Will Obama’s Anti-Terror Policies Vindicate Bush?
CBS and the New York Times recently devoted full write-ups to ex-President Bush’s approval ratings as measured in a CBS/New York Times poll. It seemed to me that it represented grave dancing — and premature grave dancing, at that.
President Bush will leave office as one of the most unpopular departing presidents in history, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll showing Mr. Bush’s final approval rating at 22 percent.
Seventy-three percent say they disapprove of the way Mr. Bush has handled his job as president over the last eight years.
Ignored, of course, was the Gallup poll CBS reported on just a couple days earlier:
President Bush’s approval rating is rising as his presidency draws to a close, a new Gallup poll finds, and now stands at 34 percent.
Of course, what both of these reports forget to mention is that Bush’s rating is still higher than the Democrat-run Congress.
It will be interesting to see if, in four years, President Obama has his ratings similarly thrashed by the New York Times and CBS. In fact, I predict Obama’s approval ratings will be staggeringly low in four years. Already, there are strangled screams of betrayal coming from the far left. They see what’s coming, though they won’t yet say as much because the honeymoon isn’t over. There’s a rather nasty reaction coming, however, which I predict is not long off. We’re about to see it in its full-throated roar.
You see, while the numbers suggest that there has been no president since Richard Nixon or — depending on how you judge these things — Harry Truman who has left office with a lower approval rating, I dare to suggest that Mr. Bush is going to be vindicated over the next four years by President Obama himself. Vindicated not in rhetoric, since left-wing rhetoric is always and forever vitriolic against any successful Republican. No, Bush will be vindicated thanks to the policies sure to be adopted by Mr. Obama and the Democrat-run Senate, House, and State Dept.
I think we already have a tribute to his anti-terror policies. If you were al Qaida the best time to pull of another spectacular terrorist attack would have been on inauguration day. A capable al Qaida would have simultaneously had major attacks in Washington DC, Afghanistan and Iraq.
So the question is why did they miss this spectacular opportunity? Feeling generous? Ran out of suicide bombers? lost money in the stock market? Out shopping the Circuit City liquidation sale? Want to negotiate with Obama?
had a few things going on but got foiled? or couldn’t.
My vote is on couldn’t.
“As President Obama and his people are briefed on what has been happening in the world these last eight years, the insider’s view has given them a completely new perspective on what to do about the situation, resulting in completely different actions as compared to the ones they were telling everyone they would take once they were given the power.”
Spot on. Yep. Time to put away the unicorns and the daffodils.
President Bush’s approval ratings are so low because (other than the war on terror) he spent eight years trying to appease the democrats on every other issue. He was a big spender/big government president from the start (Medicare bill). Unfortunately for Bush, the Democrats being the classless lot they are, repaid him by constantly attacking him on all fronts. They were more interested in regaining power than pushing their agendas through. Bush’s compromises with them didn’t win him any democratic friends, it only cost him conservative support. Thus, his low ratings.
He will follow the “Bush Doctrine”,
1) It makes sense.
2) His administration needs no thought to continue
3) He will follow the stronger mans lead
4) His administration hasn’t the experience to offer
anything else.
@Sue:
That’s an important point, Sue, and one that is part of the argument I’ve been making for Dog’s years, now, that were Bush an actual conservative, his approval numbers would be well up into the 50′s at least, given half the country wanted him to move to the right of where he was. That’s also why McCain lost the recent election, being seen (Rightly, I think) as coming down to the left of even Mr. Bush. Hell hath no fury like a political pase ignored.
That dynamic as applied to the left, is exactly why I suggested in the piece that Mr. Obama’s numbers would be as I put it, ‘staggeringly low’ in four years; his own base won’t approve of his recognition of reality, and thereby his adoption of Bush policy.
Obama knows nobody that’s why so many Clinton choices are in key positions so I don’t know whether he will continue what Bush has done or revert back to the Clinton years. If he is not for low taxes the economy will be catastrophic by next year.
I think the author misunderestimates the left’s derangement. Obama will be FORCED to continue Buhs’s DREADFUL policies on keeping American safe,, it takes 4 or even 8 years to unwind the damage Bush has done. Don’t you see, Obama will need to continue Guantanimo and other Bush blunders he inherits until he can find a smarter way.
In the mind of the Obama faithful, all problems can be traced to Bush. Bush will never be vindicated. Why even try and use logic on those of faith.
#7 Freddie Funky….I wish you weren’t right. I really, really do.
With the blanket question; Do you approve of the job that President Bush has done or is doing? I think there would be all reasons people answer yes or no, just as President Obama’s promise of change will include anything from help pay off my car to bring world peace. I would really like to read the why or why nots behind the numbers, because I think it would be a fascinating study. Watching FOX news interview people at the Inauguration Balls asking what they want from the new administration there were a lot of vague answers; jobs, end wars, hope, change. I think the military had the most direct request which was let us continue to do our jobs, something I think President Bush delivered on.
From past Democratic Administrations, I do not have a lot of confidence in their being wise enough to throw the bath water out and keep the baby.
“Obama will be FORCED to continue Buhs’s DREADFUL policies on keeping American safe,, it takes 4 or even 8 years to unwind the damage Bush has done. Don’t you see, Obama will need to continue Guantanimo and other Bush blunders he inherits until he can find a smarter way.”
4-8 years to find a smarter way? Isn’t that kind of absurd?
I think it would be amusing for Obama to release all those bad guys ROR, close Gitmo and commute their sentences. What the heck, it’s what liberals want.
Then I hope Obama rescinds FISA and the Patriot Act, because they take all your rights away, right? I mean gosh, look at how much your freedoms have been dampened!
Then when the next attack strikes, Obama’s legacy will be cast in stone. He will have failed America, and for that he will be eternally remembered.
As will the rest of you who cared more for the rights of the those who would kill us than for America.
And there won’t be another Democratic President for a millennium.
Soon after taking office, President Obama ordered a 3-month halt to military commissions to try Gitmo detainees. So this is what he deems to be an urgent issue. The human rights industry, including the ACLU, praise his action. It wants civilian trials, thereby clogging U.S. courts, betraying classified intelligence tactics, and endangering undercover operatives and their families by allowing defendants to cross-examine them.
@Eric Florack:
“That dynamic as applied to the left, is exactly why I suggested in the piece that Mr. Obama’s numbers would be as I put it, ’staggeringly low’ in four years; his own base won’t approve of his recognition of reality, and thereby his adoption of Bush policy.”
I hope your right about Obama “recognizing reality.” However, I do not think you are right about his numbers being “staggering low.” When Bush implemented his policies the media howled and portrayed it as the worst policies ever. If Obama continues Bush’s policies the media will rejoice and praise the great leader Obama for his wisdom and courage.
Liberals really are a gullible bunch.
