<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Obama&#039;s Enemies List: A Growing List of Obama&#039;s Enemies &#187; pentagon</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.obamashitlist.com/tag/pentagon/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com</link>
	<description>Are you on OBAMASHITLIST?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:25:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Is Syria Really “Different?”</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/08/is-syria-really-different/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/08/is-syria-really-different/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:42:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>clarenbachvanderkam718</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Nations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[colonel-qaddafi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[european]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[situation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[syria]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[turkey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/08/is-syria-really-different/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ While the recent increase of attention to the ongoing carnage in Syria is a welcome change from the Obama administration&#8217;s collective state of denial over the past ten months, signals remain mixed, and our policy is unclear if not non-existent.  This week alone, for example, we got the welcome news that the Pentagon is preparing military options on Syria for the President, but at the same time White House press secretary announced those options will not be exercised. The waters have been further muddied by the President&#8217;s insistence that there is no parity between the situation in Libya last year and what we face now in Syria. In Libya, the threat to civilians and opportunity to topple a vicious dictator were sufficient cause for Mr. Obama to engage the U.S. military, even without a pressing national security interest at stake.  While it can be argued that once the U.S. engaged in Libya it might have been preferable to lead from the front to secure weapons stockpiles and guard against al Qaida encroachment, the fact remains that the world is a better place with Colonel Qaddafi gone, as Mr. Obama routinely reminds us. Meanwhile, as many as ten times the civilians killed in Libya before NATO&#8217;s intervention have died in Syria over the last year.  Bashir Assad is no less cruel and repressive a tyrant than Muammar Qaddafi. The threat of Syria&#8217;s unknown stockpiles of WMD falling into bad hands demands our urgent attention.  And, above all, the United States has a clear strategic interest in toppling this vital ally of Iran. But Syria is somehow different, and not worthy of the same sort of military assistance we offered to the Libyan rebels. Rather than taking decisive action in the form of military aid through our purported ally Turkey (perhaps in August when the President issued a statement calling for Assad&#8217;s ouster on his way out of town for vacation), the U.S. has remained on the diplomatic equivalent of a hamster wheel.  From the ill-advised resumption of &#8220;normal&#8221; relations with Syria last January through the pathetic failure of the Security Council resolution this weekend, our efforts to resolve the situation have been futile wastes of time and energy as the slaughter in Syria goes on to the tune of 100 people a day. In dealing with Libya and Syria, consistency need not be the hobgoblin of little minds but can rather be the hallmark of a consistent and coordinated foreign policy.  There are equivalencies to be drawn between the two crises, and once these are recognized we should take equivalent action.  It is not a decision to be taken lightly, but we would not be alone and the cause is just.  We have the unified support of our European and Arab allies.  We have moral and strategic interests at stake.  Rather than whining about the shocking moral turpitude of the United Nations, the President of the United States needs to remember his responsibilities as the leader of the free world&#8211;and lead. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/08/is-syria-really-different/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Day Ahead: Wednesday, November 23</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/11/23/the-day-ahead-wednesday-november-23/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/11/23/the-day-ahead-wednesday-november-23/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2011 16:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>concernedcoloradoan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[british]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[emmett-tyrrell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[flex]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[greater]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[greater-good]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hearted-prodigy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peter-ferrara]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[usa]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/11/23/the-day-ahead-wednesday-november-23/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ President Obama will pardon the Thanksgiving turkey ( Politico ) Obama will press for an extension of the payroll tax holiday ( New York Times ) The possibility of the sequester's cuts taking effect has taken the Pentagon off-guard ( New York Times ) The federal government has sued Utah over new immigration law ( USA Today ) Mitt Romney will make a rare Des Moines campaign stop today ( KCCI Des Moines ) 60 second recap of last night's debate: On the main site: Newt Misses His Moment , by]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/11/23/the-day-ahead-wednesday-november-23/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Day Ahead: Monday, November 