In "America's Survival is At Stake" at Townhall, December 21, Roger Chapin discusses Obama's supine response to Iran's nuclear threat:
Never before in our history has an American president, deliberately and by design, risked our very survival to a maniacal enemy power sworn to remove America from the world. Yet from all appearances, this is exactly what Obama is doing by failing to vigorously oppose Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. But in spite of the fact that over 60% of the public favors militarily destroying Iran's nuclear facilities, there's nary a word of protest from the Republicans in opposition. They're so paranoid about being labeled warmongers, they have shamefully abdicated their own national security responsibilities, just as John McCain did during his presidential run.Obama is weakening rather than strengthening our missile defenses. That's how seriously this Administration takes the Iranian threat....
Maybe, to give Obama his due, he's less than thrilled about waging 3 World Wars simultaneously.
Can you blame him?
The whole Iran problem could have been massively curtailed by a Saddam Hussein led Iraq. But...but...
George Almighty Bush (to pave the way for his own re-election) threw the enemy of our enemy under the bus. And now we see the price as NO country seems able to slow down,never mind prevent, the iranians from getting nukes.
I'm just glad that Fanny Palin isn't in the White House.
That's just beautiful...ally ourselves with a WMD-pursuing, genocidal, megalomaniac like Saddam in order to deal with Iran's nuclear program. Yankel is your typical lib, suffering from a combination of hopeless naivety and acute myopia.
hmm, the piece lacks balance.
George Bush (jr) did nothing about the dependence on foreign oil - just the opposite.
Iran is a threat, yes, but so are trillions of petro-dollars finding their way to Islamic jihadists picking off Americans - 3000 here and 3000 there.
Americas capacity to act on the world stage has never been curtailed as much as under the watch of the 43rd president.
You'd think that after almost a year of having the hand he has "extended to Iran" slapped down (and urinated upon) that President Obama might be rather tired of the gesture, but it seems not to be the case.
The brutal crackdown on Iranians protesting the corrupt elections there has not changed his mind, the exposure of the secret nuclear facility at Qom has not changed his mind, the Iranian seizing of the oil well in Iraq has not changed his mind, and the kidnapping of three Americans from the Iraq border, and their upcoming show trial charged—preposterously—as "spies" seems unlikely to change his mind.
What—at this point—would it take?
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke quote
Except that I would place Obama among those that are evil. He most certainly is not a good man.
Chapin pretty much nails it.
"combination of hopeless naivety and acute myopia."
Now that would be a PERFECT description of George Bush.
Under no circumstances can the mullahs be trusted to honor any agreement, as they’ve proven time and again.
*** 9:3 ***
Allah and Mohammed dissolve obligations.
*** 66:2 ***
Allah has already sanctioned for you the dissolution of your vows.
*** 4:142 ***
Surely the hypocrites strive to deceive Allah. He shall retaliate by deceiving them.
*** Bukhari Vol 7 Bk 67 Nbr 427 ***
Mohammed said, "If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath."
*** Bukhari Vol 4 Bk 52 Nbr 268 ***
Mohammed said, "War is deceit."
*** 33:21 ***
Mohammed was a liar and danged proud of it. In the Cause. And so is any Moslem worth his salt, just because.
Qur'an
That might be true.. except that Bush isn't the POTUS any more Einstein.
Just out of curiosity, under what kind of US government have the big wars been fought? Who was in charge when Hiroshima? Who when Vietnam? Who when WWI and WWII?
Republicans are always portrayed as belicists, but how correct is that?
I'm curious why anybody on such a thread as this, focused as it is on a critique of Obama, thinks it appropriate to criticize Bush or make comparisons to Bush, or even to mention Bush.
Is this some sort of emotional response?
Bush is out of the picture. His time in power is over.
Obama's running the show, and Obama is running the country into the ground.
Who cares what Bush did or didn't do, or Millard Filmore for that matter? They are history.
And if we don't get a leash on this Obama bastard, pretty soon we are going to be history too.
Roger Chapin says: "Never before in our history has an American president, deliberately and by design, risked our very survival to a maniacal enemy power sworn to remove America from the world."