Obama is going to outlaw torture- EXCEPT- in extraordinary circumstances. Well, let’s see- exactly three men were waterboarded and none since 2003. That sounds sort of extraordinary to me.
Obama is going to close Gitmo today! Except, maybe not for another four years, you see, because it’s HARD! It’s much HARDER than he thought! This President thing is HARDER than he thought!
Obama is going to remove all US troops from Iraq in 16 months- except that he’s NOT. He’s going to abide by the Security agreement “forced” on him by Maliki! It’s much HARDER to do than he thought!
All this is so HARD for a newbie!
None of what Obama spewed is going to come to pass.
God, are liberals stupid.
“Soon after taking office, President Obama ordered a 3-month halt to military commissions to try Gitmo detainees. So this is what he deems to be an urgent issue. The human rights industry, including the ACLU, praise his action. It wants civilian trials, thereby clogging U.S. courts, betraying classified intelligence tactics, and endangering undercover operatives and their families by allowing defendants to cross-examine them.”
Indeed.
200 war criminals not protected by the Geneva Convention are going to absolutely clog the courts. Either the operatives will be outed by the NY Slimes or these guys go free rather than expose the undercover people.
Nevermind that there are 110 detainees deemed so dangerous that they should never be set free.
Never.
Except by Obama and his team of ACLU lawyers.
You all seem to think that Liberals are concerned about America’s safety… don’t forget that the Democratic Manifesto is just a few words shy of the Communist Manifesto. We are being set up, think about it… open the borders to anyone from anywhere… release known terrorists… allow Iran and other hostile nations to produce nuclear weapons. Put the pieces of the puzzle together people! It’s only a matter of time before their goal is achieved. The destruction of Western Civilization as we know it. We will wake one morning to find the world we once knew and loved gone, destroyed by terror groups who have been allowed to infiltrate our borders with nuclear weapons. This is the Democratic agenda.
Bush’s low ratings weren’t entirely over his policies. A lot of disappointment arose from his lack of management skills that became fairly obvious over time and his failure to convince the majority to stay the course in the war.
I think he’ll be vindicated on the war and not on other issues.
Point well taken. At the same time,though, we need to look seriously at the history of the thing vs the outcome. Watch;
The Dinosaurs gave us nearly nine years of ‘Bush is an idiot’ headlines, and near as no matter to two years of praise for the leftists running for his office, and two years of attacks on Republicans and conservatives doing the same.
Yet, the actual vote numbers, and particularly, the exit polling, which asked voters WHY they voted the way they did, for all that, don’t seem all that dramaticly liberal as the press would have liked.. For all that effort invested, you’d have thought Obama would be crowned king by acclimation at the end. That kind of return didn’t happen.
Add to that, in your projection for 2012, the ever increasing influence of sites like this one, which will doubtless be quite vocal in pointing out that the policies now being adopted are the ones he made so much noise about rejecting, when he was running. And, of course add to all that, the reaction of the far left, Obama’s base, which is already screaming, as I suggested.
The Leftist press may well do as you suggest; Democrat Cheerleaders being their apprent function in the new order. But don’t neglect the always vocal far left websites and Err America, who have rejected such cheerleading in the past, if it wasn’t in lockstep with their political goals.
I would imagine one of his first security briefings probably included the following recent event. That should make anyone take pause that dialogue may not be the only solution.
Al-Qaeda cell killed by Black Death ‘was developing biological weapons’
An al-Qaeda cell killed by the Black Death may have been developing biological weapons when it was infected, it has been reported.
Last Updated: 7:09AM GMT 20 Jan 2009
The group of 40 terrorists were reported to have been killed by the plague at a training camp in Algeria earlier this month. It was initially believed that they could have caught the disease through fleas on rats attracted by poor living conditions in their forest hideout. But there are now claims the cell was developing the disease as a weapon to use against western cities. Experts said that the group was developing chemical and biological weapons.
Dr Igor Khrupinov, a biological weapons expert at Georgia University, told The Sun: “Al-Qaeda is known to experiment with biological weapons. And this group has direct communication with other cells around the world. “Contagious diseases, like ebola and anthrax, occur in northern Africa. It makes sense that people are trying to use them against Western governments.”
Dr Khrupinov, who was once a weapons adviser to the Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev, added: “Instead of using bombs, people with infectious diseases could be walking through cities.” It was reported last year that up to 100 potential terrorists had attempted to become postgraduate students in Britain in an attempt to use laboratories. Ian Kearns, from the Institute for Public Policy Research, told the newspaper: “The biological weapons threat is not going away. We’re not ready for it.”
Why would Democratic Liberal Elites want to destroy America? Well, I’m glad you asked…
People like Obama and the Liberals behind the scenes who got him elected, want power, supreme power. They want the kind of power only obtained through world domination.
How else can you set up a one world government without first toppling the greatest nation on earth? That’s just it, you can’t.
America would never hand over it’s sovereignty without a fight… unfortunately… there will be no fight.
The Democratic machine has successfully “de-balled” the U.S. already by criticizing any victories since Vietnam.
They have successfully rendered the U.S. incapable of digging itself out of this generated economic crisis. Yes, GENERATED ECONOMIC CRISIS. This was no accident, it was done intentionally to frame the Democrats as the party that would save us from the “Evil Greedy Republicans”.
They have convinced Americans that spending ourselves into the depths of hell will take us to the heights of prosperity.
We are ripe for “change”, just the kind the Democrats and Liberal Elites want.
A change that will leave the America we now know a distant memory we share with our children… if we survive.
Change. Every policy Bush put it place that will be continued will be reframed and Obama will express it differently and take credit for it.
regarding economic matters, we are developing a bubble that will replace the last bubble. In a free market, it takes time for a bust to recover on it’s own accord. Obama wants a spending bubble that in one part will require a massive period of inflation.
Our economy recieved two boosts that include 1 trillion dollars more for spending that are being pulled from oil dollars. The other boost is a lowering of interests in some sectors. This lowering will first of all be less cost of interest pain for the new debt. The economy during Reagen had extreme interest rates to hamper capital expenditures.
The other item no one discusses is what role the raise in unemployment came from raising minimum wages. Even the economists are not mentioning it. If we lowered minimum wage today, more people would be employed tomorrow.
“And there won’t be another Democratic President for a millennium.”
From your lips to God’s ears!!!
Indeed, it is Obama who apparently is doing the most in terms of recognizing (the far left’s bleeding anti-Bush vitriol notwithstanding) that Mr. Bush didn’t do that bad of a job after all. He’s adopting the vast majority of his anti-terrorism and economic policies (i.e., the bailout plans).
Of course Obama realizes that Bush did a terrible job. He ran and won on that statement. So Obama’s compromising on accepting to keep a couple of Bush’s policies for the short term. Big deal, that’s standard presidential politics. However, his order to close Gtmo stands in stark contrast to your argument that he’s adopting Bush’s anti-terror policies. Additionally, Bush chose to go against his party and support a bailout because he didn’t know what else to do,. I hardly call that a policy. I call that screwing up until you have no other options left.
