Rep. Peter King was asked by the UK Parliament what kind of facility Guantanamo Bay is. This was after describing it as a vacation destination for prisoners. He was asked to justify how America could torture them and then call enhanced interrogation. It was just a little bit uncomfortable. He shrugged it off and said it wasn't really that bad because our military trains with it and hey, if torture saved lives it was all worth it. Usually that's the type of justification that you might hear someone from the Pinochet regime invoke.
You can see why he was so eager to go to the UK and impart his wisdom on how we combat Muslim radicalization.
King: I've Been to Guantanamo, it's it's modern facility. There's one medical person for every two prisoners. (Gitmo has an excellent health plan)
King: They are taught language, arts...
(Forget about getting student loans for college, Gitmo has an education system that Michele Rhee would be proud of.)
King: They are out playing soccer or football as you call it. (The MLS might find some untapped talent there)
Have you visited? On how many occasions?
King: Once.
(That many?)
Q: As you're concerned the treatment is appropriate?
King: Better than almost any American prison. Certainly better than any Army or Marine Corp training facility.
MP Winnick: Water-boarding one hundred and sixty times of one prisoner. One hundred and sixty times. If that's not torture Congressman King, what on earth is it?
Rep. Peter King, one of the biggest national security blowhards in Congress, who was widely criticized for holding controversial anti-Muslim hearings, knows a thing or two about supporting terrorists. Yes, he was a huge booster for the IRA.
Long before he became an outspoken voice in Congress about the threat from terrorism, he was a fervent supporter of a terrorist group, the Irish Republican Army. “We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry,” Mr. King told a pro-I.R.A. rally on Long Island, where he was serving as Nassau County comptroller, in 1982. Three years later he declared, “If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the I.R.A. for it.”
British Parliament will hold a hearing on the “roots of violent radicalisation” in the Muslim community in that country. The first witness before the committee will be Rep. Peter King (R-NY). King will reportedly be the first member of Congress to ever address a committee of Parliament.
While there is nothing wrong with hosting a hearing examining violent radicalization among British Muslims — just as the British government is probing radicalization among the far-right in Britain — it is a serious error in judgment to invite King. The congressman has been both a vocal supporter of anti-British terrorism in the past and conducted one-sided terror hearings in the U.S. more intended to paint all Muslims with a broad brush than delve into the roots of radicalization.
Peter King was questioned by Labour MP David Winnick about his past support and love for the IRA and was characterized as a terror apologist. He responded by saying he was just trying to put the IRA in its proper context. Huh? That's what he said and that's not what he's been saying in the U.S.
Justin Elliott has more:
It was the longtime Labour MP David Winnick, who was first elected to the House of Commons in 1966, who confronted King.
"There's been some surprise in the United States but also in Britain that you have a job looking into and investigating into terrorism," said Winnick. King, the MP added, "seems to be an apologist for terrorism."
Rep. Peter King is one of the blowhards of the GOP who uses every opportunity to paint President Obama and the Democratic Party as weak on national security, but now listen to what he said to Bill O'Reilly after pumping the torture meme:
KING: And that's why I think it's really wrong, whether it's Democrats or Republicans, when they go out of their way to take cheap, personal shots at a President. It's OK to criticize, but they are going through incredible stress and strains at all times and one small mistake; now just think if the President made the wrong decision when he OK's the mission, you could have had civilians killed and you could have had Navy SEALs wiped out....
New York Rep. Peter King, a leading Republican critic of the White House on terror policy, offered a piece of advice on Good Morning America today: Obama should speak the word "terrorism" more. "You are saying someone should be held accountable. Name one other specific recommendation the president could implement right now to fix this," host George Stephanopoulos said to King.
"I think one main thing would be to -- just himself to use the word terrorism more often," said King, the ranking Republican on the Homeland Security Committee
KING: Well, I was very critical of the administration for the Major Hasan shooting. I was also very critical of the Abdulmutallab incident on Christmas Day.
As far as this one, Chris, the evidence isn't in yet as to what was available. Based on what we've seen, I don't know if we could have stopped him before he got -- Shahzad before he got to Times Square. We'll have to wait until, you know, all the dots are put out there. It's very difficult because we don't get very much information from this administration.