This is not true. All American Presidents have followed this strategy since the Shah was overthrown during Jimmy Carter's presidency. Iran and the Ayatolla Shiia, have been saying death to America since Jimmy Carter so it is hard to blame Obama only for the failure to protect the west from this islamic declaration of war.
I am starting to think the problem is because Western political leaders, Democrat and Republican in the U.S., France and the U.K. are corrupt to the core. They have been taking money from various islamic interests. As far as the Sunnite part of the world is concerned, Jimmy Carter is estimated to have gotten at least $100,000,000 from Saudi interests. Bush Senior $10,000,000 to his library foundation in Texas. Bill Clinton $30,000,000. Bush
Jr. (unknown). Obama (unknown, but he got some very public and expensive bling from Saudi which reminds me of the fable when the King gives his slave his weight in gold)!
Islamic values of bribery and chicanrey have subverted the political will of the West. Where is Charles Martel when we need him?
Yossi Alpher, former senior adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, reports the following:
Sometime prior to March 2003, Sharon told Bush privately in no uncertain terms what he thought about the Iraq plan. Sharon’s words - revealed here for the first time - constituted a friendly but pointed warning to Bush. Sharon acknowledged that Saddam Hussein was an "acute threat" to the Middle East and that he believed Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. Yet according to one knowledgeable source, Sharon nevertheless advised Bush not to occupy Iraq.
Alpher reports that while Sharon would not try to "push one way or another," he felt the plan to invade Iraq was ill-advised, and that Bush certainly should not try to impose democracy on that country. Alpher continues:
Be sure, Sharon added, not to go into Iraq without a viable exit strategy. And ready a counter-insurgency strategy if you expect to rule Iraq, which will eventually have to be partitioned into its component parts. Finally, Sharon told Bush, please remember that you will conquer, occupy and leave, but we have to remain in this part of the world. Israel, he reminded the American president, does not wish to see its vital interests hurt by regional radicalization and the spillover of violence beyond Iraq’s borders.
Far from applying pressure on the U.S. to invade, Sharon discouraged it. And his fears became realized. Israel has not benefited from this war. The war's main beneficiary is Iran, whose power has become greatly enhanced now that a major rival has been eliminated. While this win for Iran works counter to U.S. interests, it may end up posing a mortal threat to Israel. Israel had no interest in this war and Sharon knew it.
The Iraq war was not a Zionist plot. In hindsight it seems a complete disaster, perhaps the greatest blunder in the history of American foreign policy.
http://www.peacewithrealism.org/headline/iraqwar.htm
Conclusion - George Bush's "greatest blunder in the history of American foreign policy" has curtailed President Obama's options severely.
Always reverting to Bush this Bush that shows that your argument has no substance stick to the issues what do you say? Our president is not respected by any world leaders. He has been refered to as the "school boy from Chicago" by many leaders. This policy of appeasement is not going to get anywhere anywhere. So lets see how this plays out in the world.
Chapin's full of shit. He's another bucket-headed Republican Obama basher.
If Obama does NOTHING more than remove Amercian troops from the shit-holes of Iraq and Afghanistan, saving my tax dollars from future expenditures on ungrateful, uncivilizable, incorrigibly corrupt mohammadans, then my vote will not have been in vain.
Was this article mistakenly published by Townhall instead of by The Onion? The last sentence is interpreted by knaves of the Townhall as follows:
"Take heed American; Obama’s policies are paving the way for a nuclear doomsday for the Iranians whom we are already planning to nuke once a window of opportunity opens."
Still, the title and similar text ("tragically", "our nation’s suicidal course", "the apocalyptic end of...all western civilization") should alarm no one given that Townhall is a steaming dungpile for emotional, rightwing flies (e.g. Hannity, Malkin, Ingraham) who tend to profess a love for this week's Jewish birthday boy in numbers that cannot be explained by chance.
So how to interpret Obama's stance toward's Iran?
