Skip to content

No, Dana Perino Hasn’t Forgotten September 11

November 28, 2009

This Thanksgiving, I’m thankful for the Left’s utter inability to manufacture a convincing scandal.  The latest is former White House Press Secretary Dana Perino’s latest appearance on Hannity, where she said:

You know, they want to do all of their investigations, I don’t know all of their thinking that goes into it. But we did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush’s term. I hope they’re not looking at this politically. I do think that we owe it to the American people to call it what it is. [Emphasis added]

Obviously, George W. Bush was president on September 11, 2001, sending liberals into an uproar over Perino’s supposed stupidity and/or dishonesty.  As the Detroit Examiner’s Julie Farby put it in a very, very eloquent post:

Dim-witted golden-haired starlet Dana Perino was apparently too busy dusting Ronnie Reagan figurines in the White House attic to remember a certain Tuesday in September, 2001 when some real meanie terrorists decided to crash two planes into the twin towers, killing some 3,000 people, sending the nation into panic, and forever altering the course of history…

…since the network behind Dana’s mind-blowing revelation happens to be Fox News, it naturally doesn’t matter if the statement is true, rational, or in Ms. Perino’s case, the biggest load of bullsh*t ever told, so long as the lingering effect is lightly-veiled racism masked by ignorance…

Welcome to the new Fox News reality, that magical happy place where some brainless testosterone ball with a thick neck and even thicker New Jersey accent passes as a respectable journalist and hot former press secretaries can sound more insane than the drunk homeless schizophrenic woman who lives in the ally across the street.

Did Perino really either forget about the worst terrorist attack in American history, or think she could get away with writing 9/11 out of the Bush Administration’s history for political advantage? Farby’s sure of it, and the Democratic Underground crowd is hopping mad, but both of those scenarios are so manifestly preposterous that even a Daily Kossack has reconsidered his initial hyperbolic reaction and thinks she may have simply misspoke.

The next day, Perino explained precisely that, clarifying that she simply meant there hadn’t been any terrorist attacks after 9/11, during Bush’s second term—hardly a major blunder in American politics’ long, proud history of rhetorical gaffes.  You’d be hard pressed to find anyone on the Right who would deny that our government failed us in the months leading up to 9/11, but it’s a major stretch to suggest that she was trying to deny that it ever happened, and it’s entirely legitimate to distinguish between the times before and after the attacks, which drove home the fact that America was in a war, whether we liked it or not.

Liberal faux-outrage about the occasional misstatement by former Republican officials is little more than a nuisance meant to draw attention away from the real issue: the obsession with diversity that has infested our government, blinding us to the true nature of our enemies.

_____

Hailing from Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, Calvin Freiburger is a political science major at Hillsdale College.  He also blogs at the Hillsdale Forum and his personal website, Calvin Freiburger Online.

Advertisements
27 Comments
  1. Harmon permalink
    November 28, 2009 5:39 pm

    Ms. Perino said the wrong thing. Did she lie or have a verbal gaffe? I don’t know, but there was Mr. Varney and Mr. Hannity and neither one them corrected her. Oh, what a surprise.

    • November 28, 2009 8:26 pm

      Varney & Hannity probably didn’t notice since the point she was making (the Bush Administration’s successful record of keeping America attack-free since 9/11) is so well known. Here’s the thing: how can anyone possibly believe Perino is stupid enough to think she could get away with such a “lie,” even if she wanted to?

    • themadjewess permalink
      November 29, 2009 7:51 am

      Right, she gaffe’d, that is the extent of it.

    • Jonathan permalink
      November 29, 2009 7:52 am

      Gee. Maybe Hannity was like me as I watched it. What she said was incorrectly put, but I knew what she meant. She meant that we haven’t had another domestic attack since 9-11 during Bush’s term. Calvin says it best in his post above. Why would she lie about that?

      Any idiot absent the leftist agenda would understand what she meant. It’s obvious.

    • alan g permalink
      November 29, 2009 11:18 am

      Hey Harmon, You can’t possibly be that stupid to believe that she was talking about post 9/11. If you are that stupid, then we are in worst shape than I thought.

  2. Carterthewriter permalink
    November 28, 2009 5:49 pm

    The thing that stands out to me is the leading sentence that starts with sensational derogatory discriptives. Reminds me of a lot of leftist comments throughout this site.

    What is seems to accomplish, to me, is it disqualifies any substantive arguments in the article Starting off in a negative vein and usually closing with another fowl retort is a turn off.