But one real criticism I do have, Chris, is what happened in the last hours of the investigation. Beginning some time on Monday afternoon, high administration sources were leaking out the most confidential, classified information which compromised this investigation, put lives at risk and very probably caused Shahzad to escape and make it undetected to the airport.
Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, said that a car bomb found Saturday night in Times Square might have been the work of Islamic extremists who were upset over an episode of the Comedy Central series that attempted to depict the prophet Muhammad. It's one possibility out of 100, but this vehicle was close to a Viacom building, which owns MTV and Comedy Central," King said Sunday during an appearance on CNN. "
Administration's handling of Christmas bombing suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and Bush's similar handling of shoe-bomber Richard Reid in an appearance on MSNBC's "Daily Rundown."
During the MSNBC interview, anchor Savannah Guthrie asked Senator Bond to make a distinction between the mirandizing of previous terror suspects and Abdulmutallab.
"When Richard Reid was mirandized, treated in the civilian court system, same as Zacarius Moussaoui, the 9/11 co-conspirator, did you call for anyone's resignation because of that?" Guthrie asked.
"It's a lot different time," Bond responded. "We now have military commissions...It turns out that mirandizing Richard Reid and trying him in the civilian courts was a bad idea."
"He is serving a life sentence right now, he will never get out. How is that a failure?" Guthrie shot back. Read on...
Long before he became an outspoken voice in Congress about the threat from terrorism, he was a fervent supporter of a terrorist group, the Irish Republican Army. “We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry,” Mr. King told a pro-I.R.A. rally on Long Island, where he was serving as Nassau County comptroller, in 1982. Three years later he declared, “If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the I.R.A. for it.”
I do know that I'll remind him of his new words every time he tries to demonize Obama's national security policies.
In a nationally televised address to the American people on March 4, 1987, President Ronald Reagan admitted he had traded arms for hostages in the Iran-Contra scandal and declared, "This happened on my watch." Sadly, that may have been the last time a Republican leader took ownership of a disaster by simply acknowledging the calendar. After all, according to the Republicans' ever-malleable timelines, the Clinton economic boom came thanks to Ronald Reagan, President Bush inherited a recession and 9/11 from his Democratic predecessor, and the financial collapse in 2008 was the "Obama Bear Market." And now, the GOP's new math dictates, George W. Bush deserves the credit for killing Osama Bin Laden.
No doubt, the elimination of the Al Qaeda chieftain was the culmination of years of intelligence work and military asset building that spanned the Bush and Obama administrations. But while President Bush diverted resources from Afghanistan to Iraq, shuttered the CIA's Bin Laden unit and cancelled a 2005 U.S. special operations raid into Pakistan, it was Barack Obama who as promised tripled U.S. troop strength and repeatedly declared that "that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights."
That's a far cry from President Bush declaration on March 13, 2002 - just six months after the carnage of 9/11 - that in the wake of the failure to capture Bin Laden in Tora Bora, "I truly am not that concerned about him."
Nevertheless, according to the latest Republican revisionist history, George W. Bush did everything but pull the trigger on Sunday. (More ironic still, Bush’s supporters accused President Obama of taking a “victory lap” after the death of Bin Laden, which occurred exactly 8 years to the day after Dubya appeared in a flight suit on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln to declare “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq.)
Despite virtually no evidence to support the claim, GOP torture enthusiasts like Peter King (R-NY) trumpeted that "We obtained that information through waterboarding." House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) was just one of a legion of conservatives explaining that credit had one degree of separation, announcing "I commend President Obama who has followed the vigilance of President Bush in bringing bin Laden to justice." While Sarah Palin refused to even utter Obama’s name in crediting President Bush, right-wing billionaire sugar daddy David Koch complained that Obama “just made the decision, it was obvious where the guy is.” Donald Rumsfeld similarly praised his former boss:
"All of this was made possible by the relentless, sustained pressure on al Qaeda that the Bush administration initiated after 9/11 and that the Obama administration has wisely chosen to continue."
But if Republican mythology states that George W. Bush is responsible for apprehending the mastermind of 9/11, the attacks ten years ago were all Bill Clinton's fault.