21</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/11/21/the-day-ahead-monday-november-21/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/11/21/the-day-ahead-monday-november-21/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:59:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>concernedcoloradoan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[british]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gerald-nachman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[michelle-obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social-security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supercommittee]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/11/21/the-day-ahead-monday-november-21/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ The supercommittee is expected to announce this afternoon that it has failed ( Washington Post ) Both parties hope to twist the supercommittee's failure to their advantage ( Politico ) President Obama will sign bill creating tax breaks intended to spur hiring of veterans ( Politico ) Michelle Obama was booed at a NASCAR event over the weekend ( The Hill ) New York man charged with plotting to detonate pipe bombs in New York city was influenced by al-Awlaki ( New York Times ) Newt Gingrich unloads both barrels on Occupy Wall Street: On the main site: Super Dud , by]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/11/21/the-day-ahead-monday-november-21/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>As Supercommittee Faces Failure, Both Parties Have to Deal With Defense Cuts</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/11/11/as-supercommittee-faces-failure-both-parties-have-to-deal-with-defense-cuts/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/11/11/as-supercommittee-faces-failure-both-parties-have-to-deal-with-defense-cuts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Nov 2011 02:59:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Markisacopyrightthief</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[budget-office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[congressional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[department]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secretary]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/11/11/as-supercommittee-faces-failure-both-parties-have-to-deal-with-defense-cuts/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ While Democrats don't often concern themselves with too much government spending, the one place you often see consternation is in defense spending. As a percentage of federal spending, defense has constituted around 20 percent of total spending, and is one of the largest (often the largest) single categorical source of spending. Regardless, we conservatives typically apologize for bloated military spending, because we think that national defense is a more legitimate function of government than the provision of a social safety net. Nevertheless, the deficit-cutting "Supercommittee" was set up so that, if they cannot come to a compromise plan, spending gets cut across the board, including significant defense-spending cuts. And as the supercommittee barrels towards failure, Leon Panetta, President Obama's Secretary of Defense, is worried about the cuts his department faces . With Congress' supercommittee stymied, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned Thursday of a "paper tiger" Pentagon if the panel fails to agree on a deficit-reduction plan and automatic spending cuts take effect as a result beginning in 2013. The supercommittee has until Nov. 23 to agree on a deficit-reduction package of at least $1.2 trillion over a decade. Any amount less than that would be made up in across-the-board cuts divided evenly between defense and domestic programs. If the committee failed entirely, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, the Pentagon would have about $450 billion less to spend over the next 10 years than current projections, leaving it with nearly $600 billion at its disposal in 2021. Considering that the debt-ceiling agreement signed by President Obama put Sec. Panetta in this situation in the first place, one has to imagine that most Democrats aren't actually troubled by the defense cuts facing DoD. And Republicans made the deal as well. The choices for the Supercommittee - made by leadership of both parties in Congress - were clearly made without nods to compromise. The failure of the Supercommittee to come up with a compromise plan is likely to lead to pretty deep defense cuts - something that both Leon Panetta and Republicans will have to deal with. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/11/11/as-supercommittee-faces-failure-both-parties-have-to-deal-with-defense-cuts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Herman Cain Allegations</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/10/31/the-herman-cain-allegations/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/10/31/the-herman-cain-allegations/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 18:59:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>apgreco</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chief-executive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[come-out-right]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[communications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[documents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[herman-cain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[movie]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national-press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[people]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sexual-harassment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[transom]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/10/31/the-herman-cain-allegations/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Back when I was a lawyer I handled several sexual harassment suits. None of mine settled for less than the high end of six figures. Reading about these two complaints, my gut reaction to them is that settling for five figures, which could be as little as $10,000.00 and as high as $99,999, was &#8220;go away&#8221; money. If the Chief Executive Officer of the National Restaurant Association, at the time one of the top 