County Fair
Print

Way Back When "Politicizing" Terrorist Deaths Was OK

May 01, 2012 10:57 am ET by Simon Maloy

Perusing the political media these days you can't help but notice the hand-wringing consensus that the Obama administration is running a risk by "politicizing" the death of Osama bin Laden. Foreign policy achievements, we're told, are somehow sacrosanct and shouldn't be sullied by the taint of electioneering.

The president, according to McClatchy, is in "a roiling dispute between his re-election campaign and Republicans, who accuse Obama of politicizing a unifying event by taking credit for ordering the raid that got bin Laden." The ever-eager Fox News reports that "President Obama faced mounting criticism Tuesday for allegedly politicizing the anniversary of Usama bin Laden's death, with Sen. John McCain scolding the commander-in-chief and former New York Gov. George Pataki going so far as to call on Obama to apologize."

It would be nice if the press, when wrestling with this narrative, could dive deep into their memories and travel all the way back to June 2006, when the government of Iraq announced that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq, had been killed in an airstrike. The Bush White House and the Republican Congressional majority, facing terrible poll numbers and an angry electorate, were ecstatic at the news that one of the world's most wanted terrorists had met his end at American hands and immediately set to work politicizing his death.

The New York Times reported on June 13, 2006:

It came as Republicans began a new effort to use last week's events to turn the war to their political advantage after months of anxiety, and to sharpen attacks against Democrats. On Monday night, the president's top political strategist, Karl Rove, told supporters in New Hampshire that if the Democrats had their way, Iraq would fall to terrorists and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would not have been killed.

"When it gets tough, and when it gets difficult, they fall back on that party's old pattern of cutting and running," Mr. Rove said at a state Republican Party gathering in Manchester.

Rove (who is now busily and dishonestly trying to diminish the Bin Laden raid) was delivering a message that synced nicely with the House Republican strategy (elucidated in a confidential memo prepared by John Boehner) to use Zarqawi's death to draw "a portrait of contrasts between Republicans and Democrats with regard to one of the most important political issues of our era."

Per the memo:

As a result of our efforts during this debate, Americans will recognize that on the issue of national security, they have a clear choice between a Republican Party aware of the stakes and dedicated to victory, versus a Democrat Party without a coherent national security policy that sheepishly dismisses the challenges America faces in a post- 9/11 world.

Of course, even if there were no high-profile example of Republicans "spiking the football" over the death of a terrorist, are we really to believe they wouldn't have done exactly that had he been killed under Bush's watch?

So please: before we lend credence to all the pearl-clutching bluster over "politicizing" the death of a terrorist, let's pay due respect to recent history and common sense.




Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Jimijams (May 01, 2012 11:03 am ET)
      9  
      Let's face it, if George W. Bush did what he told everyone he was going to do when standing on the rumble of the WTC, they'd have removed Washington's face from Mount Rushmore and replaced it with his.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by David2012 (May 01, 2012 11:47 am ET)
        13  
        With complete confidence, they count on their electorate having no memories. They're right.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by draftedin68 (May 01, 2012 12:19 pm ET)
          7  

          That's because they record history in pencil.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by jdkinpa (May 01, 2012 2:36 pm ET)
          3  
          It's called BUSHNESIA.

          Although, the article I've linked is about the economic legacy (disastrous as it was for the Bush Republican administration) it shows the absolute necessity that now they need/must divert the current reality of the Obama administration successes.

          And actually the more Rove and the neo-cons who orchestrated the Bush II foreign policy are out there talking down the President and this administrations success the better. It will just help to remind everyone who doesn't suffer from Busnesia.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by thegreatbear (May 01, 2012 4:23 pm ET)
            5  
            Amazingly, the very same people who created Bush's mess are lining up to do it all over again the moment they get the chance.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by j.dale (May 02, 2012 1:01 pm ET)
                 
              What people and doing what all over again?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by jdkinpa (May 02, 2012 9:14 pm ET)
                1  
                Well these people and doing the Bush thing all over again.

                Romney’s campaign staff is thick with Bush administration veterans. Two of his economic advisers — N. Greg Mankiw and Glenn Hubbard — served as chief economists for Bush. His policy director, Lanhee Chen, worked on health policy in the Bush White House.