That's an interesting charge, given President Bush's response to the CIA presenter of the infamous August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief:
"All right. You've covered your ass, now."
That would be the same PDB about which Condoleezza Rice explained to the 9/11 Commission, "I believe the title was, 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." And while National Security Advisor Rice protested in 2002 that "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would...try to use an airplane as a missile," counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke had anticipated exactly that. As it turned out, the plan he presented to Rice in January 2001 only became the subject of a national security "principals meeting" in the days just before September 11. (Bush, you'll recall, spent the previous month at his Crawford, Texas ranch agonizing about his policy on stem cell research which his adviser Karen Hughes described at the time as "the most important decision of your presidency.") It's no wonder Sandy Berger told Rice during the transition that "I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject."
Nevertheless, conservative theology required that the 9/11 attacks which occurred eight months into the Bush presidency were entirely Bill Clinton's fault. Then die-hard conservative Andrew Sullivan summed up the tried but untrue talking point, claiming "[Clinton] was more responsible than anyone for the gaping holes in national security and intelligence that made Sept. 11 possible. The buck must stop with him." A national security disaster that spanned both administrations, in the telling of Bush Attorney General John Ashcroft to the 9/11 Commission in April 2004, belonged solely to one man:
"But the simple fact of September 11 is this: we did not know an attack was coming because for nearly a decade our government had blinded itself to its enemies. Our agents were isolated by government-imposed walls, handcuffed by government-imposed restrictions, and starved for basic information technology. The old national intelligence system in place on September 11 was destined to fail."
According to Republican calculus, Bill Clinton was also responsible for every calamity which befell the economy under George W. Bush. Given that Clinton presided over the creation of 23 million new jobs, the lowest unemployment in decades, robust economic growth and a balanced budget, that might seem like a dubious claim.
Dubious, that it, until conservatives clarify that the Clinton boom of the late 1990's was the result of the invisible hand of Ronald Reagan.
Is there any end to the lengths that these folks will go to justify torture? Particularly Bill O'Reilly, who was puffed up like a blowfish with poison tentacles over Alan Colmes' assertion that Rumsfeld is correct about the fact that information leading to Osama bin Laden did not emerge from "enhanced interrogation techniques."
In fact, BillO was so bent he just about came over the table at Alan Colmes, who wasn't putting up with the nonsense even for a second.
This question of how the information was obtained -- by torture or standard techniques -- is important for a number of reasons, and not simply because torture apologists want us to believe it's an effective way to extract information. It's important because it reveals the priorities and motives within the Bush administration at different times. In 2003, their focus was on Iraq, not Bin Laden. In 2007, they were still focused on Iraq. In Bush's own words, Osama bin Laden was just someone he didn't think about very often.
So watch Bill O'Reilly go after Alan Colmes in this segment. This is actually round two -- round one was right at the top of the show where Colmes tries to get a word in edgewise while BillO claims Rumsfeld's statements on torture are just wrong. Plain wrong. After Crowley goes through some fairly boring and benign apologetics, BillO comes after Colmes with his fangs out.
Rep. Peter King of New York defended on Sunday a congressional hearing he will hold this week on the threat of homegrown Islamic terrorism that focuses on Muslim-Americans, calling it an issue "which is not being talked about publicly" and needs to be.
"People in this country are being self-radicalized, whether it's Major Hasan or whether it's Shahzad or whether it was Zazi in New York," King said on CNN's "State of the Union." "These were all people who were identifying, in one way or another, with al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. So it's an international movement with elements here in the United States."
King was referring to Army Major Nidal Malik Hassan, a military psychiatrist whose shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, in November 2009 claimed 13 lives; Najibullah Zazi, an Afghan-born man living in Colorado charged in 2009 with conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction; and Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani-born man living in suburban Connecticut, whose attempt to blow up a bomb in Times Square last June was foiled.
I have no problem whatsoever with the notion of having a hearing on the threats of domestic terrorism, but for cryin' out loud, how intellectually dishonest of King to focus on one religious group and ignore the fact that the vast majority of domestic terrorism comes not from radicalized Muslim-Americans but from radicalized right wingnuts.
