WaPo: Four Pinocchios for WH “jayvees” spin

posted at 10:21 am on September 3, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Thanks to the holiday, it took Glenn Kessler a few days to catch up to the White House’s attempt to get out from under Barack Obama’s assertion that ISIS was nothing more than the al-Qaeda “jayvees,” a glib dismissal Obama gave in January when asked about it during a New Yorker interview. Needless to say, the “jayvees” have come a long way, and have done so even while Obama had been briefed for more than a year about their danger. Josh Earnest tried arguing last week that Obama didn’t mean to include ISIS in the “jayvees,” but Kessler dumps four Pinocchios on that claim.

Earnest provided this rambling answer when confronted on August 25th about the “jayvees” comment:

Q Just to complete this thought, then — did the President underestimate ISIS when he referred to them in an interview only a couple of months ago as a JV squad, in making a reference to National Basketball Association teams like the Lakers?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I thought somebody might ask this question today, so I wanted to pull — (laughter) — I wanted to pull the transcript of the interview, because it’s important to understand the context in which this was delivered. So let me just read the full quote and then we can talk about it just a little bit.

The President said, “I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland, versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.” So the President was not singling out ISIL. He was talking about the very different threat that is posed by a range of extremists around the globe. Many of them do not have designs on attacking the West or on attacking the United States, and that is what puts them in stark contrast to the goals and capability of the previously existing al Qaeda core network that was led by Osama bin Laden.

Thanks to the efforts of this President, and because of the heroic efforts of our men and women in uniform and the intelligence community, that al Qaeda core network led by Osama bin Laden has been decimated and defeated. But there is a different threat that exists and that continues to pose a threat to American national security, and that is this wider range of extremist organizations, some of whom do not have designs on attacking the West or on attacking the American homeland. Many of them — and I would say this is probably true — well, let me say it this way: Not only do they not have designs, the vast majority of them do not have designs on attacking the West, they certainly don’t have the capability of attacking the West. What Osama bin Laden presided over was an international network of highly trained, sophisticated, well-funded terrorists that were capable of carrying out a terrible, heinous attack on the U.S. homeland.

Q Isn’t ISIS international?

MR. EARNEST: The capability that has been exhibited by what the President described as jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes is quite different than that. And that is the point that the President was making. So it’s important that we don’t sort of shorthand the analogy that the President was trying to draw here.

Kessler points out that the issue that prompted the question from New Yorker’s David Remnick was that Fallujah had fallen to ISIS, which had just raised its flag over the city that US Marines fought at least twice to liberate. This wasn’t a general question about local jihadists or warlords; it was specific to the issue of ISIS and their designs on the region. After all, ISIS wasn’t an unknown group, but the same al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) that the US had fought for years in Iraq, finally marginalizing them during the surge. Our departure had allowed them to get back off the mat and rebuild into a cross-national army, and Fallujah was an early warning of their threat under their new name.

Earnest’s spin got him the full complement of Pinocchios:

With the passage of eight months, the president’s “JV” comment looks increasingly untenable, so we can understand why the White House spokesman would try to suggest that what is now known as the Islamic State was not the subject of the conversation.

But in quoting from the transcript, Earnest provided a selective reading of the discussion. In particular, he failed to provide the context in which Obama made his remarks—the takeover of Fallujah byISIS. That’s fairly misleading. The interviewer was certainly asking about ISIS when Obama answered with his “JV” remarks.

Nor is that the only Washington Post column to take the White House to the woodshed. Dana Milbank, not exactly a ringing voice of neocon philosophy, wonders what it will take to get Obama engaged … or at least worried:

I hope Obama’s chillax message turns out to be correct, but the happy talk is not reassuring. It’s probably true that the threat of domestic radicalization is greater in Europe than in the United States (hence the British plan to confiscate some passports) but Obama’s sanguinity is jarring compared to the mood of NATO allies Obama is meeting in Europe this week.

