See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #101
   On February 4th, 2009 at 6:01 am, Jeff2161 said:

   Making repeated decisions that paying taxes on time is unimportant; These are not mistakes, it’s intentional. Fess up Obama; You KNOW there are 2 sets of rules in D.C. and you like it that way just fine.

2. #102
   On February 4th, 2009 at 8:44 am, zyzzyg said:

   This is new to me and I have decided to just take a breath and think about it.

   A President that admits mistakes. Really not sure what to make of this. The reality is that we are all human and are not perfect. We all make mistakes.

   Yep, a President can have a subordinate fall on the sword, to maintain a certain visage. I don’t know . . .

3. #103
   On February 4th, 2009 at 9:21 am, mike.musculus said:

   #97
   On February 4th, 2009 at 1:13 am, NYCdude said:
   To # 64 MNUSMCDavid:
   “You skinny , big eared piece of garbage. ”
   I understand the policy disagreement but that remark is pretty stupid.
   . . .
   But come on, why would I need to make fun of someone’s ears …

   Easily answered:
   Because their shadows make it impossible to light him properly for TV. (Haven’t you noticed on CNN he always looks washed out and overexposed?)

   OT:
   Dad asked me to say hello & “thank you!” to everyone here! He’s really enjoyed the dozens of emails sent him by posters & lurkers.

   Got to talk to Dad for 15min. today. Well, I did most of the talking. It seems that though both his speech and motor coordination have been impaired, his cogitation is unhindered. I can’t wait until this TDY is over and I’m back to see him!

   And “Thank you!” from me also, for all the emails sent & stuff you good people did for my Dad! I’m certain that its contributed to his improved condition!

4. #104
   On February 4th, 2009 at 10:21 am, corkie said:

   On February 4th, 2009 at 8:44 am, zyzzyg said:

   A President that admits mistakes. Really not sure what to make of this.

   Are you trying to set yourself up to be embarrassed? Do you really need quote after quote – video after video – of preceding presidents admitting mistakes?

   Here’s what I find interesting. Obama doesn’t seem like a team player at all. He seems like the type to take credit for all his staff’s hard work. That’s probably why he was forced to take the blame in this situation. I predict staff disloyalty and dysfunction throughout the administration within two years.

   Why am I starting to see a bit of Lieutenant Commander Queeg in Obama? Is he going to start rolling stress balls and mumbling about missing strawberries?

5. #105
   On February 4th, 2009 at 10:30 am, corkie said:

   On February 3rd, 2009 at 9:01 pm, chapoutier said:

   There is no 10% cut. That is a lie/misstatement that Fox News started and unfortunately picked up traction. Obama is increasing funding by $14 billion, exactly the same amount as Bush had proposed in his FY 2010 projections.

   chapoutier deserves credit for keeping everyone here honest about this.

   However, chapoutier, let’s be accurate. Obama isn’t increasing any funding yet. He is simply making a budget request which he may or may not stand behind if Congress pushes for cuts. Let’s wait to see what happens. Agreed?

6. #106
   On February 4th, 2009 at 10:53 am, MNUSMCDavid said:

   I don’t have a tinker’s damn of concern over my usage of the ears comment… far less invective and shallow than the constant stream of foolish screed that was used against Bush. I don’t follow the mantra of taking the high ground unless I’m in combat and I use it to observe who I’m going to defeat, but only then.

7. #107
   On February 4th, 2009 at 11:23 am, DBNinKY said:

   On February 3rd, 2009 at 7:08 pm, Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said:

   Like a planned 10% cut in the Defense budget.

   You’re right, Ed, it is a ten percent cut in military spending. The military planned their budgets around that extra 10% being there and now that it isn’t, they’re having to go back and reduce outlays, i.e., make cuts in their spending and programs.

   For a contentious few to say a ten percent reduction in a proposed military budget isn’t a real cut because no tangible funds were lost, is a Pollyanna-ish denial of the risks such an act would bring to US security in a post 9/11 world.

8. #108
   On February 4th, 2009 at 11:30 am, todd76705 said:

   I think the president’s “glistening pecs” must turn Michelle Malkin on otherwise she wouldn’t be so obscessed with them.

9. #109
   On February 4th, 2009 at 11:43 am, chapoutier said:

   However, chapoutier, let’s be accurate. Obama isn’t increasing any funding yet. He is simply making a budget request which he may or may not stand behind if Congress pushes for cuts. Let’s wait to see what happens. Agreed?

   Fair enough.

   You’re right, Ed, it is a ten percent cut in military spending. The military planned their budgets around that extra 10% being there and now that it isn’t, they’re having to go back and reduce outlays, i.e., make cuts in their spending and programs.

   Bull. They did it 1) because of course you are going to ask for as much as possible, even if you know you won’t get it all and 2) to put Obama in a difficult situation. If anything it is a 10% cut in the DoD’s super duper fantasy wish list.

   Fact is Obama is increasing spending by $14 billion. Tell me how that is a cut without relying on claiming democrats do it all the time.

   Also, please note that $527 Billion is exqactly what the Bush administration had esitmated for the 2010 FY in its figures. So tell, me was Bush who apparently loves the military soooo much, planning on stabbing it in the back and cutting spending by 10%?

   Please feel free to argue that $14 billion increase is not enough. But do not lie about him cutting spending.