Keith Ellison does a yeoman's job trying to temper King's hate-on for Muslims, but this kind of wingnuttery requires a statement from the White House too. So Sunday, we got it:
We have a choice. We can choose to send a message to certain Americans that they are somehow “less American” because of their faith or how they look; that we see their entire community as a potential threat—as we’ve seen in several inexcusable incidents in recent weeks across the country that were captured on video. Well, those incidents do not represent America. And if we make that choice, we risk feeding the very feelings of disenchantment that may push some members of that community to violent extremism.
Or, we can make another choice. We can send the message that we’re all Americans. That’s the message that the President conveyed last summer when he was discussing Muslim Americans serving in our military and the need to honor their service. “Part of honoring their service, he said, “is making sure that they understand that we don’t differentiate between them and us. It’s just us.”
Informed by what we know, several basic principles must guide us in what we do—as individuals, as communities and as a country. We must resolve not to label someone as an extremist simply because of their opposition to the policies of the U.S. government or their strong religious beliefs. Under our Constitution, we have the freedom to speak our minds. And we have the right to practice our faiths freely knowing that the government should neither promote nor hinder any one religion over the other.
As such, we must resolve to protect the rights and civil liberties of every American. That’s why, under President Obama, the civil rights division at the Justice Department is devoting new energy and effort to its founding mission—protecting civil rights. It’s why we are vigorously enforcing new hate crimes laws. And it’s why even as we do everything in our power to protect the American people from terrorist attacks, we’re also doing everything in our power to uphold civil liberties.
We must resolve that, in our determination to protect our nation, we will not stigmatize or demonize entire communities because of the actions of a few. In the United States of America, we don’t practice guilt by association. And let’s remember that just as violence and extremism are not unique to any one faith, the responsibility to oppose ignorance and violence rests with us all.
In the wake of terrorist attacks, instead of condemning whole communities, we need to join with those communities to help them protect themselves as well. And if one faith community faces intimidation, we need to come together across faiths, as happened several years ago here at the ADAMS Center, when Christian and Jewish leaders literally stood guard overnight to protect this center from vandalism. You showed us the true meaning of e pluribus unum—out of many, one.
What is the state of the union when a madman can come within a whisker of assassinating a member of Congress? When his rantings and ravings and drug use don't stop him from getting a high-capacity magazine? When a sophomore in high school can show up to school with a gun in his backpack, and accidentally shoot two of his classmates?
I'm not sure, but I know I'd really like to hear President Obama address this during his SOTU address--without platitudes, but with an actual plan of action. One which might include demanding that the Senate confirm his nominee to run the ATF forthwith, fixing gaps in government databases of mental health and criminal records, requiring states to share data on those who have been deemed mentally unfit, questioning the intelligence of selling high-capacity magazines to just anyone, allowing concealed carry without a permit, as Arizona and two other states do, wondering whether those with firearms should just be able to meander up next to their member of Congress, and closing loopholes that allow the crazed and criminal to get guns at gun shows while firmly ensconced on terrorist watch lists.
Oh yeah, it would also mean he is FAR to the Right of that key element in our democracy known as the American People:
"Large majorities of Americans agree with the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to own guns, and Americans strongly oppose efforts to ban handguns," said Bob Carpenter, vice president of American Viewpoint, the Republican polling firm that joined with Democratic firm Momentum Analysis to conduct the survey. "But Americans and gun owners feel with equal fervor that government must act to get every single record in the background-check system that belongs there and to ensure that every gun sale includes a background check. Most Americans view these goals, protecting gun rights for the law-abiding and keeping guns from criminals, as compatible."
Some findings from the poll results, provided exclusively to The Huffington Post:
-- 90 percent of Americans and 90 percent of gun owners support fixing gaps in government databases that are meant to prevent the mentally ill, drug abusers and others from buying guns.
-- 91 percent of Americans and 93 percent of gun owners support requiring federal agencies to share information about suspected dangerous persons or terrorists to prevent them from buying guns.
-- 89 percent of Americans and 89 percent of gun owners support full funding of the law a unanimous Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed after the Virginia Tech shootings to put more records in the background-check database.