Obama has been giving Americans a pep talk, essentially counseling them not to let international turmoil get in the way of the domestic economic recovery. “The world has always been messy,” he said Friday. “In part, we’re just noticing now because of social media and our capacity to see in intimate detail the hardships that people are going through.”

So we wouldn’t have fussed over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine if not for Facebook? Or worried about terrorists taking over much of Syria and Iraq if not for Twitter? This explanation, following Obama’s indiscrete admission Thursday that “we don’t have a strategy yet” for military action against ISIS, adds to the impression that Obama is disengaged.

In short, Americans would worry less if Obama worried more.

Ruth Marcus provides a trifecta today at the Post. She scolds Obama for his “herky-jerky leadership,” a term Marcus admits is insufficient for the deep and troubling vacuum at the White House. Marcus starts with immigration, but concludes with the real issue:

The immigration mess would be less concerning — and the tone of this column more measured — if it were not reflective of a larger disarray in policymaking. Take Syria and the Islamic State. Chemical weapons are a “red line” — except they’re not. Obama’s prepared to order airstrikes on Syria — except he’s going to seek congressional approval, which, predictably, is not forthcoming. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad must go, except the United States is dealing with Assad on chemical weapons.

More recently, the Islamic State is an “imminent threat” (Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel) that will require military action in Syria (Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey). How to square these comments with Obama’swhoa therenews conference? A team of rivals is great. Debate away, in private. Teams need a captain.

Thus, even if Obama hadn’t committed the unforced error of announcing the obvious — “we don’t have a strategy yet” — the news conference would have been a disaster. The zig-zagginess of the message becomes even more jarring when the world is so explosively dangerous.

Calling this herky-jerky is being awfully polite.

Obama is in over his head. All the spin in the world can’t cover it up, and even the President’s usual defenders can’t deny it any longer.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Obama – “I meant to say that I was JV!” Sheesh!!

cww on September 3, 2014 at 10:24 AM

If I were an Obama voter, I’d hang my head in shame.

The world is waaaaaaaaaay past laughing at Obama. It is petrified.

Resist We Much on September 3, 2014 at 10:27 AM

Obama is in over his head. All the spin in the world can’t cover it up, and even the President’s usual defenders can’t deny it any longer.

Maybe they’ll start to examine how the puppet in chief got elected in the first place.

MT on September 3, 2014 at 10:29 AM

Media types must be running away from assignments to Iraq and Syria about now. Can you see them drawing straws in the newsrooms? Maybe some of this is starting to hit them where it hurts. In their own ranks.

Walter L. Newton on September 3, 2014 at 10:30 AM

Obama destroyed Osama Bin Laden and he will destroy ISIS.

nonpartisan on September 2, 2014 at 10:26 PM

Del Dolemonte on September 3, 2014 at 10:31 AM

If I were an Obama voter, I’d hang my head in shame.

The world is waaaaaaaaaay past laughing at Obama. It is petrified.

Resist We Much on September 3, 2014 at 10:27 AM

But they don’t. I have friends who are still blaming the Middle East stuff on George W. Bush. Obama is still perfect in their eyes.

NoFanofLibs on September 3, 2014 at 10:32 AM

Why does Obama keep referring to the terrorists as ISIL ( Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant)?

Doesn’t the terrorist group refers to itself as IS or ISIS?

albill on September 3, 2014 at 10:32 AM

Obama is in over his head. All the spin in the world can’t cover it up, and even the President’s usual defenders can’t deny it any longer.

At least he has his head. The same can’t be said for a couple of journalists this morning. Obama is out there embarrassing this nation talking about containment while ISO is literally killing hundreds of people for no other reason than being Christian, supportive of the Syrian government, or whatever. I’m just surprised he didn’t announce a plan to drop teddy bears and soccer balls into ISO territory to show that he just wants to be friends.

Happy Nomad on September 3, 2014 at 10:32 AM

#mediaownsobama

and they can’t wash the stink off

DanMan on September 3, 2014 at 10:32 AM

Obama is in over his head. All the spin in the world can’t cover it up, and even the President’s usual defenders can’t deny it any longer.

Nevertheless, the vast majority of “journalists” in the mainstream media will continue to defend him and his administration whenever they can, and will eventually push for the 2016 Democrat nominee whose foreign policy will be the same, if not worse.

They’re only now sounding the alarm and using identical phraseology like “jarring” and “disengaged” because you’d have to be treating your readership like utter morons to make excuses for grave errors like, “We don’t have a strategy yet” and “JV.” The man is incompetent and all the hand-wringing in the world over international forces not getting along with Obama’s global vision is laughable.

Wake up, America.

Aizen on September 3, 2014 at 10:32 AM

Obama – “I meant to say that I was JV!” Sheesh!!

cww on September 3, 2014 at 10:24 A

Is it really necessary for him to say that? What was it, a year or two ago when he went 1 for 25 trying to make a quick basket for the cameras, and finally had to settle for a layup (on his third try)? Honestly, I don’t think Obama would even qualify for the JV team.

Maybe he should try something like bowling. Oh, wait…

parke on September 3, 2014 at 10:33 AM

yes, but he’s wearing a tan suit.

Star Bird on September 3, 2014 at 10:36 AM

Why bother? And, Obama called Benghazi an “act of terror,” right, Candy? Leave Barry alooooooone!!!

Fallon on September 3, 2014 at 10:37 AM

Why does Obama keep referring to the terrorists as ISIL ( Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant)?

Doesn’t the terrorist group refers to itself as IS or ISIS?

albill on September 3, 2014 at 10:32 AM

Short version: Obama would rather not reference Syria by calling them “ISIS,” which makes note of the disastrous and deteriorating situation over there which is indicative of his failed foreign policy:

—The “red line”
—”Assad must go”
—Putin eventually bailing him out
—Failed push for airstrikes
—Contemplating arming the Syrian rebels after opposing it

That’s what a calamitous foreign policy looks like, folks.

Aizen on September 3, 2014 at 10:38 AM

hmmmm i wonder why the GOP isn’t using the gazillions they have in their coffers to highlight obama’s incompetence, and step on his neck now that he’s down?

renalin on September 3, 2014 at 10:38 AM

yes, but he’s wearing a tan suit.

Star Bird on September 3, 2014 at 10:36 AM

It helps hide the yellow streak.

VegasRick on September 3, 2014 at 10:38 AM

Obama is in over his head. All the spin in the world can’t cover it up, and even the President’s usual defenders can’t deny it any longer.

That’s what I used to think. But no. He’s on the other side. Not so much as wanting an Islamic global caliphate, I don’t know him well enough for that. But Iraq and Syria were creations of colonial European powers, which Dear Liar hates, and so an organic reemergence of an Islamic caliphate is ok by him. And as the US is responsible for all the ills of the world (in his mind) a few of us getting our heads lopped off is merely small reparations.

rbj on September 3, 2014 at 10:41 AM

Glenn Kessler a few days to catch up

Ed loves his leftist memes – Part 2,852

WaPo didn’t give the 4 Pinocchios to Obama who made the JV remark back in January.

They waited 8 months to deflect the blame to the WH spox.

Is there a Naive Award?

faraway on September 3, 2014 at 10:41 AM

So, the question BO was answering in January specifically related to ISIS. Were all of the useless “journalists” at last week’s press briefing unaware of that fact? The only reason the Earnest Josher gets away with this disingenuousness is because the WH press corps (or is it corpse?) is too stupid/lazy to challenge him.

Syzygy on September 3, 2014 at 10:43 AM

Earnest is yet another paid liar. I can’t stand these pathetic flacks covering for the demise of the nation any more.

paul1149 on September 3, 2014 at 10:44 AM

The Obama administration and Pinocchio are no strangers.

Oxymoron on September 3, 2014 at 10:44 AM

You racists just want to keep a black man off the golf coarse.

/sarc

gwelf on September 3, 2014 at 10:45 AM

JVs vs Varsity?

How about our team? Get Barack Obama to resign and work your way through the backups:
1 Vice President Joe Biden (D)
2 Speaker of the House John Boehner (R)
3 Pres pro tempore of Senate Patrick Leahy (D)
4 Secretary of State John Kerry (D)
5 Secretary of the Treasury Jacob Lew (D)
6 Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel (R)
7 Attorney General Eric Holder (D)

EJHill on September 3, 2014 at 10:45 AM

Little late there.

But then, I guess the WaPo “Fact checker” doesn’t like being forced by sheer obviousness to point out one of Obama’s many, many lies.

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 3, 2014 at 10:52 AM

Welcome to the party, pal!

tanked59 on September 3, 2014 at 10:53 AM

Thanks to the efforts of this President, and because of the heroic efforts of our men and women in uniform and the intelligence community, that al Qaeda core network led by Osama bin Laden has been decimated and defeated.

I love it when the effete intellectual elite use the term “decimate”.

It comes from the Roman army’s practice of killing every 10th man in a village when they opposed Roman rule.

Guess these intellectuals don’t realize that “decimate” leaves the other NINETY PERCENT alive.

GarandFan on September 3, 2014 at 10:54 AM

But they don’t. I have friends who are still blaming the Middle East stuff on George W. Bush. Obama is still perfect in their eyes.

NoFanofLibs on September 3, 2014 at 10:32 AM

The soft bigotry of low expectations — Those types never call Obama out on anything other than if he happened to stray in their eyes too far to the right, though to be fair, if John F. Kerry were the dithering president right now, they’d be making the same excuses for him and blaming his predecessor who had been out of the White House for over half a decade.

jon1979 on September 3, 2014 at 10:55 AM

I watched a JV lacrosse game yesterday and it was pretty brutal, one team kept decapitating players from the other team.

This is what you get when you elect a fud who has spent his entire life being sheltered and told he’s got special talents which no one else possesses, the boy is clueless and naive.

Bishop on September 3, 2014 at 10:57 AM

This is a test. I’m confident that President Obama will rise to the occasion, as he has time and time again. I have faith in him.

nonpartisan on September 2, 2014 at 10:20 PM

Del Dolemonte on September 3, 2014 at 10:57 AM

GarandFan on September 3, 2014 at 10:54 AM

ROFL

I get a kick out the media jackalopes using that term too, they think it sounds tough.

Remember: They’re trained journalists.

Bishop on September 3, 2014 at 10:58 AM

This is what you get when you elect a fud

Bishop on September 3, 2014 at 10:57 AM

Hey now, that is an insult to Elmers everywhere!

Del Dolemonte on September 3, 2014 at 10:58 AM

She scolds Obama for his “herky-jerky leadership,” a term Marcus admits is insufficient for the deep and troubling vacuum at the White House.

Insufficient is quite an understatement.

Again, the media has a hard time admitting Obama’s failures.

Reminds me of the old story about an Air Force weather mission that sent out a forecast of “partly cloudy.” One of the pilots said, “Don’t you people ever look out the window? There’s not a cloud in the sky!”

And the reply came, “Well, we accidentally hit the key for a solid overcast this morning, and we’re kind of breaking it up gradually…..”

That is the media as Obama flops and flounders: trying to gradually work their way up to admitting he might not be The One after all.

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 3, 2014 at 10:59 AM

That so-called Fact-Checker awards his cutesy little schnozzes to the White House spokesman rather than Obama.

There’s clearly a statute of limitations that prevents Kessler from awarding Obama for the original claim.

Yet some months back he awarded Paul Ryan a bunch for quoting a mistaken comment that somebody else had made under oath.

In other words, Kessler’s modus operandi includes making a big deal out of often minor Republican gaffes, claims, or misstatements, and every so often trotting out something as obvious as this to show he’s being “impartial.”

I won’t bother to read the comments section in WaPo – no doubt the libs are howling at Kessler and he’ll have to jump on the nearest Republican over anything he can find ASAP.

Drained Brain on September 3, 2014 at 10:59 AM

Guess these intellectuals don’t realize that “decimate” leaves the other NINETY PERCENT alive.

GarandFan on September 3, 2014 at 10:54 AM

1. kill, destroy, or remove a large percentage or part of. “the project would decimate the fragile wetland wilderness”

You are correct in it’s classical meaning, but the word has morphed over the last 100 years.

I’ve had this argument with my editor. “Destroy” is a proper meaning for the word now.

Walter L. Newton on September 3, 2014 at 11:03 AM

Obama is in over his head.

This is such a crock. Even critics like EM insist on the “Obama means well, he can’t execute” meme. Obama is the most anti-American POS this country could have possibly elected. He, his wife, and Jarrett hate everything this country stands for. And idiots voted for him.

Take off the gloves and go after this guy.

Shifting gears, why don’t we start saving money on his security details when he flies overseas? Islamic extremists have no greater friend than Obama. OBL was hiding in a compound, and drone strikes haven’t seemed to stopped anything. Obama’s half-a**ed efforts are nothing but a show.

BuckeyeSam on September 3, 2014 at 11:08 AM

1. kill, destroy, or remove a large percentage or part of. “the project would decimate the fragile wetland wilderness”

You are correct in it’s classical meaning, but the word has morphed over the last 100 years.

I’ve had this argument with my editor. “Destroy” is a proper meaning for the word now.

Walter L. Newton on September 3, 2014 at 11:03 AM

Says you or your editor? What does your editor say about using it’s as possessive? :-;

In the same vein, has Joe Biden morphed literally to mean figuratively?

Oh well, my great-grandchildren’s first language will probably be Spanish or Arabic or who-knows-what.

Drained Brain on September 3, 2014 at 11:10 AM

Obama is in over his head. All the spin in the world can’t cover it up, and even the President’s usual defenders can’t deny it any longer.

Gee, ‘ya think?

Obama recently admitted in response to a question about Libya that he didn’t give much thought to what might happen there after the U.S. air strike took out Qadaffi.

And this clueless fool is the same man who was sold to American voters as a “genius” and a “lightworker” and who his media flacks assured us was engaged in super-brilliant strategic planning akin to 3-D chess that we mere peons couldn’t hope to understand (being so much less intelligent than Dear Leader).

It would be funny if the stakes weren’t so damn high.

AZCoyote on September 3, 2014 at 11:13 AM

Says you or your editor? What does your editor say about using it’s as possessive? :-;

In the same vein, has Joe Biden morphed literally to mean figuratively?

Oh well, my great-grandchildren’s first language will probably be Spanish or Arabic or who-knows-what.

Drained Brain on September 3, 2014 at 11:10 AM

My editor would have corrected me. And if I was writing an article for my newspaper, I would be a little more careful then I am when quickly trying to respond to blog comments.

It doesn’t change what I related. But thanks for pointing that out.

Walter L. Newton on September 3, 2014 at 11:15 AM

Guess these intellectuals don’t realize that “decimate” leaves the other NINETY PERCENT alive.

GarandFan on September 3, 2014 at 10:54 AM

1. kill, destroy, or remove a large percentage or part of. “the project would decimate the fragile wetland wilderness”

You are correct in it’s classical meaning, but the word has morphed over the last 100 years.

I’ve had this argument with my editor. “Destroy” is a proper meaning for the word now.

Walter L. Newton on September 3, 2014 at 11:03 AM

Ah, yes. The old theory that if everyone uses the word wrongly, then the definition of the word has changed.

People misuse the word because they mistakenly presume it means the opposite: to destroy 90% of something and leave only 10%.

I recognize the modern usage of the word, but it’s still wrong.

Interestingly, I first ran across the word as a boy in a book of stories about the Texas Rangers*. In that book, they used the word correctly. It referred to an incident where some prisoners were each given a bean, 10% of which were black. Everyone handed a black bean was put to death.**

* The original law enforcement body, not a sports team

** NOT by the Texas Rangers. They were trying to rescue the prisoners, as I recall.

Now decimated is used so loosely it’s embarrassing. Did your football team win a big victory? Don’t be surprised to hear that they “decimated” their opponents.

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 3, 2014 at 11:19 AM

Why does Obama keep referring to the terrorists as ISIL ( Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant)?

Doesn’t the terrorist group refers to itself as IS or ISIS?

albill

I believe the word “ISIL” translates to the word “folks”.

Typicalwhitewoman on September 3, 2014 at 11:20 AM

It doesn’t change what I related. But thanks for pointing that out.

Walter L. Newton on September 3, 2014 at 11:15 AM

It was such a silly and puerile comment for me to make that I couldn’t resist.

More seriously, I took enough linguistics courses a few decades back to realize language and word meanings evolve. Still, I don’t think it hurts to try to hold on to some words that have a useful meaning.

To put it another way, I don’t feel gay that language seems to be evolving more quickly and less naturally than formerly, and I’m always on guard against those (mainly on the left) who manipulate words and demand we accept such-and-such meaning for a word or, worse, cease to use a word at all.

All OT of course.

Drained Brain on September 3, 2014 at 11:28 AM

Milbank’s piece was a tongue bath. Read it twice to fully absorb it, and you’ll get the feel of it, Milbank in full-advice mode, hoping that Valerie and company are reading and building new talking points.

Sting on September 3, 2014 at 11:30 AM

GarandFan on September 3, 2014 at 10:54 AM

Nice. This has been a constant burr under my saddle, considering the frequency with which the term “decimate” is used by both government, press and bloggers as a synonym for “annihilate”. Decimation is a punishment most approximate to setting an example for others.

Immolate on September 3, 2014 at 11:36 AM

Kessler points out that the issue that prompted the question from New Yorker’s David Remnick was that Fallujah had fallen to ISIS, which had just raised its flag over the city that US Marines fought at least twice to liberate

Ed once interviewed a Marine that was one of the first casualties of the first battle for Fallujah, a dear friend of mine, GySgt Nick Popaditch, who was struck in the head by an RPG while commanding an M1 near the heart of the City. I can only imagine what Nick would say to this ridiculous spin.
Read the story, the man is amazing. He has more courage and honor in his little toe than our President will ever have.
http://www.americanvalor.net/heroes/392

And a little personal insight:
http://marinesmagazine.dodlive.mil/2010/08/12/gunnery-sgt-nick-popaditch/

JusDreamin on September 3, 2014 at 11:43 AM

Why does Obama keep referring to the terrorists as ISIL ( Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant)?

Doesn’t the terrorist group refers to itself as IS or ISIS?

albill on September 3, 2014 at 10:32 AM

Because the second S in ISIS refers to Syria, where ISIS got started. Obama doesn’t want voters to remember that he (Obama) wanted to arm the Syrian rebels (which included ISIS) against Assad, and if Congress had allowed him to do that, Obama would have unwittingly helped ISIS take over northern Iraq, which U.S. Marines under former President Bush had fought so hard to liberate.

Obama wants to call it ISIL, because few people really know where the Levant is located. “Levant” is the French word for “rising”, used to refer to “where the sun rises”, or the East in general, similar to the word “Orient”. Obama prefers some vague reference to the “east” to the S for Syria, which most voters can find on a map. Perhaps the Islamic State itself prefers ISIL, in order to confuse naïve enemies about where they came from.

Steve Z on September 3, 2014 at 11:49 AM

If I were an Obama voter, I’d hang my head in shame.

Resist We Much on September 3, 2014 at 10:27 AM

Now RWM, you know if you were an Obamabot that wouldn’t be true. It would indicate you’re too stupid or naive to understand shame.

Closet Optimist on September 3, 2014 at 12:11 PM

SUSFU…..

crosshugger on September 3, 2014 at 12:17 PM

Guess these intellectuals don’t realize that “decimate” leaves the other NINETY PERCENT alive.
GarandFan on September 3, 2014 at 10:54 AM
1. kill, destroy, or remove a large percentage or part of. “the project would decimate the fragile wetland wilderness”
You are correct in it’s classical meaning, but the word has morphed over the last 100 years.
I’ve had this argument with my editor. “Destroy” is a proper meaning for the word now.
Walter L. Newton on September 3, 2014 at 11:03 AM
Ah, yes. The old theory that if everyone uses the word wrongly, then the definition of the word has changed.
People misuse the word because they mistakenly presume it means the opposite: to destroy 90% of something and leave only 10%.
I recognize the modern usage of the word, but it’s still wrong.
Interestingly, I first ran across the word as a boy in a book of stories about the Texas Rangers*. In that book, they used the word correctly. It referred to an incident where some prisoners were each given a bean, 10% of which were black. Everyone handed a black bean was put to death.**
* The original law enforcement body, not a sports team
** NOT by the Texas Rangers. They were trying to rescue the prisoners, as I recall.
Now decimated is used so loosely it’s embarrassing. Did your football team win a big victory? Don’t be surprised to hear that they “decimated” their opponents.
There Goes the Neighborhood on September 3, 2014 at 11:19 AM

Gee what other words could be used incorrectly so much it’s assumed to have changed?? Well I’ll have a gay old time trying to remember…

Nutstuyu on September 3, 2014 at 12:20 PM

Obama is in over his head. All the spin in the world can’t cover it up, and even the President’s usual defenders can’t deny it any longer.

#smartpower

everdiso on August 21, 2014 at 3:13 PM

Schadenfreude on September 3, 2014 at 12:22 PM

Obama is in over his head. All the spin in the world can’t cover it up, and even the President’s usual defenders can’t deny it any longer.

Really? Cause I don’t see much movement that direction. The media still covers for him. Perhaps a wee bit less, modest amount at best. The stench of 0 is hard to wash off after all. Worst Ever! When I see them writing that, I may have a change of heart. Until then. Nothing but a bunch of 0 fluffers. Hopeless.

Bmore on September 3, 2014 at 12:32 PM

If I were an Obama voter, I’d hang my head in shame.

Resist We Much on September 3, 2014 at 10:27 AM

If you were an Obama voter, you wouldn’t know the meaning of the word, nor would you have the two brain cells to rub together that would be required to have an inkling of a cognitive thought to begin with.

Midas on September 3, 2014 at 1:10 PM

You racists just want to keep a black man off the golf coarse.

/sarc

gwelf on September 3, 2014 at 10:45 AM

LOL….nothing, I mean, NOTHING could be more racist than this and sound so nice:

“he’s so articulate, bright and clean…that’s storybook man”

So yeah, us knuckle-dragging racist neanderthals need to back off!!

ManWithNoName on September 3, 2014 at 2:05 PM

If Obama were white (I mean, instead of just 50% white) he would look like Kevin Bacon in this classic scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDAmPIq29ro

RedManBlueState on September 3, 2014 at 4:39 PM

…’ Just to complete this thought, then — did the President underestimate ISIS when he referred to them in an interview only a couple of months ago as a JV squad, in making a reference to National Basketball Association teams like the Lakers?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I thought somebody might ask this question today’…

So does this mean the press is still submitting their questions to the press secretary before-hand?

dusaa-1975 on September 3, 2014 at 9:09 PM