It hardly matters; the Iranians are in no position to capitalize as the Townhall's scribbler suggests. Whatever Barry's motive or delusions, his presidency is an opportunity to maneuver the Iranians into a war once he's gone, as in 2013 or 2017. Arrows were brandished throughout Bush's terms. Now it's time to show olive branches (to elicit more overt aggression). If from time to time Obama can be baited into both brandishing his quiver of arrows (the surge in Afghanistan) and talking peace (the Nobel peacetalk...which was mixed with wartalk) so much the better for throwing the Iranians off balance.
Repeat the process, again and again and again. Iran's own militarists will miscalculate, overreact, make stupid errors, like putting nukes atop an intercontinental b.m., install more warmongers in public office, and so on.
Once the Iranians have been positioned such that they appear ready to nuke London or New York or Riyad or an American base in Iran's neighborhood, dungpiles like Townhall.com will be ready to capitalize on the open window of opportunity.
In the meantime, Chapin's article can be used also to excite the flies, among whom Catholic Christians are active (like in European fascism, which is Catholic and catholic) until the next election cycle ("virtually the entire Republican Party is AWOL on bombing Iran").
Now, what are all the blooddrinking, Roman witchdoctors up to today? Are they trying to figure out how to keep the Apostolic See's hands clean? Trying to find a Protestant who will be their boy or girl for 2012?
How will the blooddrinking witchdoctors keep noncatholic Russians calm as war comes? Are the Latin witchdoctors back to their old tricks in Russia, too? Do the Iranians understand the Romans' Jewish cult? or the Russians'?
These and other questions about The Great Game will be answered in the years to come.
"Our president is not respected by any world leaders."
--Posted by Mike
Hey Mike,
Obama gets 1000% more respect than Georgie Boy Bush ever did. Bush couldn't even speak English. He was a complete ass-clown. George Bush was the laughing stock of the world -- and he made the USA the laughing stock of the world.
Everyone with sense knows that it's going to take many months of tremendous effort to begin to undo the mostrous imbecility of George Almighty Bush.
While I agree the tendency to counter with "well the other guy....." can be immature and certainly hinders intelligent discusion, I can't blame "THE LIB!" for putting things in there proper perspective.
The criticism of Bush was usually chalked up to ignorance. The criticism of Obama is usually blamed on his supposed intentions and character He's anti-American... He's really a Muslim.. etc..
Once you open up that can of worms, all bets are off.
Get used to these articles ( they are a product of a multibilion dollar industry ) you will see a lot more of them.
Rasulullahaha Obama is a short timer...The man who was never born is reaching the end of his rope. 2010...2012...or sooner...Sooner is better than later...
"JOEBLOUGH"POSTED :I'm curious why anybody on such a thread as this, focused as it is on a critique of Obama, thinks it appropriate to criticize Bush or make comparisons to Bush, or even to mention Bush."
They're LIKELY Left-Wingers and /or Islamists TROLLING here.
Let's take "Yankel' for instance.
You can be sure that the SN "Yankel" is meant as an Anti-Semitic MOCKING Slur.
If Jewish at all, "Yankel" is likely a TOTAL LEFT-WING Self-Hating Anti-Semitic Jew.
I don't agree with you, Yankel, about George Bush. Yes, Americans were told by many that Bush was an idiot, but the reality is that Bush was feared by the thugs and tyrants of the world. They took him seriously and they don't Obama. Obama is perceived as a weakling. No authoritarian needs fear him. I have it on very, actually exceptionally, good authority that the Russians think him a fool. And they didn't the previous President.
Bush, by contrast, was never considered weak, only wrong headed, and this by folks who were mostly wrong-headed themselves (and snobs for the most part). Remember, things are often not what they appear to be. I submit to you that while Bush made mistakes (and I don't think one of them was invading Iraq), he had more guts, more moral intelligence, more common sense and more overall intelligence than Obama, who increasingly reveals himself to be a smooth-talking nothing. Besides, Bush was a fighter pilot and there's no such thing as a dumb fighter pilot. One knows this or should know it. You've been fooled by that good ole' Texas boy kind of approach to talkin' and walkin'. Reconsider, if you will, if you can.