Also, please understand that “the far left’s bleeding anti-Bush vitriol”, as you call it, was very well earned. After 9/11, every American stood together. Bush had a 90% approval rating. He could have in that moment ended partisanship in this country. He could have brought us all together and led us into a new era of American prosperity. Instead, he turned around and stabbed the country in the back by continually baiting his colleagues across the aisle and challenging their patriotism, abandoning our mission in Afghanistan, completely decimating Iraq (a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks) and massacring innocent civilians. And that’s just the beginning. So don’t pretend that lefties just woke up on January 20, 2001 with a wild irrational hatred of Bush. Bush did it to himself every step of the way.
- Will Obama’s Anti-Terror Policies Vindicate Bush?
This seems like a strange question for a headline.
Bush’s policies – at least with respect to terrorism – have already been vindicated. We’ve had no further terrorist attacks in the U.S. since his policies were enacted here. Iraq is now in the hands of its people for the first time in decades, now that his anti-terrorism policies have been enacted there.
Were I to be President Bush, I would hardly consider myself “vindicated” by the fact that a clueless, inexperienced foreign policy amateur like BHO followed the examples I had to learn and implement through trial by fire, against resistance from every conceivable direction.
And Bush’s policies will never, ever be vindicated in the eyes of an American Public – not as long as their opinion is provided to them by an entrenched media that worked so hard and sold so much of its soul to demonize him. If a continuation of Bush’s policies proves beneficial in any way, the media will present it as BHO keeping Bush’s “broken promises”, just like the ‘new’, hopeychangey White House has already so shamelessly done regarding Katrina.
No, the only questions at this point are how long the Left and its Fifth Column in the press will rely on the “mess Bush left us in” to excuse their failings, how badly BHO and his Left-dominated Congress will screw things up, and/or how loudly his minions will wail if he doesn’t immediately sell out what’s left of America’s sovereignty to the U.N.
#3 Sue:
Excellent analysis! Five stars. Short and to the point.
#18: Steeple:
Great analysis
You are correct, some of Bush’s policies will never be vindicated by a public such as eye. For instance, G-bay that is being talked about here, as well as putting policies in place that created situations like Abu Ghraib, will never be vindicated, since they created more terroists and insurgents than defeated.
And how great! No further terrorist attacks in the US! That’s awesome, except to the dozen other countries that have had sizable terrorist attacks. And also, why the heck would they attack us anyway? We put 150,000 Soldiers right there for them to pick off as they see fit.
So, for me, I guess that I will just have to forget that every tool needed to fight terrorism was in place before Bush took office. That was why he was persented with intelligence reports telling him how dangerous Bin Laden was, and that he and his gang of terrorists were plotting to hit major targets in the US. Fascinating how they knew that without the post-9/11 tools that Bush put into place.
True, Goy, true. Yet again, however, we come to the differnece between public perception (At least, leftist perception) and reality. You’re speaking of reality… and I’m saying they’ve only now started to come to grips with it.
Just so I understand this correctly, this being a conservative website and all, some people here are fine with giving government officials the power to shoot unidentified fleeing suspects in the back. Does “conservatism” no longer mean less government power over our lives?
Whatever, who designs a comments board without the ability to correct spelling errors or remove a post that is in the wrong section.
Steve,
You sir are a tard. Have you no recolection of the UN resolutions ignored? Or the Authorization of the use of force in Iraq thet Dems voted for? Do you even know the 23 points the resolution called out as resons to go into Iraq? Get out of your moms basement, stop smoking the Obama weed and read a damn book.
Eric: Perceptions drive elections, unfortunately, as we just saw last November, which was a triumph of style over substance in every conceivable way. Although were it not for the fact that it meant Sarah Palin’s defeat as well, and in spite of the fact that I could never have voted for Obama for any amount of money, I think we’re better off than if McCain had won. How’s that for irony.
Anyway, I think you’re spot on about the ‘coming to grips’ bit, even as the media turns in a valiant effort to continue blaming Bush into the next decade. It will be interesting puppet theater if nothing else.
asdf: your diagnosis is correct, IMHO. Steve is a ‘tard. Even the entrenched media wasn’t as hyperbolic as his laundry list of lies. And that’s saying something.
RV: - G-bay that is being talked about here, as well as putting policies in place that created situations like Abu Ghraib, will never be vindicated, since they created more terroists and insurgents than defeated.
GITMO wasn’t created by Bush. We’ll see how long it takes for BHO to realize he can’t just shut the place down and release the people being held there ROR.
Abu Ghraib existed long before OIF and was the scene of acid baths, human shredders, torture, murder and rape under Saddam. By contrast, the hazing shenanigans of a tiny number of American soldiers doesn’t even bear notice. Yet you (and your ilk) allowed the lying media to define the entire conflict in Iraq and the character of the U.S. Armed Forces by the sensationalized (and falsified) account of what occurred there.
U.S. Armed forces are not being “picked off” as the terrorists see fit, contrary to your wild and erroneous fantasies.
Knowing how dangerous bin Laden was didn’t stop Clinton from letting him go scot free, did it. There’s a difference between knowing a person is “dangerous” and having detailed information on their exact whereabouts and/or plans. You Monday Morning QBs, second-guessing the Bush administration’s response to the terrorist fallout from Clinton’s wag-the-dog foreign policy (using your acute 20/20 hindsight) don’t make a very persuasive case.
RV: but I’m right there with you on the lack of preview and post-editing capability here. Guess PJTV is getting all the funding and development resources.
goy and RV….So glad you two liberal wing-nuts have found an open-minded place in which to air your views no matter how inane or biased. Does the Obama official website not have a place for online conversation or is it just messages from dear leader and no talking amongst yourselves there? I guess there really is no place for liberals to voice their opinion. They aren’t supposed to have one. It’s all fed into them from the top down. What are the liberal talking points this week by the way now that Bush is gone and the celebration of Obama’s victory is over?
Obama get sworn in today with nary a rifle shot, or for that matter, a cheap shot being fired. Bonus points: Whence I got up this morning, I saw GW being, as close as we’re likely to see, frog marched out the front door. I cranked up the volume and could swear I heard somebody mutter “And don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out!”. The only thing that would have (at this time) made me happier about this occurrence is if a shower of shoes had cascaded off his empty noggin. I certainly would have risked the inevitable frost bite had I been in attendance, to fling my never-been-washed 10 year old Nikes that I keep in the back of my closet for just such an occasion.