25 trade associations in Washington, D.C., were sexually harassing someone, that someone could get a lot of money. It just strikes me that a settlement for less than six figures is money paid to deal with the nuisances of an employee fired or otherwise let go who decided to raise the specter of harassment to get more money to leave without causing a scene. Dealing with harassment claims, no matter how substantive or frivolous, is one of the costs of doing business in America that causes more and more businesses to not do business in America. We don&#8217;t know a lot of the facts, but Ben Domenech does raise a good point I remember well from 2008. In his Transom this morning, he writes: Many staffers were struck throughout the 2008 campaign by how often leaks about certain candidates would come out right before previously scheduled media availabilities or TV appearances, forcing a candidate to immediately answer difficult questions to a horde of rabid journalists or duck the avail and make it seem even worse. Now Cain has this story drop at 8 PM on a Sunday night—whole cloth, with no evidence of investigation beyond calling the people named in the documents—a mere 12 hours before he’s supposed to have a full day of media availability in Washington, DC at the American Enterprise Institute and the National Press Club. I feel like I’ve seen this movie. There are only two candidates running this time who ran then, and I don’t think Ron Paul even has an oppo research arm. Curiouser and curiouser. I think people are finally starting to take Herman Cain seriously. I would also note to the Cain campaign that they need to let the candidate deal with this himself. The communications director&#8217;s call in to Geraldo last night disqualifies him from doing so. And if he keeps on, it&#8217;s only a matter of time before reporters start asking the communications director about his own history at the Pentagon where he accused a female reporter of sexual harassment. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/10/31/the-herman-cain-allegations/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nobel Prize Winners Don&#8217;t Love Obama, Fed Policies</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/10/10/nobel-prize-winners-dont-love-obama-fed-policies/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/10/10/nobel-prize-winners-dont-love-obama-fed-policies/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2011 20:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ebliversidge</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stimulus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unemployment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[council]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[crisis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[europe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[financial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[future]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nobel-committee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nobel-prize]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[thomas-sargent]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/10/10/nobel-prize-winners-dont-love-obama-fed-policies/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Congratulations to the two American economists, Thomas Sargent and Christopher Sims, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics for their independent work (mostly during the 1970s and 1980s) on macroeconomic analysis and tools. Here's a fascinating 2010 interview at the Minneapolis Fed with Dr. Sargent in which he, while avoiding being too political, says that the calculations used by the Obama Administration's Council of Economic Advisers to support the $787 billion (before interest) "stimulus" were "surprisingly naive for 2009. They were not informed by what we learned after 1945." Sargent continues with about as damning an analysis as a professor of economics can offer: But I suspect that the council was asked to do something quickly, and they did what they thought was "good enough for government work," as some of us said during my days at the Pentagon in 1968 and 1969. Back-of-envelope work can be a useful starting point or benchmark. But it does mischief when it is oversold. In early 2009, President Obama's economic advisers seem to have understated the substantial professional uncertainty and disagreement about the wisdom of implementing a large fiscal stimulus. In early 2009, I recall President Obama as having said that while there was ample disagreement among economists about the appropriate monetary policy and regulatory responses to the financial crisis, there was widespread agreement in favor of a big fiscal stimulus among the vast majority of informed economists. His advisers surely knew that was not an accurate description of the full range of professional opinion. President Obama should have been told that there are respectable reasons for doubting that fiscal stimulus packages promote prosperity, and that there are serious economic researchers who remain unconvinced. Sargent also talks about the "moral hazard" created by deposit insurance, and how that can lead us to "too big to fail", as well as discussing some of Europe's structural problems including how their over-generous welfare system leads to high unemployment (despite the claims of Paul Krugman that it doesn't). And in an equally interesting (if you're an econ geek like me) late 2009 paper discussing government and central bank policy when the central bank is holding interest rates at or very near the "zero lower bound", Christopher Sims argues that many current assumptions, especially of the New Keynesian school, are overly simplistic and wrong. Sims also explains why it is dangerous for the central bank to get into implementing policies which look more like fiscal than monetary policy, including the foreseeable issue of politicizing the central bank. In a statement that should (but hasn't and won't) have profound impact on the Obama administration's thinking (and that of Ben Bernanke as well), Sims stresses that "If the public becomes convinced that current deficits correspond to large