-- 86 percent of Americans and 81 percent of gun owners support requiring all gun buyers to pass a background check, no matter where they buy the gun and no matter who they buy it from.
-------
Closing the so-called "terror gap" has particularly strong support. A 2010 Government Accountability Office report found that during the past six years, individuals on the terror watchlist were able to buy firearms or explosives from licensed U.S. dealers 1,119 times.
The NRA has opposed bipartisan legislation closing the gap on the grounds that the list is flawed -- some individuals are put on the list by mistake, while many who pose legitimate threats are never added.
But this position puts the NRA far to the right of even its members. A survey last year by conservative pollster Frank Luntz found that 82 percent of NRA members supported "prohibiting people on the terrorist watch lists from purchasing guns." Eighty-six percent agreed with the statement that the country can "do more to stop criminals from getting guns while also protecting the rights of citizens to freely own them."
This folks, is about whether we want democracy by ballot or intimidation by bullet. It goes to the very heart of who we are and want to be, and it is most certainly an issue of National Security--or security for our democracy. Lets hope President Obama does the right thing.
Rep. Peter King, a Republican from New York, is planning to introduce legislation that would make it illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a government official, according to a person familiar with the congressman's intentions.
King is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. The proposed law follows the Saturday shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and a federal judge that left six dead, including the judge, and 14 wounded.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, one of the nation's most outspoken gun-control advocates, is backing King's measure and is expected to put the weight of his pro-gun-control organization behind it.
"Yesterday everyone here joined in observing a moment of silence on behalf of the victims of the shooting, and today we come together to speak up for ways to prevent tragedies like this from occurring in the future, by adopting commonsense fixes to some of our broken gun laws," Bloomberg said Tuesday. "Civil debate is important, and I've long spoken out in favor of more cooperation and less antagonism, but I think it's true that the more we learn, the more it becomes clear that this case is fundamentally about a mentally ill drug abuser who had access to guns and shouldn't have."
A spokesman for King wasn't immediately available for comment.
In 2009, Bloomberg's pro-gun-control organization specified 40 ways President Obama could rein in illegal gun use without passing any new legislation. At a press event in Manhattan on Tuesday, Bloomberg added three steps to the list, including revamping the system of federal background checks on gun buyers, sharing information between gun background check databases, and appointing a head of the federal law enforcement agency responsible for controlling gun crime, which has operated without a director for almost five years.
The NRA isn't going to be happy with this because they believe strapping on high-powered weapons anywhere in the country is their God-given right for profit-making. In the above video, Lawrence O'Donnell has a great segment which focuses on high-capacity magazines that are available for sale. Loughner legally purchased a Glock 19 semi-automatic for $500.00. I guess they are really good for hunting rabbits.Loughner then bought bullets at a Wal-Mart.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Loughner was not refused but left the store before making a purchase:
"Loughner tried that morning to buy bullets at a Wal-Mart store but was turned away, and then purchased some at another Wal-Mart, say people familiar with the matter, who relayed the preliminary findings of law enforcement officials.
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. said Loughner wasn't turned away from the first store but left before completing his purchase. "We stand ready to provide any information or video surveillance footage we may have to investigators," the company said in a statement."
It's a 33-round magazine, the kind that once was banned. It's no surprise that Loughner fired almost all of the rounds during his assault on Giffords and her accompanying crowd. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy joined O'Donnell, and is introducing legislation to ban high-capacity clips. She lost her husband to a fatal shooting incident in 1993.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., with the backing of gun control groups, are drafting a bill that would ban the sale of high-capacity magazines such as the one that was used allegedly Saturday by Jared Lee Loughner, the man accused of murdering federal Judge John Roll and trying to assassinate Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., according to two gun-control activists working with McCarthy's staff.
Gun-control proponents are hoping to move rapidly on the measure in the wake of reports that Loughner's access to high-capacity, 33-round magazines substantially increased the lethality of his attack, the activists said. An Arizona law enforcement official confirmed to NBC News on Monday that Loughner had actually gotten off at least 31 shots during the Saturday shooting, not the 20 that were first reported. He was emptying his first high-capacity magazine and was trying to reload with another high-capacity magazine (with another 30 rounds) when he was wrestled to the ground, the official said.