After what we’ve all been through in just this last year, with the election and all the horsesh*t being flung willy-nilly by so-called pundits that should know better, I feel a sense of some amount of “closure”, yet a nagging irritation I haven’t experienced since the time I sat on a red ant hill, tugs at my essence, leaving me with a sense of unsettling ennui. It’s, of course, over the intellectual aptitude of the voting public, those easily swayed and manipulated pinheads that seem to thwart and bedevil the good intentions of those of us who take the time to actually understand the issues, and their accomplices, the “pundits”, those slack-jawed mouth-breathing dopes that not only posses nary a clue, but inexplicably have the power to influence other dopes. In just the last year alone…..
They think Tim Russert was a great journalist. They think progressive taxation is socialism. They’re hopping mad about an auto industry bailout that cost a squirt of piss compared to a Wall Street heist of galactic dimensions, due to a housing crash they somehow have blamed on minorities. They think Iraq is better off now than before we invaded, and don’t understand why they’re so ungrateful. It took them six years to figure out what a total douche-bag Bush is, but they think Obama will instantly make it all better, and are ready to climb up his colon if it doesn’t happen by next Friday. They deem it hunky dory that we conduct national policy debates via 8-second clips from “The View” by people that couldn’t find their respective asses with both hands and a map. They think God zapped humans into existence a few thousand years ago, although their appendix and wisdom teeth disagree. They like watching vicious brainless *ssholes insult each other on TV. They think it’s their patriotic duty to spend money they don’t have on crap they don’t need. They think Hillary lost because of sexism, when it’s actually because she’s just a bad liar. They support gun rights, because firing one gives them a chubby. They cuddle falsehoods and resent enlightenment. They think the fact that 43% of whites could stomach voting for an incredibly charismatic and eloquent light-skinned black guy who was raised by white people means racism is over. 1 in 100 of them are in jail, and they think it should be more. They are shallow, inconsiderate, afraid, brand-conscious, sedentary, and totally self-obsessed. And worst of all: They are American.
The father of all this modern stupidity, Rush Limbaugh, spins reflexively, never struggling with issues or logic, because he knows ultimately his conclusions must favor Repugs, and his only task is finding a way to get there. He may or may not actually believe what he’s saying, but it’s beside the point and it’s off topic. His job is not to say what he thinks, but to instruct his listeners on what they should think. If the facts don’t agree, he can always change them, as his “ditto heads” are already armed against the contrary evidence with the childish all-purpose “liberal media bias” attack. “Rush is right,” as the slogan goes, and all those nerdy reporters in the “drive by media” are lying, because they secretly love terrorists and other unpatriotic America haters. It’s this creepily worshipful, breathtakingly infantile abdication of intellect to a blatantly dishonest hypocrite that makes Limbaugh’s audience so goddamn sad and pathetic. These useless, insecure, failures of men look to Rush as the champion of their impotent rage, helping them to externalize responsibility for their own deficiencies, pinning the blame on those darn liberals and their racial and gender equality. And, sadly, they vote.
“Bush had a 90% approval rating. He could have in that moment ended partisanship in this country. He could have brought us all together and led us into a new era of American prosperity. Instead, he turned around and stabbed the country in the back… ”
Weren’t his approval ratings in the 70′s after the Iraq war started?
Anyway, I never liked this argument. Basically, if I am correct, the argument works like this; We all approved of Bush, until HE ruined it by doing things WE don’t like. Therefore, we attacked him horribly, calling him every nasty name, making things up, protesting, using the media to slime him, which helped sink his approval. But it’s not OUR fault. It’s all on HIM. He had the world in his pocket, and he blew it.
I can’t wait until the Rebublicans and other world leaders remember fondly 1/20/09 as the moment we were all together, united behind Obama. When Obama had us all in his pocket. BUT, when his approval ratings drop (and they will), I can’t wait for Republicans to say “Obama could have ended partisanship and brought us together, instead he stabbed the country in the back”.
Will that argumet play in the media, as it has agianst Bush? Especially if the Republicans are doing everything to sink him? My guess is that the narrative will be a little different this time around. Dissent will no longer be patriotism and words like “obstructionist” will start to fly.
- goy and RV….So glad you two liberal wing-nuts…
HuH?? I think you may have misread.
But I can answer your last question in part. Here’s an updated talking point for the left straight from the ‘new’ hopeychangey White House: it’s STILL all Bush’s fault.
asdf, you can cram those UN resolutions, and the Authorization of the use of force in Iraq that Dems voted for, and the 23 points the resolution called out as reasons to go into Iraq.
Because it was all bull$#1#. The president lied to congress, and congress believed him, and authorized military action based on Bush’s lies. Congress and the media then proceeded to roll over like lap dogs for fear of seeming unpatriotic during the war. But there was never any clear and present danger of attack. There were no WMDs. There was no connection between Saddam and bin Laden. Al Qaeda was not even present in Iraq before Bush told them to “bring it on!” because Saddam kept al Qaeda out. All there ever was was a pack of lies that Bush and friends sold to a gullible and overly trusting congress who thought they were beng told the truth and didn’t have the spine to push back.
Milton: “Basically, if I am correct, the argument works like this; We all approved of Bush, until HE ruined it by doing things WE don’t like. Therefore, we attacked him horribly, calling him every nasty name, making things up, protesting, using the media to slime him, which helped sink his approval. But it’s not OUR fault. It’s all on HIM. He had the world in his pocket, and he blew it.”
Basically, you are not correct, because the argument works like THIS: We all approved of Bush after 9/11 with a 90% approval rating, until HE ruined it by consistently lying to us and breaking the law. Therefore, we used our God-given First Amendment rights to argue vociferously that he should be held accountable for his crimes, calling him out as the liar and criminal that he is, protesting against his crimes and using the media to expose his crimes. When he refused to admit even a single mistake and continued on his bumbling catastrophe of a presidency despite the please from a majority of Americans to change course and change priorities, his approval justifiably. It’s still our fault for electing this complete idiot and allowing him to bring our country to its knees, however I am confident that we as Americans have learned from our mistake. And yes, he blew it. Big time.
“They support gun rights, because firing one gives them a chubby. They cuddle falsehoods and resent enlightenment.”
Couldn’t help but point this out. This is how it is actually written in an above comment. Not kidding. Cuddling falsehoods and resenting enlightment indeed.
It is time to move on folks.
Former President Bush has.
RV wrote:
You are correct, some of Bush’s policies will never be vindicated by a public such as eye. For instance, G-bay that is being talked about here, as well as putting policies in place that created situations like Abu Ghraib, will never be vindicated, since they created more terroists and insurgents than defeated. That is a standard that could never possibly be measured (ie, taht Abu Ghraib created more terrorists than defeated). Because there are a lot of things that would galvanize terrorists. Our containment of Iraq galvanized terrorists, the cartoons depicting Islam in a bad light galvanized terrorists, fighting the infidel galvanizes terrorists, israel galvanizes terrorists. How are you going to determine that Abu Ghraib alone ccreated more terrorists than were defeated? What percentage then were created by Israel and the palestinian states. what are yo are suggesting with your talking point borders on idiocy.