                Has Team Romney forgotten that the Bush years were terrible?

                The hiring of Dan Senor also caught the attention of Rachel Maddow, who talked about how disturbing it is that Romney is reassembling George W. Bush's foreign policy team on her show this Thursday night. More on that below the fold.

                Romney Adviser Dan Senor: Too Wrong to Fail

                Report Abuse
    • Author by BDA (May 01, 2012 11:07 am ET)
      12  
      No the media doesn't have a memory. All the media is nothing but stenographers for the politicians and corporate overlords.

      If it wasn't for places like MMFA, no one would know who is acting and speaking with integrity.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (May 01, 2012 11:23 am ET)
      7  
      Romney was on CBS This Morning claiming that he had "congratulated" President Obama on getting bin Laden. What he actually said at the time was that the decision was ill considered and poorly timed. Of course Charlie Rose didn't call him on his lie.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Jimijams (May 01, 2012 1:08 pm ET)
        11  
        I notice that a lot, especially after the year 1984. Self fulfilling prophecy perhaps?

        No one questioned Reagan about Iran/Contra until it was over, and now, not one shred of evidence says it even happened. On the contrary, he is held up to the highest standards of ALL U.S. presidents, even by democrats. And ole Ollie North? Well, by gum he's got a TV show and is living proof that laws don't matter. And Kettle Karl Rove? Why he SHOULD still be in jail for what he did, but hardly a word was said about it then, and NOTHING is said about it now except for maybe a crazed Code Pink person.

        At least John Dean spent some time in prison and has said repeatedly what he did was wrong for the country, but gold huckster G. Gordon Liddy, why he still thinks he was trying to save the universe, and I am sure in his mind he did.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by fitley (May 02, 2012 2:15 am ET)
        1  
        That was Mitts attempt to not look like a choad.Mission Not Accomplished.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (May 01, 2012 11:29 am ET)
      9  
      I notice that Arianna Huffington is apoplectic about this; is she getting ready to switch sides again?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by chazmanr (May 01, 2012 11:31 am ET)
        13  
        Whatever improves her bottom line.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by chazmanr (May 01, 2012 11:32 am ET)
        7  
        PS-I made a similar comment (no policy violations) on HP and was moderated.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (May 01, 2012 11:49 am ET)
          3 1
          So have I . . . several times. The comments never make the cut.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by temphandle tearfully55timetable (May 01, 2012 12:09 pm ET)
            12  
            Perhaps she's angry because the President congratulated her on her pulitzer at the coorespondence dinner...something to the effect of "nice job of linking the news" I'm rather suprised she's reacting this way.....
            Report Abuse
            • Author by bintx (May 01, 2012 12:18 pm ET)
              6  
              She's been doing it for a couple of years.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by chazmanr (May 01, 2012 12:25 pm ET)
                8  
                YUP!

                Never criticize a HP "journalist" or owner on HP. It is like making a factual post at Fox Nation. Immediately scrubbed.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by MickD (May 01, 2012 4:19 pm ET)
                  1  
                  So is are the paychecks of anyone who contributes there, beyond celebrities I'm sure. It's for the "exposure."
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by thegreatbear (May 01, 2012 4:25 pm ET)
          4  
          Why I gave up commenting on HP years ago.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by draftedin68 (May 01, 2012 8:34 pm ET)
            1  

            When she started HP, I was hoping she would go the way of something like Talking Points Memo and for a while, it looked promising.

            Now it's more like a video version of those I Cut Off Her Head And Stomped On It rags at the check stands.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (May 01, 2012 11:49 am ET)
        12 1
        She never changed sides. The only side that Arianna Huffington is on is Arianna Huffington's. She is an opportunist, that's all. I laugh out loud when people call her a "liberal" or a "progressive."
        Report Abuse
      • Author by historygeek001 (May 01, 2012 12:23 pm ET)
        3  
        I don't think Arianna has ever liked Obama.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (May 01, 2012 12:50 pm ET)
          3 1
          She didn't, but that's not her problem. She's simply an opportunist. She takes the "side" of whatever group is on top at any given time.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by historygeek001 (May 01, 2012 1:11 pm ET)
            4  
            I think you're right, but I also think that her sympathies lie more with the Republicans than with Democrats despite her loud proclamations of having become liberal. I don't look to her as an information source.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by bintx (May 01, 2012 1:41 pm ET)
              3 1
              I change the channel if she's on a television show. Can't stand her narcissism.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by cugagcmu805031 (May 01, 2012 2:23 pm ET)
                1  
                I though I was the only one who changed the channel when she appears on my TV!
                Report Abuse
            • Author by SteevK (May 01, 2012 2:19 pm ET)
              2  
              Maybe she's much more interested in low-low taxes after her windfall...