  3. betty boop permalink
    November 28, 2009 8:31 pm

    Regardless of the fact that Ms. Perino obviously mis-spoke, and it is no more defensible on our side than theirs (let’s face it, some of their stupidity may occasionally be mispoken verbiage, too), what gets me in all this is the vitriol and mysogeny apparent in attacks by feminists against conservative women. Witness Sarah Palin’s case. What’s the deal? Women can only be considered truly successful if they’ve been abetted in their ascension by “the cause”? Isn’t that kind of like Collectivism? Socialism? Communism? I prefer Ayn Rand to any of today’s feminists. Now THERE was a truly liberated woman… who wouldn’t be caught dead or alive being part of such a lame bunch of uber-club-women. Yuck, girls, where’s your pride? Come on… (wo-) man up!

    • Paul permalink
      November 28, 2009 11:56 pm

      Betty, what is sad. Is when a woman comes into the spotlight as a very bright star, the “Formerly Known as Main Stream Media” looks at their policies and views, not their personality. Even though the FKMSM may say that others with over views and policies are big because of their personality. Now if this woman (any woman) comes into the spotlight very brightly, and they have fairly liberal or very liberal views and policies, the FKMSM sees them as wonderful people who can do no bad and only do great things. NOW, if this woman comes into the spotlight very brightly, and they have fairly conservative, conservative, or very conservative, they could have the GREATEST personality ever, the FKMSM shouts them down as “stupid”, “utter nonsense”, “bad for America”, “not real”, “artificial”, and many others. The FKMSM took this title in the 1970s. Any semi-conservative woman tries to became great, the FKMSM and their snooty-ness, attack them relentlessly, funding lots of money to see if they have any skeletons in their closets and fact check their writings.

    • Jonathan permalink
      November 29, 2009 7:54 am

      Kind of reminds you what happens to conservative blacks, doesn’t it? Or conservative religious figures? Or conservative Jews?

      • themadjewess permalink
        November 29, 2009 11:14 am

        Jonathan, they attack because they are at war, and always at war. These people are debaucherous and dont really care what happened on 9/11.. proof of that, is the serial a$$-kissing of Jihadist Muslims lately with ‘P.C.” speak, that has bound us up to not be able to say ‘terrorist’, plus the FACT that Bin Talel, Saudi Prince owns large shares of Fox, AOL, etc..

      • Paul permalink
        November 29, 2009 3:18 pm

        Johnathan, of course it does. The FKMSM went ape **** with Condi. And if Dr. Eric Wallace was to run for Illinois’ U.S. Senate Seat in 2010, they’d do the exact same to him as well.

        Dr. Eric Wallace is running for the 2010 U.S. Senate Seat as a Republican and was part of the Tea Party Movement. (For those who don’t know him).

  4. Paul permalink
    November 28, 2009 11:45 pm

    Isn’t it funny. Someone makes one pretty stupid mistake (even though I think she was trying to say (trying) there hasn’t been a terrorist attack since 9/11 (maybe). After that, what does the Detroit Examiner do? Attack Fox News. They could have made themselves, look A LOT better in a lot of peoples eyes by doing this. Saying that Dana Perino was, well stupid, for saying what she did. Then say that 9/11 was a very traumatic event that changed the face of The United States of America. Nope, nada, no, not, never, zip, zippo, etc, etc. This newspaper (it’s like the MSNBC of Detroit Newspapers, low amount of readers) slams Fox News. What the Detroit “Examiner” doesn’t realize (this makes the writer of said column from the Detroit “Examiner” a very, very awfully bad chess player). Is that you will have it like this. 15% will ignore it (the Fox News watchers), 15% will preach it like god (the MSNBC kool-aid drinkers), and the remaining 70% will ponder on to maybe watching Fox News to see maybe if it happens again. Then after a while, they start to like Fox News. Then those 70% become a group that likes and watches Fox News. So without hindsight, the Detroit Examiner is just making Fox News more ratings, more viewers, more money, and Allies of the Detroit Examiner lose money, viewers, and ratings.

  5. Paul permalink
    November 29, 2009 1:27 am

    This is to the people who do not believe my prior comment about the Detroit Examiner about the percentages part. If you believe it is much different (say 90% or more one way) then you are saying EVERYONE who reads that paper, any paper, is exactly on that side of the kiddie sand box. If you want to refute my claims about the 15-15-70 claim, then show me proof and evidence of something different of a certain, real news paper. Say someone says “I think that (insert name of Newspaper) Newspaper is very (right or left) wing.” Alright. Now, tell me, have you read this paper, do you read it often, do friends and/or family read this certain paper? Now, can you go around and find all those people that read that newspaper who, you say, are 90% (or more) right wing (or left wing)? No you can’t. Why? A few explanations. One, you are just too lazy to go ask people their views and policies. Two, you are just making it up to satisfy your stance. Now remember that is newspapers, TV is surely a different story. With TV ratings they actually take a group of people and find out their views and party affiliation and then you can classify what people (with their views) watch that show. With newspaper, they don’t do that.