And how great! No further terrorist attacks in the US! That’s awesome, except to the dozen other countries that have had sizable terrorist attacks. And also, why the heck would they attack us anyway? We put 150,000 Soldiers right there for them to pick off as they see fit. Our soldiers are a lot more capable of dealing with terorrists than our civilian population first off. And if other countries had sizable terrorist attacks blame the terrorists wh attacked them not us. That’s ludicrous. There were terrorist attacks prior to 9/11 you know and even in other countries. Its seems to be your suggestion that but for Bush there wouldn’t be such terrorist attacks.
So, for me, I guess that I will just have to forget that every tool needed to fight terrorism was in place before Bush took office. That was why he was persented with intelligence reports telling him how dangerous Bin Laden was, and that he and his gang of terrorists were plotting to hit major targets in the US. Fascinating how they knew that without the post-9/11 tools that Bush put into place. He was presented with a report that Al Qaeda was determined to attack us. It’s like getting a document that criminals are determined to commit crime. There wasn’t actionable intel in the document, namely how, where or when. So one can recognize that Al Qaeda wanted to attack us or tergets connected to us and still not know how it will occur. Under Clinton the WTC was attacked in 93? If they had all the tools to fight terrorism shouldn’t they have known at the time and prevented the attack? They knew that Al Qaeda was out to get us, shouldnt’ they have known that Khobar towers would be attacked or the USS COle would be attacked? If Clinton had every tool you’d think we wouldn’t be dealing with Al Qaeda in Bush’s time. Fact is having an intelligence agency doesn’t guarantee that you will stop all attacks, especially when you can’t connect the dots in time. Look at Israel they have plenty of capabilities and get attacked all the time. Which is why Bush was pushing for enhancing the abilities once it was determined that there were flaws in the system. and you and your ilk fought him on any and all changes as if he were the enemy and not Al Qaeda.Not only that people on your side fabricated these huge conspiracy theories about how the govt was complicit in the attacks and actually set off demolitions to bring down the WTC. What your side did, considering we were attacked was one of the most shameless thing I’ve ever witnessed, but typical.
First you attacked Bush that he didn’t recognize the threat and was incompetent or evil in either being negligent or intentionally allowing the attacks to occur for some nefarious purpose. But Bush should have known because Al Qaeda was the biggest threat ever! Yet as soon as Bush then tries to reform the intelligence agencies and make it easier to prevent such attacks in the future you then follow up with Bush is merely hyping the threat, there is no threat at all. Bush is just scaring us. I wish when you demagogued and villified Bush your side was at least remotely consistent in your rhetoric> But that’s too much to ask for demagogues I guess.
Steve P,
What did George Bush lie to you about? What crime does he need to be held accountable for? What mistake did he refuse to admit? I can’t even decipher the next sentence so, please clarify? How has Bush brought our country to its knees? Do I have that old God-given First Amendment right to ask you to support your assertions?
Stephen P wrote:
asdf, you can cram those UN resolutions, and the Authorization of the use of force in Iraq that Dems voted for, and the 23 points the resolution called out as reasons to go into Iraq.
Because it was all bull$#1#. The president lied to congress There was a history in Iraq prior to Bush taking office you know. And people like Clinton and Gore and the UN and all the intel agencies were all on board that Iraq had WMD’s. Its why they were contained and why wwe passed the Iraq Liberation Act which called for a regime change in 1998. Its why Clinton bombed Iraq because of lack of compliance and the threat that the dictator posed. And that’s why democrats who signed off on taking out sadaam did what they did. They didn’t need to be lied to this was already common knowledge and the default position for anyone who was actually dealing with Iraq, meaning EVERYBODY.
But explain to us where Clintons term ended and Bush’s began where the conventional wisdom changed? Until Bush passed 1441, the supposed final resolution where Iraq had to comply or else there weren’t even inspectors in the country, and they were driven out when Clinton bombed Iraq because they refused to disarm.
So I don’t think you know what your’e talking about or are deliberatly lying or think that history doesn’t begin until Bush took office.
OBAMA, AL QAEDA & BIO TERROR
Bush may be in Texas, but the real threat remains as dangerous as ever.
http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2009/01/al-qaeda-obama-bio-terror.html
“We all approved of Bush after 9/11 with a 90% approval rating, until HE ruined it by consistently lying to us and breaking the law.”
Wasn’t congress banging the drums of war pretty loudly in 2002 and 03 as well? Were they really misled, or were they led in the exact direction they really wanted all along? Were the American people misled, or were we just as bloodthirsty? What does a very, very high approval rating during the run-up and begining stages of a war say? It says we wanted blood.
And what complicity does Congress have in these alleged lies and falsehoods? Congress could have closed GTMO at any time. They could have outlawed waterboarding at any time. They could have stopped funding troops at any time. They could have issued a resolution to stop American involvement in the Iraq conflict at any time. They could have stopped warrantless wiretaps.
But wait, they didnt. In fact, congress GAVE the executive more power. They allowed this to go on, expanding powers (see Patriot Act and it’s amendments, the Protect America Act of 07 and the FISA Amendments Act of 08 and all of the adjusting of the RICO laws that now apply to terrorists).
Now, some couragous congressmen, like Finegold, had the courage of their convictions all along. But most others found their convictions, and their courage, shifting with the polls.
The most God awful part of all of this is that now, in retrospect, we blame one single person for ALL of our misdeeds. Many Dems in congress are the absolute worst, because they fail to accept any responsibility for being bloodthirsty bastards when it was popular (helping lead us into war), and becoming angry dissenters that were “misled” whe it became unpopular.
@Steve P: - you can cram those UN resolutions, and the Authorization of the use of force in Iraq that Dems voted for, and the 23 points the resolution called out as reasons to go into Iraq. Because it was all bull$#1#.
Guess you only ever read the media’s “excerpts” of the Duelfer Report – the ones taken out of context to sway opinion during the election. Go read it – it completely validated the Joint Resolution. Sorry you’re so ill-informed.
Also… here – go relieve yourself. Of your ignorance, that is.
Are the troops home yet?
Where’s my free health care?
Has the Patriot Act been abolished yet?
Why is Guantanamo still open?
Hillary said in the primary campain that another big attack would insure another Republican president. Bill and Hillary have alot of contacts with Arabs, I think alot of the quite here in the US has somthing to do with this.
We have a Democrat now. Obama better keep sticking it to the extremists. A Clinton style response to the USS Cole, first Trade center bombing or god forbid Carters 444 days will wreak Obamas presidancy fast.
@Carl G.: - I cranked up the volume and could swear I heard somebody mutter “And don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out!”.