and uncertain future tax increases or budget cuts, then deficits may have little or no stimulative effect." Sims' paper concludes with this section: VI. DOES CURRENT POLICY IN THE US RESEMBLE GOOD POLICY? The expansion of the balance sheet, together with acquisition of the right to pay interest on reserves, is not in itself expansionary. Reserves attracted by high interest rates create no incentive to spend. The balance sheet expansion was undertaken for good reason, and markets seem to understand that there is no significant unwinding problem, because of the right to pay interest. But then, if expectations of higher future inflation are essential to mitigate the crisis, where are those expectations to come from? In fact, one might argue that US policy is not bad, in part unintentionally. The Fed is willing to say that it does not like deflation, but not to say that it would allow temporary above-2% inflation in the future. At least to first order, it may then be helpful that the US has a legislature with an effective 2/3 majority rule and a significant faction that believes all tax increases are evil. In the US, things may be working out as well as they are - "appetite for risk" is returning - precisely because the long-term returns from US debt are at least uncertain. On the other hand, real, coherent, coordinated fiscal and monetary policy with forward guidance could no doubt do better. The current situation creates unnecessary, large amounts of uncertainty about policy. Congratulations to Mssrs. Sargent and Sims for winning the Nobel Prize in economics, and congratulations to the Nobel Committee for not being afraid to select two men whose views at least partially oppose that of the current "I won a Nobel for what?" president of the United States. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/10/10/nobel-prize-winners-dont-love-obama-fed-policies/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Poll: Muslim-Americans Whine About U.S. Anti-Terror Policies…</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/08/30/poll-muslim-americans-whine-about-u-s-anti-terror-policies%e2%80%a6/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/08/30/poll-muslim-americans-whine-about-u-s-anti-terror-policies%e2%80%a6/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Aug 2011 10:56:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ebliversidge</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[communities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[council]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exhaustive-ever]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ibrahim-hooper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[muslim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[percent-said]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[research-center]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[society]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[weasel wonk]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/08/30/poll-muslim-americans-whine-about-u-s-anti-terror-policies%e2%80%a6/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ (Associated Press) &#8212; More than half of Muslim-Americans in a new poll say that government anti-terrorism policies single them out for increased surveillance and monitoring, and many report increased cases of name-calling, threats and harassment by airport security, law enforcement officers and others. Still, most Muslim-Americans say they are satisfied with the way things are going in the U.S. and rate their communities highly as places to live. The survey by the Pew Research Center, one of the most exhaustive ever of the country&#8217;s Muslims, finds no signs of rising alienation or anger among Muslim-Americans despite recent U.S. government concerns about homegrown Islamic terrorism and controversy over the building of mosques. &#8220;This confirms what we&#8217;ve said all along: American Muslims are well integrated and happy, but with a kind of lingering sense of being besieged by growing anti-Muslim sentiment in our society,&#8221; said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington, D.C.-based Muslim civil rights group. &#8220;People contact us every day about concerns they&#8217;ve had, particularly with law enforcement authorities in this post 9/11 era,&#8221; he said. Muslim extremists hijacked the planes on Sept. 11, 2001, crashing them into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and a field in Shanksville, Pa. In all, 52 percent of Muslim-Americans surveyed said their group is singled out by government for terrorist surveillance. Almost as many _ 43 percent _ reported they had personally experienced harassment in the past year, according to the poll released Tuesday. That 43 percent share of people reporting harassment is up from 40 percent in 2007, the first time Pew polled Muslim-Americans. Asked to identify in what ways they felt bias, about 28 percent said they had been treated or viewed with suspicion by people, while 22 percent said they were called offensive names. About 21 percent said they were singled out by airport security because they were Muslim, while another 13 percent said they were targeted by other law enforcement officials. Roughly 6 percent said they had been physically threatened or attacked. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/08/30/poll-muslim-americans-whine-about-u-s-anti-terror-policies%e2%80%a6/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>White House: No Photos Of Returning Heros Killed In SEAL Helicopter Crash But We Will Release This Picture Of Obama — Update: Carney Attempts To&#8230;</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/08/10/white-house-no-photos-of-returning-heros-killed-in-seal-helicopter-crash-but-we-will-release-this-picture-of-obama-%e2%80%94-update-carney-attempts-to-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/08/10/white-house-no-photos-of-returning-heros-killed-in-seal-helicopter-crash-but-we-will-release-this-picture-of-obama-%e2%80%94-update-carney-attempts-to-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2011 23:08:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>DixiePeters</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[george]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[photograph]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[picture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/08/10/white-house-no-photos-of-returning-heros-killed-in-seal-helicopter-crash-but-we-will-release-this-picture-of-obama-%e2%80%94-update-carney-attempts-to-2/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ It&#8217;s all about him. The official White House &#8220;Photo of the Day.