   You defended Palin and called it “smearing” and “misrepresentation” when KOS did exactly what you are doing now.

10. #110
    On February 4th, 2009 at 12:07 pm, tarpon said:

    What did you expect when the most important job he ever had prior was a ‘street walker’.

11. #111
    On February 4th, 2009 at 12:42 pm, corkie said:

    On February 4th, 2009 at 11:43 am, chapoutier said:

    They did it 1) because of course you are going to ask for as much as possible, even if you know you won’t get it all and 2) to put Obama in a difficult situation.

    chapoutier, I completely agree with #1 and completely disagree with #2.

12. #112
    On February 4th, 2009 at 1:03 pm, chapoutier said:

    chapoutier, I completely agree with #1 and completely disagree with #2.

    Defense budget experts have said the draft by the Joint Chiefs, which was never publicly released, was designed to pressure the Obama administration to drastically increase Defense spending or be forced to defend a reluctance to do so.

    From here. Okay, citing “Defense budget experts” isn’t exactly well sourced, but I also didn’t just make it up.

13. #113
    On February 4th, 2009 at 1:15 pm, RetFireman said:

    This is simply amazing to watch. Compare and contrast this with the Bush Presidency, where is was a very, very long time before anyone in the press would ask him if there was anything that he was sorry about or regretted doing, and then those were only leading questions to get him to admit that going into Iraq was a mistake.

    Just how many times has this buffoon screwed the pooch since he was elected, never mind sworn in? How many times has he been made to admit he is making blunder after blunder, mistake after ridiculous mistake?

    Daily we are being given a window seat into the simple fact that this idiot had no experience and no business running for the Highest Office in the World and that there is no space or time allowable for “On the job training” when it comes to being “Leader of the Free World” and PotUS.

    Good intentions and high hopes are not enough and are not worth the hot air they are presented on.

    Is this really the person people in this country want at the helm come the next terrorist attack? After all, even his own running mate threatened that he will be tested within the first six months.

    Just remember, should another attack occur, which now seems more likely than ever before, and should that attack actually consist of a biological or nuclear nature, this is the person who the country and world will turn to for guidance and strength. By then, it will be far too late for stupid slogans and people running around talking about “Hope and Change”. They asked for it and they got it.

    God help us all.

14. #114
    On February 4th, 2009 at 1:33 pm, corkie said:

    On February 4th, 2009 at 1:03 pm, chapoutier said:

    From here. Okay, citing “Defense budget experts” isn’t exactly well sourced, but I also didn’t just make it up.

    I never thought you made it up. I read that, too.

    Even if it’s true that they believed they could request more from an Obama admin than a Bush admin (which I doubt), that doesn’t mean that their intention was to put Obama in a difficult position – which is what you implied.

    Just because the Bush White House had planned for a certain amount doesn’t mean that the DoD wouldn’t have asked for more.

15. #115
    On February 4th, 2009 at 5:19 pm, DBNinKY said:

    But do not lie about him cutting spending.

    You defended Palin and called it “smearing” and “misrepresentation” when KOS did exactly what you are doing now.

    I stand by what I said in both cases.

    The military is essential to our nations existence, social programs are not.

    Expected increases in military spending should never be cut in a time of war as a campaign’s success may depend on them (refurbishment, new equipment, etc) and there are no alternative sources to make-up the lost money. Increases for social programs are merely projections that do not determine the success or sustainability of a program, and they have alternatives – foundational grants, municipal loans, religious charities, etc.

    That being said, let me be clear: I support tightening the government’s belt across the board – even the military (I applauded Rumfeld’s base reductions and scrutiny of the Pentagon’s budget) – but only during peace time, and only when there is obvious waste. I do not support lessening our military’s ability to fight and win simply to save money while we’re at war.

    So tell, me was Bush who apparently loves the military soooo much, planning on stabbing it in the back and cutting spending by 10%?

    Oh, so now you wanna play “my-president-loves-the-country-more-than-yours?” Well, here’s the first volley: I trusted President Bush to do what was right – if the cut proved less than wise, I trusted him to immediately restore the funding and then some. I do NOT trust Obama to do the same. In fact, if the cut is shown to weaken our military, I have no reason to think Obama will do anything to correct it but continue to draw-down their funding to pay for his social programs. Your serve!

    They did it 1) because of course you are going to ask for as much as possible, even if you know you won’t get it all

    No arguments here – been there, done that – but why be tight with the military that keeps us safe?

    and 2) to put Obama in a difficult situation.

    He could just as easily renege on the ten percent cut.

16. #116
    On February 4th, 2009 at 6:41 pm, corkie said:

    On February 4th, 2009 at 5:19 pm, DBNinKY said:

    Sorry, DBNinKY, I’m going with chapoutier on this one (except as noted above – I refuse to believe that the military did it simply to put Obama in a difficult position).

    Arguing that DoD should receive their wish-list budget is valid (although I probably will not agree), but Obama’s actions thus far should not be characterized as a military budget cut.

17. #117
    On February 6th, 2009 at 2:45 pm, DBNinKY said:

    All I’m saying is the Constitution requires the gov to provide for the common defense, but to merely promote the general welfare; social programs, not the safety net ones, have avenues to recover reduced funding from private grants, etc., while the armed services are reliant solely on the gov for their funds. Therefore I feel a reduction in a social program’s funding increase does not equate to a cut, but does for the military in wartime.