You weren’t paying very close attention. That was actually BHO’s minions booing the President of the United States, and then singing “Na Na Na, Good-bye”. This was while they were trashing the National Mall to a point where it resembled some of the nation’s worst slums. Classy, them lefties.
- It’s, of course, over the intellectual aptitude of the voting public, those easily swayed and manipulated pinheads that seem to thwart and bedevil the good intentions of those of us who take the time to actually understand the issues…
Heh. Don’t be so hard on yourself. Sure you’re smarter than everyone else. But it’s not your fault.
- … and their accomplices, the “pundits”, those slack-jawed mouth-breathing dopes that not only posses nary a clue, but inexplicably have the power to influence other dopes.
This would be a reference to people like Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, Couric, O’Reilly, Oprah and all of the rest of the talking heads in the entrenched, desperate media who are so anxious to enlighten us all with their keen grasp of reality, yes?
- They think Tim Russert was a great journalist. **
Not that I recall. In fact, my recollection is that he was a self-important gasbag – just like all the other TV personalities who infest broadcast and cable “journalism” organizations. Well… there is Brit Hume and the late Tony Snow, may he rest in peace. But other than that…
- They think progressive taxation is socialism. **
Not normally. But “progressive” taxation as currently practiced in the U.S., where only 50% of the earning public actually pay income tax, with some of that crowd actually receiving federal welfare in the form of “tax credits” (read: someone else’s money)? That’s socialism. A system where those who produce and thereby excel personally, are financially penalized for that effort and that success because “they can afford it”? That’s socialism.
- They’re hopping mad about an auto industry bailout that cost a squirt of piss compared to a Wall Street heist of galactic dimensions,… **
Apples and oranges.
- … due to a housing crash they somehow have blamed on minorities. **
No. Wrong again. Pay closer attention. It was the fault of those who insisted on lending billions of dollars to minorities – and non-minorities – who didn’t have the means to pay back the loans and whose property values were guaranteed to fluctuate, contrary to Franklin Raines’ insistence – supported by Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and other Dem enablers who ran interference for him – that such securities were “riskless” (yes, he used the word “riskless”). But of course any criticism of his idiotic, economically suicidal attitude was considered a “public lynching”. And so it goes.
- They think Iraq is better off now than before we invaded, …
Still not paying attention? It is better off. Saddam isn’t filling mass graves with tens of thousands of dead bodies each year, paying islamist suicide bombers’ families $25k each to murder Jews or threatening Israel with nerve gas attacks. The country is now governed by its people – not a murdering dictator or islamist terrorists. In fact, Iraq’s GDP is higher than at any time in the last 9 years. So yeah, they’re better off than early 2003.
- … and don’t understand why they’re so ungrateful. **
Last I checked, they seemed pretty grateful. Looks to me like you’re just full of sh!t.
- It took them six years to figure out what a total douche-bag Bush is, …
No, the entrenched media spent eight solid years brow-beating the voting public (those easily swayed pinheads – you remember them, right?) into believing that he was a douche-bag – by demonizing him, his actions, his administration and his supporters at every conceivable opportunity. They persisted in this effort despite the enormous damage it did to our country, all simply because Al Gore couldn’t carry his own home state in 2000 and the left lost its stranglehold on the government. Happy day, they got it back. BOHICA.
- they think Obama will instantly make it all better, and are ready to climb up his colon if it doesn’t happen by next Friday.
Only the mouth-breathing idiots think Obama will make anything ‘better’. But wait and see how his minions end up being the ones to crawl (further) up his colon when he doesn’t pay their mortgages and car loans.
- They deem it hunky dory that we conduct national policy debates via 8-second clips from “The View” by people that couldn’t find their respective asses with both hands and a map.
You’re confused. That’s just the entertainment side of the national policy debate: laughing at the Leftist slime who infest television.
They think God zapped humans into existence a few thousand years ago, although their appendix and wisdom teeth disagree. **
Really? Guess you haven’t met Charles Johnson. Or does your ‘they’ conveniently exclude him now that his views (and many others) disprove your sweeping generalization here?
- They like watching vicious brainless *ssholes insult each other on TV. They think it’s their patriotic duty to spend money they don’t have on crap they don’t need. **
That, uh, would be the aforementioned borrowers who ultimately trashed FM/FM.
- They think Hillary lost because of sexism, when it’s actually because she’s just a bad liar.
“They”, in this case, are these folks, yes?
- They support gun rights, because firing one gives them a chubby. **
Do straw man assertions give you a chubby? You obviously have no clue why anyone would own or pursue proficiency with a firearm.
- They cuddle falsehoods and resent enlightenment. **
So far, this appears to be your territory, spunky.
- They think the fact that 43% of whites could stomach voting for an incredibly charismatic and eloquent light-skinned black guy who was raised by white people means racism is over. **
Here you’re clearly delusional. The notion that “racism is over” after BHO’s election is as much a joke as anything. BHO’s election was pretty much the single most exploitative racist event in U.S. History. Okay, sorry, there was the Emancipation Proclamation. Anyway, it’s only the beginning of real racism – as practiced by the “tolerant” left – if their past behavior is any indication.
- The father of all this modern stupidity, Rush Limbaugh, …
Funny. No one I know listens to this guy or reads his books. We manage to develop our own notions of what it means to be American without his advice, whatever that might be.
- It’s this creepily worshipful, breathtakingly infantile abdication of intellect to a blatantly dishonest hypocrite that makes Limbaugh’s audience so goddamn sad and pathetic.
Geez, how much time do YOU spend listening to this guy?
Oh, and before I forget – that “nary a rifle shot”? That was thanks to the security provided by the current administration.
** Straw man count: 10. Not bad for a Wednesday, I suppose.
And Steve P,
to underscore how consistent the idea was that Iraq had weapons even his generals on the eve of the war were under the impression tha thtey had chemical weapons they could use against us.
Please explain why the UN adn the Clinton adminstration and the blair adminsistration did everything the did vis a vis Iraq if there wasn’t an assumption that Iraq had WMD’s. Containment makes no sense unless everyone believed there was WMD’s. In fact it was the left that was saying containment worked and that’s why we didn’t need to attack Iraq. Implicit in that though is that Iraq posed a threat of WMd’s but that our containment kep them in check.
Except as Deulefler reported, the containment process was in free fall and falling apart because Iraq and France and German for example, were gaming the system.
As to what happened to the weapons a few things. Sadaam simply could have moved or destroyed stockpiles. We had a very long leadup to the war where he could have destroyed or moved stuff on the assumption that we wouldn’t invade and he coudl then rebuild Duelfler suggestedt that though he found no stockpile Sadaam maintained its programs so could be operational in a a few weeks. And of containment were ever removed do you honestly think that Iraq wouldn’t rearm?
The other possibiltiy which was suggested by his scientists was that Sadaam tried to get weapons and paid them to make them but they after a certain point weren’t able to deliver and strung him along out of fear for there lives. That means though that even if Sadaam doesn’t have weapons he still has the intent to have weapons.