              I never trusted her conversion. One day she's a "Let them eat cake" RW Pubbie, the next she's waaaay to the left of me - backing Nader against Gore and Kerry, campaigning to put "none of the above" on ballots, Shadow conventions, and bashing Obama. Nothing he does is ever good enough for her!

              ..
              Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (May 01, 2012 1:33 pm ET)
            1  
            Can't say I disagree. Huffington Post never would have become what it is today if she tried to build it on a right-wing platform.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (May 01, 2012 11:31 am ET)
      6  
      Now would be a good time for people to dig up that nice little video someone did of the 2004 Republican Convention which spliced together all the speakers using words related to Terrorism and fear. It's hilarious.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Nihilist (May 01, 2012 11:37 am ET)
      8 1
      like when the shrub put on a airforce flight suit, used a aircraft carrier for his setting, had fighter jets used as props, with that banner 'mission accomplished?.... so its ok when the liars in the rightwing do it, but when the dems actually do the dirty, [and get the bad guy without spending a trillion bucks off the books,and billions reaped by bushys handler cheney's haliburton? or the billions of dollars in cash lost by bushy left on pallets in iraq,] its political?

      and the so called lefty press never calls these liars out. all the mega plutocrat media want is a food fight, forget facts....
      Report Abuse
    • Author by billyrs (May 01, 2012 11:45 am ET)
        5
      Since when is one party's poor judgement used as a defense for more poor judgement by the other party in the current election? Military achievements such as the deaths of Zarqawi and bin Laden shouldn't be used in partisan ads. We aren't in the second grade, just because somebody else does something doesn't mean we should do it too.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by classicliberal2 (May 01, 2012 5:29 pm ET)
        3  
        One way in which Zarqawi's death should have been used by partisans was in the fact that Bush had three opportunities to kill him before the invasion of Iraq, but refused to do so, because he wanted to use Zarqawi's presence there as propaganda for war. Zarqawi subsequently became the leader of the anti-U.S. resistance in Iraq, and slaughtered hundreds of people. If the press had bothered to make a fuss about this, it wouldn't have been possible for Republicans to make political hay of his death.

        ---
        Left Hook!
        http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/
        Report Abuse
      • Author by LKL (May 02, 2012 12:01 pm ET)
        1  
        Military achievements such as the deaths of Zarqawi and bin Laden shouldn't be used in partisan ads.

        Why not?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by bintx (May 01, 2012 11:52 am ET)
      18  
      What really gets me is that when Bush, Rudy, etc., used 911 as their rallying cry, they repeatedly and proudly used the deaths of 3,000 people ON THEIR WATCH to claim that the GOP "kept the country safe." (The irony is sooooo thick, there.)

      Obama, as CIC, and the Navy Seals took out the perpetrator of the attack that left 3,000 people dead . . . and they're being accused of "dancing on the graves" of those 3,000 people.

      Completely illogical.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by CAL (May 01, 2012 12:03 pm ET)
      14  
      Zero conscience. Zero memory. Zero respect toward reality and simple fact. This is the earned legacy of the steaming pile of sociopaths that comprise today's GOP.

      It's very simple. The GOP has been terrified of Obama from day one. His very existence acts as a mirror for "conservatives" to gaze at their own ineptitude and warped ideology. Because they are sociopathic they refuse to self-reflect. Instead they attack whomever and whatever they percieve as forcing them to do what is impossible for them ......as sociopaths.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by armendale (May 01, 2012 12:19 pm ET)
        5  
        penetrating analysis CAL. thank you!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by chuckie (May 01, 2012 12:34 pm ET)
        10  
        What shouldn't be lost, and I think, responsible for a lot of their angst is that this ruins their reputation. The "conventional wisdom" was that the Democrats were good for the poor and down trodden and minorities, but the Republicans were good at Defense and Business. The Democrats were weak and the Republicans were strong.