Another day and another Republican jackass trying to smear President Obama and his administration on issues of our national security. The newest member of the Peter King Fan Club style is Republican asswipe Congressman Mike Rogers from Michigan, who wrote an op-ed in the NY (f'n) Post yesterday where he attacked Eric Holder for doing the job he's actually supposed to be doing after the NYC bombing failed. Holder is the Attorney General and prosecution is his game, right? We have laws and he follows them, even if jerks like Rogers want to disregard the Constitution and our legal system. Faisal Shahzad is an American citizen.
I caught Rogers on MSNBC earlier in the morning Thursday talking to Monica Novotny early in the 7am hour PDT, and he couldn't even articulate what he wrote in Murdoch's rag. Novotny tries to understand what he's saying and gets to the heart of it.
Novotny: Meanwhile, you've written an op-ed for the NY Post in which you say that Attorney General Eric Holder, that he's just too focused on gathering evidence for a court case going forward as opposed to what you say he should be doing, gathering intelligence to prevent future attacks.
Rogers: Absolutely, when you shift to a law enforcement centered rather than a counter terrorism centered approach to this, it has restrictions and it has consequences. We can talk about all the great thing our investigators are doing after the fact, but the problem is that when you go to a law enforcement approach somebody has to commit the crime first in order for them to be successful first.
Novotny: But the fact is Congressman, that this has happened already so don't they essentially have to wear two hats at the same time because while we want to gain as much intelligence on potential future attacks, we also don't want this guy walking free either.
...
Rogers: You don't want to get this guy when he's getting on the plane to Pakistan after he's left the bomb, you want to get him on the plane from Pakistan when he's on the way to the United States. Huge difference.
Novotny: You say that the government's role should be in prevention then, but do you believe they really aren't doing everything they can to prevent these attacks?
Rogers: I do know this. This administration have made changes that mean some collection activities that we used to do we no longer do and those are classified, but they've suspended certain collection activities. When you do that and they're doing as this notion of a law enforcement centered approach, when you do that you have consequences...
Novotny: You say they are gathering less intelligence and they've made choices to do that.
Rogers: I do think there are some gaps in there that I would love to fill back in so our intelligence can do what it does best.
Rogers is telling the world that the Obama administration is making a concerted effort to gather less intelligence to stop attacks which means the president doesn't care if we get hit again because he's just interested in putting them away. He cites the Ft. Hood shootings, underwear man and Path Finder bomber as his evidence that Obama just doesn't care. What a sad sack of a politician. That was the heart at what Novotny was getting at. Bush would go on TV telling the world of how many attacks he had thwarted. So WTF is he yapping on about?
Rogers said that the Obama administration had made serious changes in the way America collects intelligence on terrorists, but he didn't know what they were because they were classified. Huh? Top Secret, like very hush-hush. Is he trying to leak secrets to the media about the way we go about gathering intelligence?
While the other cable-news networks ran President Obama's conversation yesterday with House Republicans in its entirety, Fox News cut in midway -- particularly as it was becoming startlingly clear that Obama was making eminent sense and scoring Republicans for the phony "solutions" they keep throwing up to counter his health-care proposals.
Best of all, Fox's Trace Gallagher immediately leapt in with a popular GOP talking point -- namely, that Obama was "lecturing" the congressmen:
Gallagher: The President at times being a little bit combative, and supporting -- I mean, he did acknowledge a couple of mistakes along the way, but much like he did in the State of the Union, has very much held firm to the beliefs in what his administration has done.
I want to bring in the host of Special Report, Bret Baier, he's with us now. He has watched along with us. And the Republicans, before they went into this session had said, you know, we don't want to be lectured by the president. There was a little bit of lecturing there, and the president was a little bit combative at times.
Baier: Yeah, a little bit of that, Trace, but I also thought there was a decent, good give and take on the specifics.
Just remember: All the partisanship at Fox is on their "opinion" shows. Their news shows always play it straight and objective. Or, ah, fair and balanced.
Right.
Amanda Terkel at Think Progress points out that Fox then turned to Rep. Peter King, who then slagged Obama, for the duration of the event. She has screen shots of the other networks during that same time period.