The third option suggested by Sadaam was that he simply lied to project strength to his enemies. Which is fine excaept he can’t both fool his enemies while at the same time convince the UN and us that he’s disarmed.
Whichever way you slice it though it all points to an Iraq that needs to be dealt with.
on top of that, it was Al Qaeda itself that made a link between Iraq and itself in that it started its fatwah against us specifically because we were containing Iraq at the time. So despite all the talking points about how us going into Iraq increased terrorism, it was actually our containment of iIraq that also increased terorrism and led in part to us being attacked on 9/11.
Obama’s gonna do what Obama’s gotta do to keep Obama popular; just like Clinton did. The Left will howl, because everyone there wants to get paid, and he won’t pay them all.
That’s the problem with the Dems. They are a conglomeration of special interest groups. The Pubs offer one thing to all: conservatism. The Dems offer a horde of single-issues. They can’t possibly deliver them all, because individually, their all unpopular. He won’t be able to sell many of them, so he won’t deliver them, because it would make him unpopular.
37. Steve P. wrote:
asdf, you can cram those UN resolutions, and the Authorization of the use of force in Iraq that Dems voted for, and the 23 points the resolution called out as reasons to go into Iraq.
Because it was all bull$#1#. The president lied to congress, and congress believed him, and authorized military action based on Bush’s lies.
Peter writes: Steve P is a perfect example of extreme BDS. You can show him the facts all day (like the FACT that Bush saw the same intelligence members of Congress saw, the same members of Congress who authorized military action against Iraq. Or the FACT that CLINTON signed the law athorizing regime change in Iraq 3 YEARS before Bush was elected POTUS. I can list many, many more FACTS), but it would be pointless with Steve P, who only sees the fantasies his liberal mind allows.
From the Los Angeles Times, June 16, 2008;
Bush never lied to us about Iraq
The administration simply got bad intelligence. Critics are wrong to assert deception.
By James Kirchick
From 60 Minutes, January 27, 2008;
Saddam Hussein let the world think he had weapons of mass destruction to intimidate Iran and prevent the country from attacking Iraq, according to an FBI agent who interviewed the dictator after his 2003 capture.
According to a CBS report, Hussein claimed he didn’t anticipate that the United States would invade Iraq over WMD, agent George Piro said on “60 Minutes,” scheduled for Sunday broadcast.
From the New York Times;
Consider: 500 tons of yellowcake stored at Saddam’s old nuclear weapons plant, where he’d managed to partially enrich 1.8 tons. And the equipment and blueprints that could enrich enough uranium to make a bomb stored away for safekeeping. And all of it at the Iraqi dictator’s disposal.
If the average American were aware of these undisputed facts, the debate over Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction would have been decided long ago – in President Bush’s favor.
CNN did a story tonight on the looming battle between Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi on the control of the U.S. political agenda.
Obama and his team have come across over the last few weeks as pragmatists who don’t want to repeat the same mistakes Bill and Hillary made in 1993, when they immediately lurched to the left after the inauguration and helped get the Democrats thrown out of power in 1994. They might still want to get where Nancy’s going, but at the very least have a longer-term strategy to getting there that’s not going to immediately outrage the American public.
Pelosi, on the other hand, has been waiting since ’94 to pass all those programs the Clintons tried to get through in their first two years and apparently expects Obama to follow her agenda, not the other way around. She’s the one pushing for tax hikes in the middle of a recession, oblivious to what happened to Congress when Clinton did the same thing in 1993.
Obama’s scheduled to meet with House Republicans on Thursday. It would be ironic (and pretty damn funny) if Barack ends up relying on Blue Dog Democrats and moderate Republicans in Congress to keep control of the agenda and keep Pelosi (with Harry Reid’s help) from driving the Democratic Party off the same cliff they crashed on 16 years ago.
#52 Peter,
Great points you make regarding Saddam intentionaly wanting the world to believe he had nukes and foolishly thinking America was bluffing about attacking if he didn’t comply with UN resolutions.
Unfortunatey many who only catch a few minutes of boob tube news about some sensational suicide bombing aren’t aware of all the pertinent facts regarding the much justified removal of this murderous tyrant and his regime.
Regarding WMD he not only had them, he used them to gas and genocide 100,000 iraqi kurds. This in addition to an inventory of 2,000 gallons of botulism toxin (enough to kill the entire world population two times over) 500 tons of yellowcake (we recently removed and sent to Canada) and the nuclear program and reactor he had that Israel bombed. Then there’s the torture and murder of his own citizens and rivals as well as athletes who failed to perform to his expectations, and finally firing missiles at nato aircraft patroling and protecting the Kurds and defiantly spitting in the face of the UN and the world in non compliance of resolutions. It’s unquestionabe this madman and his regime had to go and Iraq will be a safer, better place for future generations.
Regarding Obama – Bush will take the young inexperienced lad under his wing and mentor him in a positive way that hopefully will undo the 23 years of poisonous, racist, anti American brainwashing that his close friend, mentor and personal spiritual advisor Jeremiah Wright inflicted on him.
I wish that Eric’s prediction would come to pass, however, I doubt it will. Over the last 16 years, several things have become starkly evident: Democrats lack the capacity for self-awareness and they value the acquisition and retention of power much more than the ideals to which they give lip service, the media will never report the failings or criminality of a Democrat administration and liberals couldn’t care less about the facts and they are relentless in their vidictive hatred toward conservatives and conservative public policies.
I’m afraid that it is very unlikely that Obama will ever be held accountable for the consequences of his policies. Democrats will refuse to admit anything is wrong (e.g. Dems refusal to admit we were in a recession in 2000, or that Clinton ignored terrorism or that Fanne Mae and Freddie Mac were one of the primary causes of the housing bubble, etc.), they will blame everything on Bush and they will capitalize on the ignorance of the average American who rarely reads a newspaper, listens to NPR on the way to work or turns on the Today Show while they are getting dressed in the morning. As a case in point, look at the average Democrat’s understanding of the Hurricane Katrina debacle. They have no idea how the respective laws operate (i.e. the US Constitution, the Stafford Act, Lousiana state law pertaining to natural disasters), they don’t have a clue about the failures of Nagin and Blanco in failing to execute Louisiana’s disaster plan, etc. They don’t know that the federal response to Katrina, as inadequate as it may have been, was actually the fastest and most comprehensive in the history of this country. The truth gets muddies by the mendacity and subterfuge of Democrats and the liberal media. I am afraid that we will be stuck with eight years of Obama and we will be dealing with the time bombs that his socialist policies cause for decades to come. After all we are about to get reamed by the social security ponzi scheme started by FDR 70 years ago. It took about 20 years for us to really bear the brunt of LBJ’s nonsensical Great Society programs and it took a little less than a decade to feel the pain of Clinton’s failure to regulate derivatives and expansion of Fannie, Freddie and the Community reinvestment Act. In short, I am afraid that we are screwed.