  6. November 29, 2009 5:00 am

    Real thinking people knew Ms. Perino meant after 9/11, however, the left hasn’t used real thinking since before the Arkansas Whitetrash sat up in the Oval office, with his “open zipper policy” for eight long years….now backed up by the black-liberation theology,anti-American,cut and run Marxist now residing in said Office…along with chairman Dunn, Van Jones, and endless Czars….oh yes, and big fat, slob, alcoholic Ted kennedy, the senate’s greatest swimmer. So much for the socialist workers democrat Marxist party.

  7. Big Easy permalink
    November 29, 2009 5:38 am

    I saw the program and knew exactly what Perino meant. There was no reason for Hannity to clarify the statement, other than perhaps for the liberals who may have been watching, because it was clear what she meant. In typical liberal coward fashion, they pick on girls.

  8. Martha Finney permalink
    November 29, 2009 5:58 am

    At least Dana didn’t try to slough it off by saying, “I was joking.” We all know slight misstatements are made all the time in the media. And, while I didn’t see her on Hannity (darn I missed it!…but I was a little tired of the all-Sarah-all-the-time stance that Fox took this week), I completely believe what Big Easy said…in that anyone who was watching and paying attention was clear about her meaning.

    It’s one thing to make a slight gaffe (assuming she did) on live television speaking extemporaneously. It’s another thing to read it from a written speech from, let’s say, a pulpit in front of teenagers and their parents.

  9. richard permalink
    November 29, 2009 6:43 am

    i could see why the left would be confused, and adamant that ‘ dp’ lied.
    because they do nothing but lie, obfuscate, and inject racism into every press clip.

    (“so long as the lingering effect is lightly-veiled racism masked by ignorance”)…

  10. November 29, 2009 6:57 am

    I didn’t care too much for Dana Perino when she became White House Press Secretary. She hit me as rather snippy, cold and terse.

    After watching her a few times on FoxNews she has sort of grown on me and become much more likable. Yeah, I like Dana Perino. She’s intelligent and eloquent (and, yes, very attractive).

    Hannity is his usual one-dimensional, repetitious self. I get worn out listening to him go on and on with the same ideas and phrases every night. I wonder if his script is always aimed at new viewers, because you could skip watching him for a week, tune back in, and hear exactly what he was saying one week prior.

    Perino’s pretty clever and interesting with her command of the language and fairly large IQ. She’s smart. Yup. I like listening to her.

    • Carterthewriter permalink
      November 29, 2009 9:01 am

      John, if you had to face a bunch of arrogant leftist journalists, perhaps, you too would be a bit ‘snippy’. I’d just bring a gun.

      • betty boop permalink
        November 30, 2009 7:02 am

        ditto, Carter.

        • Paul permalink
          December 1, 2009 11:43 am

          I’d rather have Perino than Robert Gibbs or “Mr. Uhh”. I’ve never heard Uhh or umm so many times. When you are looking for the answer, don’t say anything, collect yourself and say what you mean.

  11. Linda Dietz permalink
    November 29, 2009 9:44 am

    What a crock of……………It’s so obvious that Dana made a mistake. Only an angry leftist would think she was lying.
    Maybe that’s suggested because those on the left lie so much and spin the truth so much that they see a lie in her comments.

    Linda Dietz

  12. Linda Dietz permalink
    November 29, 2009 9:47 am

    It’s so obvious that Dana made a mistake. Only a leftist would think she were lying.

    Maybe that’s suggestsed because those on the left spin the truth so much that they see a lie in her comments.

    Linda Dietz

    • themadjewess permalink
      November 29, 2009 11:10 am

      Linda, they watch every single move, because even though they are on defense, they still attack as if they are on offense.

  13. alan g permalink
    November 29, 2009 11:36 am

    It really goes to show to what lengths the left will go to nitpick to marginalize anything that a conservative has to say. Fortunately, the three people who watch that crap aren’t going to make a difference, anyhow.

  14. Peachey permalink
    November 29, 2009 4:37 pm

    OMG, did a Detroit Progressive really print ” real meanie terrorists”??? Didn’t they get the WH talking points that state that Muslim terrorists are not really terrorists. They are just really peeved freedom fighters attempting to show the world the compassion, love, tolerance and a highened sense of religious belief in the Muslim god to the world. The decit, destruction and murder caused by them are just “accidents” and should in no way reflect on the love and tolerance found in the peace loving religion of Islam.

  15. j c original permalink
    November 30, 2009 2:59 pm

    Commentor: John Wonk This article isn’t about Hannity,but he has to repeat the continuing failures of a President who with great conviction treats the USA as an enemy.. Your correct in that Dana is one intelligent person.

Comments are closed.