Yesterday on Meet the Press, Obama told Chuck Todd that he was not specifically referring to ISIL in his infamous JV quote from the New Yorker in January:
TODD: “Long way, long way from when you described them as a JV team. Was that bad intelligence or your misjudgment?”
OBAMA: “Keep in mind I wasn’t specifically referring to ISIL. I’ve said that, regionally, there were a whole series of organizations that were focused primarily locally, weren’t focused on homeland, because I think a lot of us, when we think about terrorism, the model is Osama bin Laden and 9/11.”
But Politifact disagreed and gave the above statement by Obama a big fat LIE after contacting the author of the New Yorker piece in which the quote was originally published:
Critics have maligned Obama’s “JV” remark in recent weeks as the Islamic State continues to wreak havoc throughout Syria and Iraq. The origin of the comment is a New Yorker profile of Obama by editor David Remnick. The New Yorker published Remnick’s profile on Jan. 27, 2014. In it, he wrote, “In the 2012 campaign, Obama spoke not only of killing Osama bin Laden; he also said that Al Qaeda had been ‘decimated.’ I pointed out that the flag of Al Qaeda is now flying in Fallujah, in Iraq, and among various rebel factions in Syria; Al Qaeda has asserted a presence in parts of Africa, too.”
Obama responded: “The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.” (For the nonsports fan, JV stands for junior varsity, and it usually means a high school or college’s secondary team.)
Remnick confirmed to PolitiFact that the interview took place on Jan. 7 and he was referencing a specific event that had happened just days before: the overtaking of the Iraq city of Fallujah on Jan. 3.
Al Jazeera America reported on Jan. 4: “On Friday, ISIL gunmen sought to win over the population in Fallujah, one of the cities they swept into on Wednesday. A commander appeared among worshippers holding Friday prayers in the main city street, proclaiming that his fighters were there to defend Sunnis from the government, one resident said.
Officials within the Iraqi government told the “Agence France-Presse that ISIL, the al Qaeda-linked Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, remained in control of parts of the two cities on Thursday,” according to NBC.
So when Remnick referenced an al Qaeda group taking over Fallujah, it’s clear whom he was talking about.
Obama said his JV comment “wasn’t specifically referring to ISIL.” He was not specifically asked about Islamic State, but it’s pretty clear this is the group that was being referenced in the conversation. The transcript backs this up, as do news events from the time of the discussion.
We rate the statement False.
And there it is. A big fat lie.
So first he blames bad intelligence and when that doesn’t work, he claims he was talking about something else.
….if they want to throw money around to find out why no one watches Meet the Press anymore, I am very affordable, certainly more affordable than any “consultant”.
The Washington Post reports that NBC hired a “psychological consultant” to interview David Gregory as part of a desperate effort to find out why ratings for Meet the Press have fallen to their lowest point ever — as in,since 1947.
As The Other McCain points out, the first problem is David Gregory himself. He is smug, and boring. The second problem is that shows like Meet the Press are dinosaurs, their time has passed. They are boring, stale, pretentious, and oh yeah, BORING! You want ratings? Hire someone interesting, and funny to host. No, not like Stephen Colbert, who is neither funny or interesting, I mean someone who actually makes people laugh but who can also make political points. Greg Gutfeld or Andrew Klavan come to mind. Next have some guests that are not BORING and who do not come across as obnoxious and snobbish. In short make the show fun to watch. David Gregory? NOT FUN!
Finally, you need to remember that sex sells. Along with the funny, engaging host, try getting a co-host who is, how shall I put this, HOT! No, I do not mean a bimbo, I mean an intelligent woman whose smile and beautiful face just happens to make me stay tuned. There are MANY choices there. And it does not even matter what her politics are. It matters that she is HOT. If you ask me, right now your top choices there would Tamron Hall, Robin Meade, or Brooke Baldwin. I do not know their political leanings, but they are, smart, engaging, and oh yes, HOT!
My point is, make the show interesting rather than coma-inducing. NBC you have to be honest, who would you rather listen to, Gregory, who has the sense of humor of a clam, or Klavan or Gutfeld who are both very funny. See EASY choice there. Now, ask yourself who Americans want to look at, Gregory, who looks like a complete tool, sorry, he does, or one of these three? Yeah, I thought so
I only ask this question because David Frum, whom I despise, and David Brooks are both idiots. Brooks is the media’s favorite Republican, AKA a useful idiot. He got the role of favored Republican because he goes on TV and says the things about Conservatives that the media wants to hear. Stacy McCain, who holds no respect for Brooks either, takes great pleasure in sharing this video clip of Brooks being verbally horse-whipped for being, well, a idiot!
Appearing on “Meet the Press,” David Brooks declared that intellectual strength commands support for the Gang of Eight bill:
“You know, I’ve seen a lot of intellectually weak cases in this town. I’ve rarely seen as intellectually a weak case is the case against the Senate immigration bill.”
OUCH! That will leave a mark
Ah Peggy Noonan, who continues to get air time even though she is well past relevant
On this weekend’s broadcast of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Wall Street Journal op-ed columnist Peggy Noonan said Congress has betrayed the public trust after the Newtown, Conn. elementary school massacre.
“I think a big part of this story is that people don’t trust Congress,” Noonan said. “After Newtown, there was a great bubbling feeling of, my goodness, there must be at least some things we can do legislatively to make this whole gun situation better. If the Congress, if the Senate had moved quickly on discrete, small bills having to do with background checks — I mean quickly, in the weeks after Newtown … They failed to move quick and small.”
I wonder what “small” gun grabbing bills Noonan would ask for. She mentions background checks, which we already have. Maybe she thinks the feds should stick their nose into every private gun sale? Such a bill would hurt the law-abiding and do nothing to stop criminals.
Not to mention that Congress really should NOT “move fast”. Thomas Jefferson certainly would not be a fan of that. Bills passed quickly are antithetical to liberty and open government. Frankly bills ought to take a long time, so the people can know what is in them and have their say.
To the “you knew this was coming” gun grab effort by the Left, an effort that Stacy McCain notes Obama has vowed to put his weight behind
Recalling the shooting of 20 first graders as the worst day of his presidency, President Barack Obama on Sunday pledged to put his “full weight” behind a legislative package next year aimed at containing gun violence.
In an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Obama voiced skepticism about proposals to place armed guards at schools in the aftermath of the Dec. 14 deadly assault at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. . . .
Obama said he intended to press the issue with the public. . . .
“Will there be resistance? Absolutely there will be resistance,” he said.
“The question then becomes whether we are actually shook up enough by what happened here that it does not just become another one of these routine episodes where it gets a lot of attention for a couple of weeks and then it drifts away. It certainly won’t feel like that to me. This is something that – you know, that was the worst day of my presidency. And it’s not something that I want to see repeated.
Note that Obama discounted the idea of armed security in schools. That is no surprise, , Liberals have all ridiculed, the suggestion of armed guards. Not because they do not think it will work, but because they want stricter gun laws. For them this is about getting legislation they want, and not about protecting kids.