Granted, JT, all of it.
But nature simply doesn’t shield the stupid forever. At some point, the bill comes due.
My guess is that starts showing up shortly, to be taken with interest starting at the mid-term elections.
The trick, of course, is to keep hammering on all this stuff.
It’s been my impression that Pres. Obama, when he was candidate Obama and Senator Obama, was not so much in control of his own “fan base” as it were.
If there has been a popular “messiah phenomenon” going on — and I cannot presume to doubt that there has been — I’m really pretty convinced that it has been Mr. Obama’s followers making that come about as such.
A person is an entity essentially separate from the person’s reputation, regardless of how much or how little interaction the person may have in impressing or simply proposing that reputation, towards others. I say this simply as a matter of focus, whereas it is clearly a simple matter.
I’ll admit that I haven’t viewed footage of too many of the public appearances of Mr. Obama. Given what I have seen, I would like to think that Mr. Obama has never made an appearance to just talk himself up, nor to even talk up the ideology of the political party of the majority of his supporters. Perhaps this is a naive hope. I retain it, nonetheless.
I mean, if we take a look at the Democrat party, I think it’s a safe conclusion that they’re pretty consistent insofar as proceeding under the momentum of their own ideology. Mr. Obama is their favorite. It may be something of a contagious trend.
I simply hope that more journalists will learn a “new” sense of neutrality, as Mr. Obama’s term in office continues — “new”, I say, as if such rational neutrality wasn’t already happening, rare though it may be in statistical terms, but happening where it is, and being represented, as it is, and consistently, by journalists such as Jim Lehrer.
So, that’s what I think about the trend of the popular impression surrounding the recently elected President Obama — that It’s from the followers of Mr. Obama, not the leader, Mr. Obama. Considering certain qualities of the followship, in the matter, I question how much responsibility he must rightfully bear about it.
…and Gwen Ifil?
Sorry, no. Obama’s inauguration caught 35 times the news coverage… by actual measurement. Spare me the claim that the role of the press, particularly the government funded press, sucha s NPR isn’t playing the role of Democrat Party cheer leader in this new order.
Yes, but not because he will continue the successful Bush administration policies, but because he will abandon them and we will be attacked. I sincerely pray that he is successful in protecting American lives. Unfortunately, by his cynical political acts of closing Gitmo and putting all kinds of unnecessary restrictions on interrogations, he will more than likely leave us exposed and vulnerable.
Who I really feel for are the law enforcement and military professionals that have to keep us safe with their hands tied.
FROM Steve
“The president lied to congress, and congress believed him”
Steve you are a bit clueless. The president CANNOT lie to Congress. The congressional leadership (both parties) are privy to the EXACT SAME intelligence reports as the president. This is done precisely so that the president cannot lie.
great headlines Peter the Bubblehead!
In addition there were about 500 artillery shells found with various chemical agents.
If Bush was REALLY as dishonest as the media hype… He would have simply planted WMD’s to be found on day one. The MSM missed the fact… Iraq is a big place and it’s easy to dig a hole, drop some WMD’s in it and cover it up.
I especially liked the part when he mentioned action global warming to the million of his fans freezing their tuckus off. I guess he hasn’t kept up with the news where its been determined the earth has been cooling for the last 10 years and will continue to do so. Oh, and BTW…carbon dioxide, the boegyman of the Democrats global warming arguement, has nothing to do with global warming. Don’t those Democrat plans for carbon taxes and massive cap and trade restrictions and taxes look foolish now?
Obama never said he disagreed with every single thing Bush did. He didn’t come into office to overturn everything. He said he will look at it all, what works he will keep, what doesn’t, he will get rid of. Clear and simple plan to me.
President Obama suffers from the same affliction as his predecessors: an abject ignorance as to the nature of our Islamic enemy:
Rape, War, and Sharia Law in Muslim Nations
“I had thought it was simple.” Thus said the 20 year old brother of a 14 year old Afghani rape victim after he was arrested for using a razor blade to abort his sister’s baby.
The young girl had been raped by a construction worker and had the further misfortune of residing in an orthodox Islamic community where an illegitimate birth meant that she and her family would be treated like pariahs by their fellow Muslims. So her brother, Ali, took her to a cowshed and, as her mother helped restrain her, used the razor blade to slice open her womb. He removed the baby, buried it, then stitched up the wound with coarse string used to tie potato sacks. Ten days later, the girl was taken on a 30 mile donkey ride to a provincial hospital suffering from infection and later, to protect her from family and community members, was evacuated to Bagram Air Base where she remained in critical condition: http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=41777.
Although such lurid and grotesque tales are not unheard of in Western, generally Christian societies, they rarely if ever result from religious motivations. More likely it is a jealous rival or a psychotic, wannabe mother who would perpetrate such acts. Sharia Law, based on the Koran or Qur’an, however, condones such measures to atone for the shame visited upon a family by the sin of being a rape victim.
The other side of the Koranic coin, the rapist’s side, is far more forgiving. The Koran mentions no specific punishment for rapists, the probable reason for their receiving light or no civil penalties, while the victim may receive a hundred lashes for causing the crime. The girls, if not stoned to death, are shunned by their fellow Muslims and their opportunities for a future marriage are nil.
Demonstrating a serious inconsistency, that same Koran denounces rape, except in the event of mitigating circumstances, namely the woman’s religion: The Koran encourages the rape of non-Muslim women, according to more than one source, including http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.australian/browse_thread/thread/74aa640b4928eaaa, which cites a number of verses to support that view.: “Koran clearly sanctions this. No Muslims can deny these verses. They are called “ma malakat aymanukum…. The Koran verses are: 23-6, 33-50, 33-52, 33-55, 70-30.”
That sanction and that crime against the Afghani girl and what they say about Muslim thought are interrelated with our wars in the Mideast.
As the war in Iraq seemingly winds down toward a victorious conclusion and as the companion war…
(Read the rest of this article at http://genelalor.com/.)
63. JackT:
Obama never said he disagreed with every single thing Bush did. He didn’t come into office to overturn everything. He said he will look at it all, what works he will keep, what doesn’t, he will get rid of. Clear and simple plan to me.
————
Well put. It’s going to take time to weed out the destructive Bush policies and fine tune the few that actually helped secure the American people.
Only trouble is, what works works because of the combination they’re deployed in. This is not something he’s going to be able to alacarte with any degree of success… as we’re about to find out.
OBAMA KNOWS INTERROGATION IS NOT TORTURE
Torture typically involves physical pain and long term if not pernament injury. Using psychological interrogation techniques sometimes resembles what goes on within families!
http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2009/01/interrogating-enemy-combatants.html