        Well first, Bush ran the economy into the ground. Then Obama had a lot of foreign policy successes, (Arab Spring, etc) AND he got Osama bin Laden for less than a Trillion Dollars. What are the Republican left with? You say that Bush let Al Queda attack the WTC AND had to have Obama come in to get bin Laden AFTER Bush said he didn't care about him, what do they have left? And then Obama was strong and pushed it in their face. That cannot stand.

        It's great-Bush got Saddam Husssein who didn't attack us, didn't have WMD and we didn't get the oil; it cost several trillion dollars, loss of much life and reputation and a wrecked economy. Obama got bin Ladden and showed it on television and basically said, "what now". And by the way, here's my long form birth certificate.

        Romney has Bushes foreign policy team. What woould you do?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bilbo_dies (May 01, 2012 1:47 pm ET)
          8  
          Well first, Bush ran the economy into the ground.

          Not to nit pick, or be a Bush apologist, but Bush didn't run the economy into the ground.

          He was more like the cherry on top of a process that started back under Reagan and turned what should have been a normal down cycle, in the economy, into the worst recession since the great Depression.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by highliter (May 01, 2012 2:27 pm ET)
              10

            Well except 1981 when unemployment was 10+ inflation was 10+ and the prime interest rate was 21.5. Things sure were great before Reagan!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by chazmanr (May 01, 2012 2:52 pm ET)
              9  
              Why do you lie about things so easily debunked?! Please note the following:

              Average unemployment rate by year:

              1980 = 7.1%
              1981 = 7.6% (St. Ron sworn in 1/20/1981)
              1982 = 9.7% (St. Ron's policies in full effect)
              1983 = 9.6% (St. Ron's policies in effect for over 2 years)
              Report Abuse
              • Author by chazmanr (May 01, 2012 3:15 pm ET)
                5  
                I mean seriously. You had a valid point on interest and inflation (sort of - the 1980 inflation rate was mostly the result of the 1979 energy crisis which was caused by OPEC; not Carter). However, that wasn't good enough to you. You had to include a third fact for emphasis even if you had to make it up.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by highliter (May 01, 2012 3:38 pm ET)
                  9
                Nice try using the avg yearly unemployment rate, but in early 1982 just a year into Reagan's first term and well before any of his policies could take effect unemployment was 10.8 by his reelection less that 2 years later it was down to 7.5. The first Reagan tax cuts didn't begin until 1982.

                By your assertion I assume you blame Obama for 2010's 9.6 and 2011's 9.6 hell do you even consider 2011's 8.9 Obama's since his policies by your estimation would be in full effect?

                FYI gas prices are not included in the inflation rate.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by chazmanr (May 01, 2012 4:00 pm ET)
                  9  
                  I didn't use averages to be deceiving. Looking at any one month like you did is intellectually dishonest. As further evidence, you just used the same argument to make two opposite points and you expect me to respond to you in serious manner. You are as big a joke as conservative economic policies. You claim that his tax cuts didn't begin until 1982. The same year that he INCREASED taxes? That 1982? Oh, by the way. His 1982 and 1984 tax increases represented the biggest peace time tax increases in US History. What happened after 1984, unemployment fell at a faster rate.

                  What are the trend lines, dufus? Unemployment rate for the first two and half years of the St. Ron the Ridiculous was increasing and then stagnant. Period.


                  The unemployment rate had been going up steadily for the seven months prior to Obama taking office. A month after he took office the rate of job loss decreased. After the stimulus went into effect in June, 2009, the overall unemployment rate began to decrease (6 months in). Yet, you brag about St. Ron reducing unemployment 2 and 1/2 years into his administration?!

                  If you are so certain about GOP economic policies, make the following pledge if Mittens wins. If middle income wages are not increasing and the deficit isn't significantly improved by the end of his first term, you pledge to vote Democratic for the rest of your life or vow to kill yourself publicly.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by jeffnky (May 01, 2012 5:20 pm ET)
                    3  
                    Well said. I can't wait to read his response.