&#8221; Update : Why release a picture at all if it really was all about Obama honoring the fallen SEALs? (Washington Examiner) — When the coffins of the fallen Navy SEALS came back to US soil, the Pentagon and the White House closed the event to the press. That&#8217;s understandable. After all, the George W. Bush administration made similar restrictions for such ceremonies, although President Obama overturned the policy. The press complied as well, but when the White House released a photo yesterday of Obama saluting the coffins at the ceremony, they raised their eyebrows. When Associated Press reporter Ben Feller asked about the photo today at the White House Press briefing, Carney answered: &#8220;The reason we were able to release a photo, is that it was carefully done so that none of the transfer cases that contained remains were in the picture. . . we were able put those restrictions and control the White House photographer so that the photograph that we released does not cause any of those problems.&#8221; Props to the AP reporter for calling out the White House. Every once in a while a MSM journalist does his or her job. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/08/10/white-house-no-photos-of-returning-heros-killed-in-seal-helicopter-crash-but-we-will-release-this-picture-of-obama-%e2%80%94-update-carney-attempts-to-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>White House Working With Hollywood To Release Bin Laden Movie To Counter Obama’s Image Problem Before Election…</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/08/07/white-house-working-with-hollywood-to-release-bin-laden-movie-to-counter-obama%e2%80%99s-image-problem-before-election%e2%80%a6/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/08/07/white-house-working-with-hollywood-to-release-bin-laden-movie-to-counter-obama%e2%80%99s-image-problem-before-election%e2%80%a6/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2011 02:33:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>georgiana wren</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gutsy-decision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hero]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kathryn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[movie]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oscar-winning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[perfectly-timed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[surprise]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[weasel wonk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white-house]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/08/07/white-house-working-with-hollywood-to-release-bin-laden-movie-to-counter-obama%e2%80%99s-image-problem-before-election%e2%80%a6/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Via Maureen Dowd, NY Times : . . . The White House is counting on the Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal big-screen version of the killing of Bin Laden to counter Obama’s growing reputation as ineffectual. The Sony film by the Oscar-winning pair who made “The Hurt Locker” will no doubt reflect the president’s cool, gutsy decision against shaky odds. Just as Obamaland was hoping, the movie is scheduled to open on Oct. 12, 2012 — perfectly timed to give a home-stretch boost to a campaign that has grown tougher. The moviemakers are getting top-level access to the most classified mission in history from an administration that has tried to throw more people in jail for leaking classified information than the Bush administration. It was clear that the White House had outsourced the job of manning up the president’s image to Hollywood when Boal got welcomed to the upper echelons of the White House and the Pentagon and showed up recently — to the surprise of some military officers — at a C.I.A. ceremony celebrating the hero Seals. HT: Fox Nation ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/08/07/white-house-working-with-hollywood-to-release-bin-laden-movie-to-counter-obama%e2%80%99s-image-problem-before-election%e2%80%a6/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The US In Iraq Because Of 9/11 So Says….Leon Panetta?</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/07/11/the-us-in-iraq-because-of-911-so-says%e2%80%a6-leon-panetta/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/07/11/the-us-in-iraq-because-of-911-so-says%e2%80%a6-leon-panetta/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2011 03:21:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>georgiana wren</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[baghdad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[largest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military-installation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[primary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[remarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[soldiers-at-camp]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[victory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/07/11/the-us-in-iraq-because-of-911-so-says%e2%80%a6-leon-panetta/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Via Brian Faughnan. Well, that&#8217;s interesting. Panetta made his remarks during his his inaugural visit to Iraq as Pentagon chief. Speaking to about 100 soldiers at Camp Victory, the largest U.S. military installation in Baghdad, he said his primary goal&#8230; Read more: The US In Iraq Because Of 9/11 So Says&#8230;.Leon Panetta? ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/07/11/the-us-in-iraq-because-of-911-so-says%e2%80%a6-leon-panetta/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

