Debunking Rachel Maddow

The Obama cult is going on the offensive, on the theory that the best defense is a good offense, the Obama cult is going on the attack – launching a special web site, and a twitter feed,, which is devoted to refuting the “smears” being repeated by the counter-revolutinary wreckers who oppose the Will of the Dear Leader. “President Obama’s opponents have falsely suggested that the President has not been a strong ally to Israel,” the Obamaites whine. How dare anyone suggest that the US isn’t at Tel Aviv’s beck and call! Even the suggestion of something less than absolute fealty is considered a “smear.” If that doesn’t underscore what’s wrong with American foreign policy in the Middle East, then I don’t know what does.

 On the boob tube, Rachel Maddow is leading the counter-attack, going after Republicans for “lying” about the Dear Leader’s wise policies.  When Ron Paul said that the US embassy in Iraq is bigger than the Vatican and will cost $1 billion – and that we should be keeping that money at home – Rachel is had a cow on camera. No, she barked, the Vatican is 110 acres and the embassy is 108, and also the cost of the embassy is “several hundred million” under $1 billion.” She then crumpled a piece of paper, threw it at the camera, and bellowed “False!”

Rachel, you need to hire some new researchers: yes, Vatican City is 110 acres, but that’s not the same entity as The Vatican. Vatican City is a sovereign state, which includes the Holy See – the actual residence of the Pope and the organizational headquarters of the Roman Catholic Church – as well as the land around it. Indeed, as this source points out:

“Vatican City, the state, is distinct from the Holy See, which is the episcopal leadership of the Roman Catholic Church. The two entities even have distinct passports.”

Look at this detailed map of Vatican City: clearly the Holy See is centered in the buildings encircling St. Peter’s Square, from the Papal Audience Hall in the southern sector, to the Barracks of the Swiss Guards, to the north — totaling perhaps a third of Vatican City’s land area.

Why am I not surprised that Maddow and her staff know even less about the Vatican than they do about other subjects?

As to the cost issue, the answer is to be found in a piece published on … the MSNBC web ite! And I quote:

Estimated cost of over $1 billion
Original cost estimates ranged over $1 billion, but Congress appropriated only $592 million in the emergency Iraq budget adopted last year. Most has gone to a Kuwait builder, First Kuwaiti Trading & Contracting, with the rest awarded to six contractors working on the project’s “classified” portion — the actual embassy offices.”

So they want more, and will probably appropriate more in the future – but the original estimates totaled a cool $1 billion, and there’s plenty of time to equal and – yes – surpass that figure.

C’mon, Rachel – you can do better than this – I just know you can!

The question I find fascinating, however, is why – out of all the subjects brought up at the GOP debate – did Mad Cow Maddow pick up on this one in particular? Are the Obamaites getting their clueless followers ready to swallow a new line change about Iraq? You’ll remember that Maddow breathlessly reported on “the last American troops to come out of Iraq” – a laughable propaganda stunt that made her look foolish, what with all those thousands of Americans still there, and the US government making every effort to persuade the Iraqis to let them stay. Oh, but those aren’t troop troops, they’re “back-up” troops, trainers, advisors – and where have we heard this line before?

Maddow gets more disgusting servile by the day.

21 thoughts on “Debunking Rachel Maddow”

  1. See the funny pro-aggressive sycophants fawning ever so lickspittley. Hmmm, lickspittley might not have been a proper form but, it is now. Rach is nauseating. Misinformed and brazenly warmongery. Whoops, there's that 'y' usage again. Yeah, I did it. Besides, I do not speak or use English oh no oh no. I use the Amerikan and I can butcher it like a consummate pro.
    The Madcow, Juanito Cole, BigHead Ed, and it is a growing list of pseudo-intellectual posers jumping on the war wagon. Hmmm, back in the 'Bush era' all those naive fawns were ever so "antiwar." See leopards change their spots, right before our very eyes.

  2. I believe Rachel Maddow is one of the worst offenders of journalistic integrity. She should be fired with O' Reily on general principal of acting too damn smug. The fact that liberals or progressives or whatever they call themselves are letting their principals be dragged through the mud to protect Obama's hypocrisy shows you the dangers of losing your objectivity when you more beholden to party lines than your own moral compass.

  3. I saw that attack site tonight. I wonder if it could be used as a tool for good?

    Why is that cow, I mean Rachel Maddow, defending the size and cost of the new embassy in Iraq when it was built during Bush's term? MSNBC is the Democrat's Soviet Pravda.

  4. Perhaps the title White House Press Secretary is in her future, if she wears out enough pairs of kneepads.

  5. I just watched a Countdown with Kieth Olbermann video. The segment was titled "Oil's well that ends well." The lead up was all about how Qaddafi's ouster was a boost for oil stocks and how it could help Obama's image economically.

    Then, they brought on a contributor from Mother Jones magazine and he asked her, boldface, if Libya's oil reserves were the primary motivator for aiding the rebels. She didn't give a straight answer but tried to downplay it as much as possible.

    The next story they run was about a environmental protest of a oil pipeline that that would run from Canada to Texas.–zzOA

    So, destroying the surrounding environment in Libya with US made bombs is just fine so long as it doesn't harm our precious ecosystem.

    What a bunch of shit.

  6. So she likes politicians?… That puts her right up there with the crowd of "So they like politicians"…

  7. > C’mon, Rachel – you can do better than this – I just know you can!

    Only if Obama had a moral or intellectual leg to stand on

  8. Come on, Rachel has to do something to earn that multi-million dollar contract that MSNBC has given her. She has to be part of the establishment, that’s what they do. Don’t you remember what Cenk said?

  9. Speaking as a progressive.

    You folks at ROCK and Rachel Maddow is an idiot cheerleader. She is not a progressive, she is n O Bot apologist. She can call herself a progressive all she wants. Hell, I could call myself an Ennglishman (this proud Irishman would never do that) but it does not make me an Englishman.

    From a very proud and public lefty supporter of the Ron Paul Campaign For Liberty.

  10. She wants to be the female Jon Stewart. The difference is that Stewart has some capacity to think critically. She also wants to be Tina Fey. The difference is that Fey is funny. Most of all she want to represent a certain demographic–college educated, concerned with being hip, self-described progressive urbanites who thought Obama’s ascent was evidence that they had changed the world and were better and smarter than previous generations and had defeated the mindless villains of the right. That’s the storyline that their identities rest upon, and they are sticking with it. If Rachel Marrow did not exist, it would have become necessary for this delusional crowd to invent her.

  11. well why should anyone be surprised? MSNBC is run by GE. Phil Griffin censors all the pundits and if they don't go along with his demands like Olbermann and Cenk Uygur

  12. debunking rachel maddow

    dhinteractive net, online marketing service, online marketing services, online marketing software, online marketing softwares, marketing software, online advertising, online advertising service, Online Advertisement Service, mail marketing software, email marketing softwares

  13. Wow, I've given money to in the past, but now that I've come back after a long break I'm absolutely aghast at the vitriol and name-calling. Why is it that left historically breaks up into vicious sub-factions that tear each other apart? I don't know Rachel Maddow but have listened to her on and off since she was on Air America. She's on our side. She isn't the enemy.

    As much as I disagree with a slew of Obama positions, This single commentary and the resulting comments make me feel like there's no hope. I may agree with most of your opinions but I couldn't bear being around you folks. You are too toxic.

  14. Obama is going to launch the offensive.But what is this Debunking Rachel Maddow ?I didn;t get the things and my mind goes mess up.please clear out the things,

Comments are closed.