                    I think you have him cornered.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by highliter (May 02, 2012 10:33 am ET)
                      5
                    A month after he took office the rate of job loss decreased.



                    You're crediting that to Obama?

                    What are the trend lines, dufus? Unemployment rate for the first two and half years of the St. Ron the Ridiculous was increasing and then stagnant. Period.


                    Unemployment was skyrocketing in the months before Reagan took office same as Obama.

                    After the stimulus went into effect in June, 2009, the overall unemployment rate began to decrease (6 months in)


                    Sure did when you remove millions of workers who gave up looking for work. Since Obama took office the workforce has shrunk by 2% the economy has not created enough jobs since Obama has been in office to lower the unemployment rate. The economy must create a minimum of 150k jobs a month just to keep pace with new people entering the workforce and it's not doing that let alone actually lowering it.

                    If you are so certain about GOP economic policies, make the following pledge if Mittens wins. If middle income wages are not increasing and the deficit isn't significantly improved by the end of his first term, you pledge to vote Democratic for the rest of your life or vow to kill yourself publicly.


                    Didn't Obama promise all of the above? I expect you'll be voting for Romney or killing yourself any day now
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by congero6189599 (May 02, 2012 10:48 am ET)
                      5  
                      Funny thing Mittens is promising to do the samethings that got us into this economic mess. Obama may not be perfect but cleaning up Republican s**t especially when they are doing everything they can to stop you just may take a little longer than 4 yrs. I mean just because Bush was able to turn a surplus into a deficit in less than 8 months it did take him a whole 8yrs. to destroy the economy. We ain't gonna march backward into the swamp with Romney that we are now starting to climb out of but you seem to like the stench so your're welcome to it.
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by chazmanr (May 01, 2012 4:14 pm ET)
                  4  
                  Gas prices are not included in inflation rate? First, you are going to need to prove that assertion (I won't wait, you have never provided legitimate documentation of anything you have asserted). Then you are going to have to explain how gas prices do not effect the costs of goods and services. This is going to be a great bit of mental gymnastics. I await the floor show.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by highliter (May 01, 2012 10:54 pm ET)
                      4
                    Don't be a idiot energy and food prices are never included in the inflation rate. Didn't think I need to prove something that is common knowledge to anyone with a clue!
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by congero6189599 (May 02, 2012 10:51 am ET)
                         
                      You're not even good at being annoying because your shict is so transparent.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by highliter (May 02, 2012 10:57 am ET)
                          5
                        How is it a shict, it's a simple facet that food and energy prices are not included in the inflation rate.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by congero6189599 (May 02, 2012 11:23 am ET)
                          1  
                          I don't think you know what you are talking about:
                          Global inflation retreats but food and energy keep SA prices high – Els
                          "...South Africa was lagging on the inflation reduction front due to rising food and energy prices,...

                          Els predicted that South Africa’s food inflation would peak in the next six months, while overall inflation would peak within four months.

                          Last month food inflation stood at 11.6 percent year on year – largely due to meat inflation at 16.7 percent, and bread and cereals at 13.1 percent.

                          Overall inflation was 6.1 percent, just over the ceiling of the Reserve Bank’s 3 percent to 6 percent target range..."
                          This article from Business Week seem to be using it.


                          Rising gas prices drive inflation
                          Your text to link here...

                          Yet you say it is known they aren't included in determing inflation.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by congero6189599 (May 02, 2012 11:30 am ET)
                            1  
                            Here is the link to the Business Report(not Business Week)article:

                            http://www.iol.co.za/business/business-news/global-inflation-retreats-but-food-and-energy-keep-sa-prices-high-els-1.1219521?showComments=true

                            Also "The Bureau of Labor Statistics" seems to use it to help determine Consumer Price Index(CPI) which is instrumental in determining inflation
                            Economic News Release

                            Consumer Price Index Summary
                            Your text to link here...





                            Consumer Price Index Summary
                            Report Abuse
                        • Author by congero6189599 (May 02, 2012 11:42 am ET)
                          2  
                          How is it a shict, it's a simple facet that food and energy prices are not included in the inflation rate.----highliter


                          By whom?

                          Common Misconceptions about the Consumer Price Index: Questions and Answers

                          Has the BLS removed food or energy prices in its official measure of inflation?

