Web site, as well as in video posted on the Internet.

But in the version shown on television, a video clip of her original statement was inserted in place of her objection, giving a different impression of how Palin views the Iraq war.

In the interview, Gibson asked Palin: “You said recently in your old church, ‘Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.’ Are we fighting a Holy War?”

Palin’s response, which appears in the transcript but was edited out of the televised version, was:

“You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.”

“It’s exact words,” Gibson said.

But Gibson’s quote left out what Palin said before that:

“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

The edited televised version included a partial clip of that quote, but not the whole thing.

Gibson’s characterization of Palin’s words prompted a sharp rebuke from the McCain campaign on Thursday.

“Governor Palin’s full statement was VERY different” from the way Gibson characterized it,” read a statement circulated by McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds.

Gibson cut the quote — where she was clearly asking for the church TO PRAY THAT IT IS a task from God, not asserting that it is a task from God.

Palin’s statement is an incredibly humble statement, a statement that this campaign stands by 100 percent, and a sentiment that any religious American will share,” Bounds wrote.

In the rest of the segment that aired, Palin told Gibson that she was referencing Abraham’s Lincoln’s words on how one should never presume to know God’s will. She said she does not presume to know God’s will and that she was only asking the audience to “pray that we are on God’s side.”

A promo posted on Yahoo! News Friday continued to misrepresent the exchange. It displays Palin’s image next to the words, “Iraq war a ‘holy war?’” implying that Palin — not Gibson — had called the War on Terror a holy war.

ABC News did not respond to requests for comment from FOXNews.com.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/12/abc-edits-out-palin-objection-to-holy-war-question/

COMPARE THIS INTERVIEW TO GIBSON’S INTERVIEW OF OBAMA IN 2007 HERE: https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/obamas-2007-interview-abcs-charlie-gibson-you-can-compare/ 

FACT CHECK.ORG – On SARAH PALIN, Creationism in Schools, Book Banning & Pat Buchanan

Watch Greta Van Susteren interview Brooks Jackson of FACTCHECK.ORG and dismiss these crazy Internet rumors.   

 

http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?CMP=KNC-YahooPI

%d bloggers like this: