Brian Ross of ABC ‘News’ Politicizes Colorado Shooting, Illicitly Blames Tea Party

The awful crime in Colorado was only hours old when Brian Ross, a so-called “journalist” from ABC News, immediately began to politicize the shooting attempting to blame the crime on the Tea Party, conservatives, Republicans, and anyone from the right side of the political aisle with whom he disagrees quite despite the fact that he really had no information that might point to his political enemies.

On ABC’s Good Morning America, anchor George Stephanolpoulos took a “report” from ABC’s Chief Investigator Brian Ross who was supposedly investigating the crime. Here is what Ross said,

There’s a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado, page on the Colorado Tea party site as well, talking about him joining the Tea Party last year. Now, we don’t know if this is the same Jim Holmes. But it’s Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado.

First of all the name James Holmes is not a very exotic name. Many, many James Holmes live in the Aurora area. A quick search of the White Pages online finds at least five James Holmeses in Aurora and at least a half dozen in Denver and over thirty in the state.

Yet, Brian Ross immediately stampedes to a Colorado Tea Party webpage in hopes of finding the name James Holmes, then, finding one, he runs to the camera to blame the Tea party without taking even a second to ascertain if the James Holmes on the Tea Party website is, or even could be the Colorado theater murderer.

This is how the left-wing, anti-American, anti-truth Old Media works. Lies pass for “facts,” political agendas replace the news, and hate for anything they disagree with guides their every thought and action. You go out, you lie about your enemies allowing the narrative to take hold in order to hurt your political opposites, then, when it inevitably turns out that your supposition is wrong, you put a “correction” somewhere in the back of a newspaper where no one will ever see it. Your lies are now out there and believed by many apparently to spite the truth. That is how Democrats and the left work.

This isn’t the first time that something like this has happened. You may recall that the entirety of the Old Media establishment immediately blamed the Tea Party and conservatives for the shooting of Democrat Representative Gabby Giffords back in 2011. That turned out to be a lie, too. Giffords’ shooter was an apolitical, nut case, not a conservative.

Ross isn’t the only one agreeing that politicizing this crime in order to smear the right is a great idea. For TIME, Mike Grunwald also agreed that “there’s nothing wrong with politicizing a tragedy.”

But if Ross had taken even a few minutes to do some actual investigative journalism, you know, his JOB, he’d have easily found out that there is no Tea Party link. As it happens, the James Holmes of the Colorado Tea Party site is a man in his fifties and the police released information that their suspect is a 24-year-old.

In fact, it has been revealed that the killer was raised in southern California, was a medical student from the University of Colorado, and a dropout.

So, with that news can we claim that everyone from Southern California is prone to mass murder? Or maybe that everyone in medical school could be a nascent murderer? Or maybe anyone going to the University of Colorado, or any university for that matter, should make us worry? We would have to think all this using Brian Ross’ “logic.”

What Ross did was commit a crime against his so-called profession. Using his airtime for a political attack when so many families were grieving the loss of their loved ones in this monstrous crime is not merely unseemly, it is a hateful act that should end his career.

But Brian Ross will not find his career ended with this hateful lie. In fact, all his little journalist pals will slap him on the back and congratulate him for pushing the lie that the Tea Party supports mass murder.

Bias? What bias?

Since Brian Ross’ bald-faced attempt to turn this killing into a way to attack his political enemies, ABC issued an “apology” for his blatant misuse of his position.

An earlier ABC News broadcast report suggested that a Jim Holmes of a Colorado Tea Party organization might be the suspect, but that report was incorrect. ABC News and Brian Ross apologize for the mistake, and for disseminating that information before it was properly vetted.

Too late, ABC. You’ve let your bias show.

Awkward - NBC Pairing Fired Ann Curry With Her Replacement Savannah Guthrie
That Obama Speech
  • GarandFan

    There is a remedy. For the next year George Stephanolpoulos and Brian Ross can begin each and everyone of their shows with an apology – thereby alerting their viewers that whatever follows might just be more of the same.

  • jim_m

    If I am the head of ABC news I am pissed because this is nothing but gross incompetence. In any other field this kind of deliberate screw up would get you fired.

    • UOG

      The real question is, are Ben Sherwood and Diane Sawyer going to do anything substantive about this? I freely admit I don’t know nor have I met either of these people, but my guess is that both consider the apology sufficient right now. The task is to convince them that it is both wholly inadequate and in need of correction. The left side of the aisle turns to advertiser boycotts at this point… potentially effective but an indiscriminate approach to the problem. Anyone have any suggestions that are more focused?

  • jim_m

    Come on. This is so bad that even Gawker is condemning them for it.

  • 914

    May God bless and comfort those families that lost love ones..

    That said, I hope none of these weapons got here from Mexico? Otherwise, I beg your pardon! I never promised you a Rose lawn garden ain’t gonna cut it!!

  • herddog505

    What’s even more embarrassing / disgusting about this is that Ross apparently got his info from lefty tweets and blog posts, and THEY apparently got their info from simply seeing if there was a James Holmes who lives in CO and is connected with the Tea Party.

    Layers and layers of editors and fact-checkers my a**.

  • 914

    My sympathies also go out to all Americans, who witnessed this insufferable lout open his pie hole and shit on all common sense..

  • jim_m

    Mr Ross is an equal opportunity slimer:

    Apparently facts and Mr Ross have never been formally introduced.

  • Commander_Chico

    At least Ross didn’t call an Army colonel serving the nation in a dangerous job a traitor.

    The problem with Warner is that he thinks besmirching the Tea Party is worse than the shooting itself.

    • Sky__Captain

      The problem with liberals is besmirching and slandering anyone they feel like is just fine. No negative consequences should ever occur.
      It’s as if liberals have no sense of honor.
      Oh, wait – they don’t.

      • jim_m

        From the leftist dictionary:

        [ ónnər ] Noun

        1) The conservative notion that personal integrity: strong moral character or strength, and adherence to ethical principles are meaningful concepts and may even exist.
        2) Pretending to have real respect: great respect and admiration
        3) Dignity: Conservatives labor under the mistaken belief that there exists a personal dignity that sometimes leads to recognition and glory

        For the leftist Honor is a fantasy. They believe that Honor exists like unicorns do. They view the conservative belief in honor like conservatives view their ideas about AGW and green energy.

        • Commander_Chico

          If Warner had any honor he’d apologize to Col. Pohl.

  • TomInCali

    This is how the left-wing, anti-American, anti-truth Old Media works.
    Lies pass for “facts,” political agendas replace the news, and hate for
    anything they disagree with guides their every thought and action. You
    go out, you lie about your enemies allowing the narrative to take hold
    in order to hurt your political opposites, then, when it inevitably
    turns out that your supposition is wrong, you put a “correction”
    somewhere in the back of a newspaper where no one will ever see it. Your
    lies are now out there and believed by many apparently to spite the
    truth. That is how Democrats and the left work.

    I especially enjoyed this, as you could replace “left” with “right” and “Democrats” with “Republicans”, and then you’d be describing Breitbart’s “exclusive” that Holmes was a registered Democrat. (Later updated that it “may, in fact” be a crock of bullshit.)

    Nice rant and pile-on the left without even a mention of the same activity from the right. Once again, IOKIYAR.

    • Brucehenry

      No, no,’s different when Warner does it, because he NEVER, at any time, or anywhere, corrects his false allegations or misinformation. See? If you pretend you weren’t dishonest, there’s no need to retract or apologize for anything!

      You’ll never see Warner apologize for or retract his allegation that Colonel Pohl is a “traitor” who should be “drummed out of the service,” any more than you’ll see him correct his misinformation about Dan Savage, Ray Bradbury, or Brett Kimberlin.

      But if someone ELSE makes a hasty assumption or false allegation, or appears to be distorting the truth to fit their supposed ideology, they’re eeeeevill, I tells ya!

      • jim_m

        I think there is a qualitative difference between wrongheaded and overheated rhetoric on a blog and falsely accusing an innocent man of mass murder on network TV in front of an audience of 4.5 million viewers.

        As I mentioned to Tomincali, I seriously doubt that the Colonel received one phone call from a disgruntled Wizbang reader. Mr Holmes has disconnected his phone. My guess is that most of Mr Holmes’ calls were death threats.

      • Commander_Chico

        Warner used “illicitly” in a wrong way in his headline. Illlicit means unlawful. There was nothing illegal about about what Ross did. This shows Warner’s authoritarian tendencies. He really would like to impose censorship on the press.

    • jim_m

      Yes, inaccuracies occur form both sides. However, Brian Ross’ dangerous and inflammatory piece was unethical, irresponsible and unprofessional. In his zeal to score a political point against the TEA Party and conservatives he broadcast to 4.5 million viewer that the wrong man was responsible for 12 murders. He put an innocent man in danger with his reckless behavior. And unlike Warner he does not have a chorus of people on the Today show to correct him immediately.

      Yes Warner’s comment about Col. Pohl was wrongheaded. I sincerely doubt that the Colonel has had to disconnect his phone due to angry Wizbang readers calling him incessantly. The innocent Mr Holmes has.

      If you want to go toe to toe on how corrupt the left is and how the press gives dems a pass on illegality and corruption you are going to lose big. Don’t give me this self pitying crap about how it’s OK if you are a Republican. GOP lawmakers are forced to resign at the first whiff of scandal. Dems hold on until they are convicted and sent to jail. The MSM simply does not report on Dem scandals. If you think that’s wrong I suggest that you start with John Edwards and when you have looked him up we will be glad to give you another example.

      That being said, the deliberate smearing of an innocent man by Mr Ross is without excuse. It was done for idiotic political reasons and he should have already been sacked.

      • Brucehenry

        Not making excuses for Ross, and neither is the “left”, at least judging by the admittedly small sample of left-leaning blogs I check regularly. For instance, Wonkette, Bob Cesca, and The Burned Over District, three blogs I find amusing/informative, called for Ross to be fired before Wizbang did.

        And yes, there is a quantitative difference between Ross’s transgressions and Warner’s, in that Ross’s were seen by more people. But my point is that Warner CONSTANTLY howls about dishonesty, carelessness, bias, and leaping to ideological conclusions, while CONSTANTLY doing the same thing in his “work” here. I’m not saying it’s OK if you’re a Republican — but YOU seem to be saying it’s OK if you’re a second-tier blogger, but a sin if you’ve had greater success.

        Do you honestly think that if Warner had an audience the size of Ross’s he’d be more circumspect? Because I doubt it.

        BTW, John Edwards is disgraced, his career over. Wiener, likewise, is done, an object of ridicule. David Vitter, on the other hand, is still in the US Senate, and Larry Craig finished his term. Is John Ensign gone yet?

        • jim_m

          The point on Edwards was that the MSM covered for him for several years. This lefty whine that conservatives or republicans get some kind of break is utter BS. How long was it that Edwards was covered for? How long was it that the MSM ignored Weiner’s indiscretions? Do you honestly believe that a GOP Congressman would have survived Rangel’s tax scandal? Or a GOP cabinet Secretary would have survived Geithner’s? Or a GOP Speaker would get away with the the self dealing and corruption of Pelosi? Please. Bob Packwood was run out of town for trying to Kiss a female staffer. William “Cold Cash” Jefferson didn’t relinquish his office when he was indicted. How many convicted felons have the dems run? Do you think the GOP could run and impeached federal judge like Alcee Hastings and get away with it?

          There is a double standard. It is all in favor of the corrupt left.

          As for Warner, you have a point and his article about the Colonel was completely wrong. And some of his articles have been alarming in their lack of accuracy. Still, none of what he has done compares to Ross.

          • Brucehenry

            Do YOU think that if a Democratic president had sold advanced weaponry to Iran, and took the proceeds and sent them to a Central American guerilla group that the Congress had specifically forbade him to send money to, that Democratic president would not have been impeached, and rightfully so?

            Yes, some scandals get more attention than others. Some scandalizers get off easier than others. I don’t see a discernible pattern, party-wise, over the years, frankly. You think Barney Frank was a bigger deal than John Ensign (they both skated, really). You think Wiener’s conduct was reprehensible, and it was — but was it really any worse than Vitter’s? Wiener is now a former Congressman, but Vitter suffered no consequences at all, and the media attention given to Diaper Dave was minimal at best. He’s still a GOP US Senator in good standing with his party.

            I think the media mostly ignored the Edwards thing because the allegations were coming from the Enquirer. I certainly dismissed them for just that reason. But, make no mistake — NO ONE, and I mean no one, is defending John Edwards today. He is completely friendless and will never run for office again.

            BTW, I think you praise Warner with faint damns.

          • jim_m

            No I don’t think that a dem would have been impeached in that scandal. In fact I don’t think it ever would have even become a scandal. Just like I don’t think that a Republican could have sold computer technology to the Chinese that would enable them to advance their nuclear weapons technology without causing a huge scandal.

            You’ve got the whole Edwards thing backwards. The scandal was that none of the MSM would touch the story. It was out there for years before the Enquirer finally broke it. The MSM then used the Enquirer as an excuse to continue to ignore the story. The Enquirer wasn’t the reason to not cover the story. They had already been avoiding the story for 2-3 years.

            Warner was wrong. I’ll leave the abusive invective to you and your friends.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, you may have a point about Edwards. He was charming and good-looking, and his wife was a beloved cancer patient, so maybe he got the the kid-glove treatment, as you say, until it couldn’t be avoided any longer. I don’t think that means the media goes any easier on Dems than GOPers as a rule, though. As I’ve said, some get off easier than others, of whichever party. For every Frank there’s a Vitter, for every Wiener there’s a Craig.

            It’s amusing but not surprising that you don’t think Iran-Contra was any big deal. A Republican president sells advanced weapons to America’s enemy (and Israel’s!) and uses the proceeds to donate to a foreign guerilla group as he has been forbidden by Congress to do, and it’s a big fat meh. Let a Democratic president bow to a Japanese emperor, though, and it’s the End Of Days.

          • jim_m

            I didn’t say that it wasn’t a big deal (However, there is another discussion to be had about the dems trying to criminalize foreign policy) I said that if it were done in a dem admin it would not have been an issue. There is a difference.

          • Brucehenry

            The only reason Iran-contra was an example of “criminalizing foreign policy” was that the foreign policies in question — selling arms to America’s enemy, and sending money to the contras which had been forbidden by law — were criminal acts.

            See, when there is a law against selling arms to a certain country, and then the administration sells arms to said country, that’s, ummmm…. criminal.

            Similarly, when Congress forbids the transfer of funds to a specific insurgent group in a foreign country, and then the administration transfers funds to said insurgent group…..what’s the word for that again? Oh, yeah….criminal.

            And it’s hilarious that you think Bill Clinton wouldn’t have been impeached for Iran-contra, since he WAS impeached for Monicagate. Which had the more momentous consequences?

          • jim_m


            Refresh your memory on the Boland Amendment where the dems criminalized aiding the Contras. The dems criminalized fighting against communism.

            Yeah, the dems are so solidly pro communist and want to make it illegal for a GOP admin to conduct a foreign policy that isn’t according to ultra left wing ideology.

          • Brucehenry

            The legislation was passed by Congress and signed by Reagan himself, was it not?

            Congress forbids an action. The president signs the legislation and the prohibition goes into effect. The administration then takes the action that the Congress has prohibited.

            You tell me if a crime was committed.

          • jim_m

            They were attached to appropriations bills. With a Dem House and Senate do you really think that Reagan should have shut down the government over this issue?

          • Brucehenry

            They were laws, duly passed. Attaching amendments to other legislation happens all the time. Are presidents entitled, in your opinion, to ignore laws that become laws in this fashion?

            Because if that IS your opinion, you’re wrong.

          • jim_m

            obama thinks so. You support him. I assume that you think so.

            I do not think that way. I do think that the Boland Amendment was an illegal imposition on the President’s Constitutional duty to conduct foreign policy and would have been ruled unconstitutional had they been tested in court.

          • Brucehenry

            But it wasn’t tested in court. It was the law of the land until it was repealed by a later Congress.

            No matter how you look at it, the law was broken and Reagan got away with it, despite your protestations that the lamestream media makes sure Republicans never skate and Democrats always do, LOL.

          • jim_m

            5 people were convicted and more were indicted (but didn’t go to trial because they were pardoned). As opposed to the media being complicit in the cover up of Fast & Furious. Yes, the media lets the dems get away with murder. LITERALLY.

          • Brucehenry

            I wonder what we didn’t find out because Caspar Weinberger (for one) WAS pardoned. By Bush the First.

            BTW, how many Nicaraguan villagers and opponents do you think were murdered by contras? (Hint: more than “none”).

            If there is a media cover-up of Fast and Furious, it is unraveling now. Let the chips fall where they may, I say

          • jim_m

            Hint: Fewer than the Communists.

          • Brucehenry

            And so American foreign policy should consist of the claim that our puppets murder fewer people than the other guys’ puppets?

          • jim_m

            No. The claim is that democracy doesn’t murder its people. Communism does routinely. Your president is a communist. It is a matter of time before they start killing people to advance their agenda.

            Oh wait! They already have. It’s called Fast & Furious.

          • jim_m

            I have to say Bruce that I appreciate a pointed discussion with you. While we almost always disagree, we can do so reasonably most of the time. I am enjoying Grumpy’s time out as the level of discussion has much improved.

          • Brucehenry

            Thanks, same to you.

          • jim_m

            I’ll note that you ignore how your president chooses to not enforce the laws passed by congress. You have no problem with that.

          • Brucehenry

            If you’re referring to DOMA, there is a difference between not enforcing a law and not defending challenges to the law in court.

            If someone HAD challenged the Boland amendment in court, do you think the Reagan administration would have been obliged to defend it?

          • jim_m

            I’m referring to immigration laws. I’m referring to enforcement of election laws. There are lots of laws obama won’t enforce.

          • Brucehenry

            Immigration laws? Pretty much the same ones Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Reagan didn’t (or couldn’t) enforce?

            And let’s not re-hash the NBPP case, huh?

          • jim_m

            Why because it’s a loser for you?

            There have been other cases where DOJ prosecutors were told not to pursue cases against black people who were violating election laws. Holder’s DOJ is anything BUT colorblind. This is the most racist administration since reconstruction.

          • Brucehenry

            Because it’s been argued to death and we’ll never agree.

            BTW, you no sooner pat me and yourself on the back for being so reasonable than you go over the top with “your president is a Communist” and raving that his administration has started “killing people to advance their agenda.”

            One, Obama is YOUR president too, dude. He won in 2008 by 10 million votes. And two, Obama, in a sane world, would be described as an “Eisenhower Republican,” not a communist. LOL.

          • jim_m

            He wouldn’t claim me,

            Are you now falling into the insane fever swamps that claim obama is a conservative? I thought you were of better intelligence than that.

            Yes 0bama is a communist. What do you think his rhetoric about private industry owes it all to government is about? WHy do you think his mentor was Frank Marshall Davis? WHy did he admit to hanging out with communists in college for? WHy did he hang out with Bill Ayers and Mike Klonsky? Why did he teach Alinksy at the U of C? WHy did he listen to the communist rantings of rev Wright?

            You want to say that he isn’t a communist but he claims it himself.

          • Brucehenry

            I don’t think Obama is a conservative. But Eisenhower wasn’t considered particularly conservative in his day. It was he who pushed for huge government spending for Interstate highways (admittedly, partly for national security reasons), he who sent Federal troops to Little Rock, he who pushed (rather half-heartedly) for the CRA of 1957, etc etc.

            Jim, when you start going off about Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, and Alinsky, you lose me. It’s funny to see you type that shit in the next paragraph after you question whether I’M in a “fever swamp.”

            And if you guys lose this next election, that’ll be exactly why. Most people don’t want to be governed by a party that believes (or pretends to believe) such nonsense.

          • jim_m

            Why is it nonsense? What about it is inaccurate? I tend to think that it is just that most people don’t want to face the truth that obama does not believe in free markets or freedom at all for that matter.

          • Brucehenry

            Because what matters is what he, as President, has done or tried to do, not who was his mentor, who he hung out with, or who was pastor of his church.

            He did NOT implement, or even try to implement, single-payer health care, or even a public option. He did NOT “go after,” or even try to “go after,” your guns. He did NOT reimpose, or even try to reimpose, Glass-Steagall. He has not tried to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine or impose any of your boogeyman nightmares.

            Yet you continually whine about his alleged Communist tendencies, and for evidence point to Frank Marshall Davis and Bill Ayers, shit that no one cared about in 2008 and no one cares about now.

          • jim_m

            No he has signed an act that is intended to lead directly to single payer health care (and there is not other logical outcome to obamacare in the long run), he has run private business into the ground, he has tried to force an interpretation of the constitution that would lead to unlimited government power o coerce people into doing things against their will, he has alienated our democratic allies and he has cozied up to communists,

            He tried to aid in the communist take over of Honduras (unsuccessfully), you can hide your head in the sand as long as you want. I will be around to tell you, “I told you so”.

          • Brucehenry

            And I will be appropriately chastised, Jim, LOL.

            It is in your imagination that the ACA is “intended to lead directly to single-payer,” Jim. Know what would have been more direct? Single-payer.

            Private business run into the ground, really? That why corporations are more profitable than ever? What was the DOW at in January 2009? Where’s it at now? In 2009, the six members of the Walton family had more wealth than the bottom 30% of Americans. Today the same six own more wealth than the bottom 43%. Is that running private business into the ground?

            I don’t know if you’re familiar with the concept of “government,” Jim, but “government” often coerces people to do things against their will. That’s why it’s called “government” and not “voluntary cooperation association.”

            “Alienating our allies” and “cozying up to communists” are just two more examples of nutball boilerplate.

            And if you lose this election, I will be there to say, “I TOLD you you guys were over the top and turning people off!”

          • jim_m

            Come on Bruce. Are you really going to deny that he has not worsened our relationships with our NATO allies? In the UK they are saying that the special relationship between our nations no longer exists. He has deeply insulted Poland and the Czech Republic. He has alienated Israel. The list goes on.

            On the other side he has become a friend of Hugo Chavex and Evo Morales, he has tried to cozy up to the new socialist government in Argentina (and alienated the UK once more). He has bent over backwards to appease the Chinese and has demonstrated that he is a weakling o the Russians. His flaccid foreign policy, based on an adolescent view of how the world works and how nations relate to one another has made the world a far more dangerous place for the US.

          • Brucehenry

            As often occurs, I make three points, you “refute” one of them.

            Your belief that our relationships with NATO have been “worsened” is based on overheated rhetoric from Wizbang and other righty blogs, Jim. Anybody drop out of NATO yet, or threaten to? “They” are saying the special relationship with the UK is over, huh? Who is this “they,” the editorial staff at Murdock’s papers? Have Poland or the Czech Republic issued any formal protest over these alleged deep insults you keep mentioning?

            I don’t think Israel is alienated — I think Netanyahu is. But I’ll give you that one. Like many Americans, the fact that Obama has a Muslim name and is not blindly obedient to every Likud diktat may have alienated many in Israel. But, in the final analysis, what OTHER superpower will it turn to for its $5 billion a year, since it feels so very alienated by US policy?

            Meanwhile, what concrete steps has Obama taken to cement this alleged new “friendship” with Chavez and Morales? Any new trade agreements or security assistance? Or is it the fact that he’s not constantly saber-rattling and expressing open hostility to two countries we DON’T OWN that’s bothering you?

            Obama’s policy re: China is not substantially different, as far as I can see, than any president in the last 35 years. It acknowledges that China is a world power and must be accorded the respect that that fact entails. So?

            I suppose you would rather have McCain as president so that we could have gone to war with Russia over Georgia. THEN we wouldn’t be seen as weaklings, huh? Or maybe Romney, since, in his view, Russia is our “Number One enemy in the world today”? Talk about adolescent!!

            Sorry, Jim, but as long as you guys keep spouting over-the-top exaggerations about alienating allies and made-of-whole-cloth silliness about Obama’s supposed coziness with our adversaries you won’t be taken seriously, at least by me. And, I’ll wager, not by the majority of voters.

          • jim_m

            Now who’s responding to only part of my comment?

            Our relationship with the UK has worsened, so has the relationship with Poland, The Czech Republic and Israel. We are in a weaker position with the Chinese and Russia. We are in a weaker position in the middle east. obama has rarely missed an opportunity to insult the brits. He has back stabbed our eastern European allies.

            You can ignore his telling the Poles that he was backing out of the missile defense agreement on the anniversary of the Soviet invasion, but indications are that the Poles still remember it.

            No we haven’t signed a treaty with Venezuela. You are smart enough to know that politically, it is not possible with the current Senate. But I will say that you do not deny any of the specifics I have mentioned. You just wave them off and say hat they are not important. They are important to our allies. They notice that the US can no longer be trusted as an ally. They are watching us betray Britain over and over again and see that if we will betray our closest ally of the last 100 years that we will betray anyone.

          • Brucehenry

            That’s because you haven’t mentioned any specifics until now, when you cite the missile defense/anniversary thing. OK, so maybe some Poles were insulted, but was any government-to-government mention made of the supposed slight? Ooooh, strongly worded editorials were written in Polish newspapers!

            Your assertions that we are in a weaker position with regard to China and Russia are just that — assertions. They are opinions, not objective realities. Sorry. Ditto for your Middle east flatulence. Boilerplate. Opinion, not fact.

            As to the British, if you regard inappropriate gifts of DVDs and returning busts of Churchill as “betrayals,” I don’t know what to tell you. David Cameron, the Conservative Prime Minister, has had little but kind words for the President. If making moderate statements about the Falklands and thus helping to avoid British casualties in a potential second Argentine conflict (the danger of which has since blown over – thanks to Obama?) – is considered a “betrayal” in your world, I guess you, ummm…have a point?

            Just so you know, Phrases like “cozying up to” and “demonstrated he is a weakling” are not what I would call specifics.

            And, so we haven’t signed any treaties with Venezuela or Bolivia recently, nor offered either country security assistance or military aid, so again, in what way is Obama “cozying up to” either leader or showing a new “friendship”?

            All I can say is, read more widely, Jim. You’ll feel better, and won’t worry so much about The End Of The Republic.

          • jim_m

            If you consider supporting Argentina’s right to the Falklands (a territory they have never in all of history controlled) and thereby increasing the likelihood of armed conflict a way of avoiding casualties, you have an odd way of looking at things.

            The Falklands have always been a UK territory. Supporting Argentina’s expansionist claim is a base betrayal of a close ally. Appeasing expansionist dictators has a bad track record over the last century. obama has apparently failed to learn that lesson, despite being a globally acclaimed genius.

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah, I must have missed it when Argentina invaded the Falklands again in response to Obama’s appeasement.

            Or maybe Obama saying a few mealymouth words that mollified the Argentine crazies who just wanted to see if they could whip up nationalist sentiment by making some anti-British noises (they couldn’t) helped the “crisis” blow over.

            Or not, since the latest “crisis” was a non-event and US statements only regarded as a “betrayal” of the British by nutballs in the UK AND the US.

            When are you going to quote me some government statements protesting Obama’s “betrayals” and “stabs in the back” from Poland, the Czech Republic, and the UK? Cite some examples of how Obama’s new “friendships” with Chavez and Morales are being made manifest? Or some examples of allies threatening to leave NATO? Or Israelis turning to Russia or China for their billions in yearly aid?

            As an aside, while I acknowledge that Britain’s claim to the Falklands is superior to Argentina’s, your assertion that they have “always” been a UK territory is inaccurate. “Always” since when? Not a particularly important detail, but an inaccurate one nonetheless.

          • jim_m

            So you missed the whole episode with the Honduras where he supported (along with Chavex and Morales) the attempted take over of the government by the now former President Zelaya. Like Chavez her was trying to write his own constitution and even had a referendum that would allow him to do so. When he as run out of the country they found the results of the referendum on computers in his offices. Funny how he had the results of a vote that had not yet taken place.

            obama supported the attempted communist coup of a friendly nation.

          • Brucehenry

            Did he act in concert with Chavez and Morales? No. Many (allied) European governments also initially supported Zelaya. And are our diplomatic relations with Honduras currently intact? Yes.

            Again, protests from the Polish, Czech, or British governments re: Obama’s “betrayals” and “backstabbings?” Concrete manifestations of “friendship” with adversaries Chavez and Morales? Facts, not opinions, to demonstrate how much weaker we are vis-a-vis Russia and China? Anything? Third request, by my count.

            Also, I note you’ve abandoned the argument that Obama has appeased the Argentines at British expense.

          • jim_m

            5 People were convicted of crimes in the matter. Why do you even have to ask?

          • jim_m

            So you believe that it is OK for a President to perjure himself before a Federal Grand Jury? Because that WAS what the whole thing was about. He was disbarred for that if you remember. So why then was Scooter Libby sent to prison for the same crime? Once again we see the difference between being a dem and being a republican.

            Hypocrite much?

          • Brucehenry

            Scooter Libby has never served a day in prison. His sentence was commuted.

          • jim_m

            He was sentenced to 2 years and his request for the sentence to be stayed pending appeal was denied. Once bail was denied, only then did Bush commute his sentence. Again, it demonstrates a distinct double standard.

  • jainphx

    commander chico—- not smart enough to be a commander let alone a seaman.

    • Brucehenry

      Dude, you WISH you were as smart as Chico.

  • Pingback: Politicizing the Batman shooting is disrespectful by Musashi - Page 4 - TribalWar Forums()

  • I liked that Twitter stream that Iowahawk had going earlier, posting a number of criminals coincidentally named Brian Ross, and soberly asserting that it was impossible to immediately verify if they were the same person as the newscaster.

  • Pingback: The Massacre at the Batman Movie in Colorado. - Page 4()

  • Pingback: ABC’s “Yes, You’ve Got The Right Person” Quote Disputed | Wizbang()

  • Pingback: The Tea Party Did It! | Wizbang()

  • Pingback: Gun control radicals come out of the woodwork BizPac Review()

  • Pingback: The Wrong ‘Yaneisi Fernandez’? Stupid Media Trick Fails to Clear Menendez : The Other McCain()