                          No. The BLS publishes thousands of CPI indexes each month, including the headline All Items CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) and the CPI-U for All Items Less Food and Energy. The latter series, widely referred to as the "core" CPI, is closely watched by many economic analysts and policymakers under the belief that food and energy prices are volatile and are subject to price shocks that cannot be damped through monetary policy. However, all consumer goods and services, including food and energy, are represented in the headline CPI.

                          Most importantly, none of the prominent legislated uses of the CPI excludes food and energy. Social security and federal retirement benefits are updated each year for inflation by the All Items CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). Individual income tax parameters and Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) returns are based on the All Items CPI-U.
                          Your text to link here...


                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by highliter (May 02, 2012 11:53 am ET)
                              4
                            Has the BLS removed food or energy prices in its official measure of inflation?




                            They still use the Core inflation rate for their official interest rate measurement. Just like the Federal Reserve does and it does not include food and energy prices. The CPI is not the same as the inflation rate. You're talking about a completely different thing.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by congero6189599 (May 02, 2012 12:16 pm ET)
                              1  
                              The latter series, widely referred to as the "core" CPI, is closely watched by many economic analysts and policymakers under the belief that food and energy prices are volatile and are subject to price shocks that cannot be damped through monetary policy. However, all consumer goods and services, including food and energy, are represented in the headline CPI.

                              Most importantly, none of the prominent legislated uses of the CPI excludes food and energy.


                              The CPI is used to help determine the rate of inflation and according to this they most certainly use it.

                              Report Abuse
                            • Author by congero6189599 (May 02, 2012 12:22 pm ET)
                                 
                              You quoted the sentence then proceeded to say it doesn't when they just said they do and they are updated each year for inflation;



                              "...Most importantly, none of the prominent legislated uses of the CPI excludes food and energy. Social security and federal retirement benefits are updated each year for inflation by the All Items CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). Individual income tax parameters and Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) returns are based on the All Items CPI-U."

                              Report Abuse
                          • Author by highliter (May 02, 2012 12:02 pm ET)
                              2
                            US Inflation Rate Remains at 2.9%, but Consumer Prices Jump 0.4% in February 2012

                            This is a perfect example of the difference between the CPI and the Inflation rate. Inflation remained steady but energy costs drove the CPI up.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by congero6189599 (May 02, 2012 12:13 pm ET)
                              1  
                              "The recent increase in oil and gasoline prices will push up inflation temporarily, but the Committee anticipates that subsequently inflation will run at or below the rate that it judges most consistent with its dual mandate," the statement added.

                              This from your own article.
                              Report Abuse
                            • Author by congero6189599 (May 02, 2012 12:24 pm ET)
                                 
                              Common Misconceptions about the Consumer Price Index: Questions and Answers

                              Has the BLS removed food or energy prices in its official measure of inflation?

                              No.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by congero6189599 (May 02, 2012 12:27 pm ET)
                                   
                                Has the BLS selected the methodological changes to the CPI over the last 30 years with the intent of lowering the reported rate of inflation?

                                No.

                                I don't see where you say it has noting to do with inflation.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by congero6189599 (May 02, 2012 12:41 pm ET)
                                     
                                  Well it does have to do with inflation and it is used but just not by the Fed reserve.
                                  Report Abuse
            • Author by eweston8542983 (May 01, 2012 3:02 pm ET)
              4  
              A lot of unemployment and high inflation and interest rates in the seventies. All due to the democrats of course. Magicly cured when Reagan became the president.

              You neocon mind at work ladies, gentlemen, and others! Lets give it a big bloated round of applause!

              Report Abuse
          • Author by chuckie (May 01, 2012 2:29 pm ET)
            7  
            "Not to nit pick, or be a Bush apologist, but Bush didn't run the economy into the ground."

            Fair enough. But starting 2 wars off the books and cutting taxes and not regulating wall street was significant. And to be fair, the stuff that Clinton agreed to from Phil Grahm and others (both Repub and Dem) was a factor. And to agree with you , Reagan got the ball rolling. There were a lot of contributers.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by foghornleghorn (May 01, 2012 1:20 pm ET)
        6  
        The GOP has been terrified of Obama from day one

        Because Obama is COMPETENT at being CIC.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by armendale (May 01, 2012 12:18 pm ET)
      6  
      Listen, the GOP has been waiting in ambush ever since President Obama gave the order to kill Bin Laden knowing that their only play would be to attack Obama for "politicizing" Bin Laden's death should he dare to discuss it.

      And of course, attacking the President is not in any way political.

      Pathetic
      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (May 01, 2012 12:24 pm ET)
      11  
      This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a country. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. - George W. Bush

      How soon the Troglodytes forget.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by draftedin68 (May 01, 2012 8:42 pm ET)
        2  

        Please stop denigrating our cave-dwelling ancestors.

        I mean, hell, today's conservatives owe at least parts of their brains to Troglodytes.

        Now, as to just which parts, well, I'm going with those less evolved.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 01, 2012 12:26 pm ET)
      2  
      What do you expect? Republicans being useless, whining hypocrites and Democrats being strong, effective statesmen doesn't fit the narritive the MSM has been told by their corporate masters (and their own laziness) to stick to!

      Democrats like hugging trees, coddling minorities and letting feminazi's kill babies, while Repiblicans are strong on foreign policy and good with the economy!

      (I almost threw up in my mouth a little writing that last bit. [http://economyinperspective.com/jobs], regarding the Republican's economic record.)

      Behold: Your Liberal Media!

      ------------------------------
      IMHO
      UTOPIA
      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (May 01, 2012 12:26 pm ET)
      12  
      And, can we imagine what would be happening now if the mission had failed, and the Seal Team had been caught in an ambush?

      I'm sure the Republicans would refrain from capitalizing on that failure for political gain, right?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by curiousindependent (May 01, 2012 1:23 pm ET)
        4  
        Just look at their reaction to Operation Eagle Claw to see how they would have played it.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 01, 2012 2:57 pm ET)
          2  
          OK, but... too be fair... Comic Book Super-Villains put together less complicated, less convoluted plans than Operation Eagle Claw! That had about as much a chance of success as one of the Riddler's less well thought out capers. President Carter probably should have been chided a LITTLE bit for reading that thing and not asking, "Geez, you got anything a little bit simpler?"

          It was a plan that if literally ANYTHING went wrong, the whole operation would fall apart. And one of the first rules of warfare is that something ALWAYS goes wrong.

          That's not to say that I don't concede the overall point, regarding the Right's polityicization of Military Operations in general, I'm just not so sure that Eagle Claw is really the best example.

          ------------------------------
          IMHO
          UTOPIA
          Report Abuse
          • Author by curiousindependent (May 01, 2012 3:04 pm ET)
            2  
            No, but it shows how they would have reacted had the bin Laden thing gone wrong.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 01, 2012 4:07 pm ET)
              2  
              Oh, yeah absolutely.

              And I'm sorry - I just can't seem to resist any opportunity to use the expression "Comic Book Super Villains." LOL

              ;)

              ------------------------------
              IMHO
              UTOPIA
              Report Abuse
              • Author by okiepoli (May 02, 2012 3:41 pm ET)
                   
                I'd agree with you for the most part Eddie, but I would correct - the current crop steering my party into oblivion would more correctly be called "Comic Book Stupid Villains."
                Report Abuse
    • Author by mauman (May 01, 2012 12:30 pm ET)
      11  
      From the start the right wing has been saying that Obama hates America and is sympathetic to radical Islam. I don't blame Obama for reminding them that he got bin Laden and they didn't.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by armendale (May 01, 2012 12:36 pm ET)
        8  
        Not only did Republicons fail to get Bin Laden, they gave up trying.
        Just like they gave up trying to prevent Bin Laden attacking us on 9/11.

        MEMO TO BUSH: Bin Laden Determined To Strike Inside US?
        "Eh, you know, I don't really think about him. Now Watch this drive."

        ...Yeah
        Report Abuse
        • Author by highliter (May 01, 2012 2:23 pm ET)
            9
          So based of a memo dated 36 days before 9-11, that stated the Bin-laden wants to attack the U.S (no crap) Bush was somehow supposed to stop 9-11?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by jdkinpa (May 01, 2012 2:44 pm ET)
            10  
            Stop it, maybe. He chose to IGNORE the memo, and guess what?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Johaely (May 01, 2012 3:15 pm ET)
            9  
            36 days is a lot. That amount of time could have been used to secure major targets and gather intelligence.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by chuckie (May 01, 2012 5:52 pm ET)
            6  
            Are you telling me that if the President gets notice that there is an imminent attack on the US he needs more than 36 days to do ANYTHING. If you had said that Bush took steps 1 through 10 and it still happened, we might have a different conversation. He had an anti-terrorism task force THAT NEVER MET. Now, I'm probably being unfair. Bush did have brush to cut on his vacation. And he probably did forget about the Cole.

            You want to give him a pass because 36 days was not enough time????? I'm literally speechless. He was the Commander in Chief. I'm not sure I've seen any excuse that shows how incompetent that Bush really was before this. I'd have questions if he did nothing in 36 hours, but 36 days? 36 days!!!!! If the Democrats hadn't been so week, they SHOULD have impeached him for that.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by jonimacaroni1 (May 01, 2012 7:00 pm ET)
            9  
            He got that hair on fire memo more than a month before 9/11, but he'd had 7 months before that to have his administration's terrorism people working on the thing that Clinton told him would be his most important task - and his administration had done virtually nothing.

            36 days warning and he did nothing besides telling the guy to stop blowing smoke up his arse.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by newzhound (May 01, 2012 12:43 pm ET)
      12  
      George Bush (43) ran on the 9/11 platform - which was, of course, a failure that happened on his watch.

      Mayor Rudi turned 9/11 into a new political career, although the voters didn't buy it when he ran for President.

      Over and over again, the right wing nutz told us George Bush kept us safe, no attacks since 9/11 (other than on our key allies, of course), if a Democrat were elected President we'd be attacked, Osama Bin Laden wanted Sen. Kerry to win, etc., etc.

      Somehow this is different?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (May 01, 2012 12:53 pm ET)
        8  
        Yeah, and that's what I don't understand. These people are saying that Obama is dancing on the graves of the people lost on 9/11 (on THEIR WATCH) . . . no, THEY did. Obama is dancing on the grave of the monster who KILLED those people on 9/11.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (May 01, 2012 12:53 pm ET)
        6  
        Yeah, and that's what I don't understand. These people are saying that Obama is dancing on the graves of the people lost on 9/11 (on THEIR WATCH) . . . no, THEY did. Obama is dancing on the grave of the monster who KILLED those people on 9/11.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by armendale (May 01, 2012 1:13 pm ET)
          7  
          it's painful for the GOP to handle the fact that President Obama took out one of our nation's most potent enemies that they allowed to attack us and then failed to hunt down and kill despite repeatedly promising to do so.

          Their only recourse is to attack Obama for doing what they couldn't do.

          A bunch impotent, loud-mouth, war mongering cry babies.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by captaincrunch (May 01, 2012 2:38 pm ET)
      2  
      I call upon FORMER New York Gov. George Pataki to be relevant!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by thegreatbear (May 01, 2012 4:20 pm ET)
      3  
      The ones who have been politicizing OBL's death are the republicans. For the past year, all we've heard from them are one tired assertion after another about how Obama doesn't deserved credit for it. Many have tried all kinds of contorted and twisting rhetoric to assert that Obama never really wanted to get OBL (Even though Obama campaigned on the promise if he got the chance, he'd do exactly what he did) and was "pressured" into by the military or that (incredibly) Bush deserves the <b>real </b> credit for torturing the intel out of people, even though there's no evidence the CIA learned of OBL's location through torture.

      "Unifying event"? When did the GOP do anything in response to this that showed any sign of national unity?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by classicliberal2 (May 01, 2012 5:10 pm ET)
         
      I started to write a reply, but it became more like an expansion of this article, and, running a little long, I decided to make a full-blown blog of it:
      http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/press-politicizing-terrorist-deaths.html
      Report Abuse
      • Author by classicliberal2 (May 04, 2012 5:28 am ET)
           
        Had to relocate it:
        http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/press-politicizing-terrorist-deaths_394.html
        Report Abuse
    • Author by yoiksaway (May 02, 2012 2:39 pm ET)
         
      Three words: Deck of cards.
      Report Abuse