They may have thought W was an idiot; none of them thought he was a fool.
Obama is a fool and the world knows it – and this is very dangerous.
Wellington, glad to see that you are still (very articulately) holding down the fort.
Seems I was thinking and writing the same sentiment, at the same time, as you as you were writing yours.
I doubt there's much hope for Yankel, BDS is an extremely difficult malady to jettison, it seems.
While Americans rejoice in attacking each other over the naive Bush and the sinister Muslim POSPOTUS Obama, the commies are quietly and steadily doing their agit prop to sow doubt, to distract, to scare and to comfort the wimps and appeasers:
Iran’s nuclear threat is a lie
by John Pilger
http://www.worldbulletin.net/author_article_detail.php?id=2070
"Never before in our history has an American president, deliberately and by design, risked our very survival to a maniacal enemy power sworn to remove America from the world"
Never before in your history have you had a President who hates the United States of America with every fibre of his being.
Something very strange is happening all over the world at the moment. The insanity of the recent Copenhagen "climate change" summit during record low temperatures is symptomatic of the wider madness.
Kevin Rudd, here in Australia has been mirroring the disastrous spending policies of Obama, almost on the exact same per-capita ratio.
Conservative politicians seemingly everywhere are silent while most of the Left controlled media openly and with incredible chutzpa declare up is down, hot is cold and wet is dry.
It is just weird.
Something big is happening. Worldwide.
I've turned off my TV until sanity returns to the world(might be off for a while) and only listen to the radio for music.
The internet is the best source for the news these days; but even here it pays to double check sources and verify.
Over at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, LC Subotai Bahadur posted an interesting essay:
When You Eliminate The Impossible; Whatever Remains, However Improbable, Must Be Taken Seriously.
[...]
Having spent a fair amount of my career trying to figure out what was the truth behind the actions of various felons, witnesses, and victims [everybody lies sometimes]; I have learned that the first thing to look out for is when people suddenly start acting out of character. People are creatures of routine. They do not change those routines unless compelled to, or unless they believe that conditions have changed and a change is to their personal benefit.
I have been an observer [and activist] in politics since the 1960 election. I won’t reveal my age, but I started getting involved in politics young. Observing politicians gives a certain insight into their motivations. One of the prime motivations of politicians is self-preservation in office.
They do not normally go out of their way to take a stand on anything for fear of angering blocs of voters. They will straddle any issue, talk out of four sides of their mouths [double talk on both sides], and watch polling religiously twisting in the breeze of public opinion. What do you call a politician who has consistent principles and who stands on them? Either a myth, or out of work.
Fear of repercussions at the polls over-rides all. While they may have contempt for us [and most politicians do], they do their best to conceal it behind a smile and fake concern.
Politicians acting out of character indicates a change in the rules, whether we know it or not.
This regime has upset me almost from the beginning. It began to cause grave concern when the Town Hall movement began. What did we see?
Democrats, Democrat party officials, and the government controlled media chose to deliberately insult and attack citizens who accepted what was in fact the invitations of the Congress-Critters to attend Town Hall meetings, and who dared to ask real questions and insist on answers. This was followed by the White House insisting that the Left “push back” against those citizens.
Shortly thereafter Democrat Congress-Critters started having ACORN and SEIU security forces at these events. Citizens were threatened, blocked out, and eventually physically assaulted. The assailants, it seems, have judicial immunity.
[...]
http://nicedoggie.net/index.php/archives/3776
The bottom line on Obama, Mike_W, and I write this as a patriotic American, is that he is a relatively intelligent man who is suffused with terrible ideas. He's also ignorant and has an ego of such dimension that his ignorance (and those erroneous concepts on most every issue) will not be easily reversed, even by reason and fact (for the record, this is not what any sensible person should want in a leader, but that's what America has right now with the Anointed One). Not just intellecutally, but morally and respecting common sense as well (guts too), America's 44th President is deficient quite significantly.
Emotion, not reason, was why Obama was elected to the greatest office in the world (hope and change, mindless antipathy to Bush, and all that rot). Just goes to show you that however carefully you construct failsafe systems, and the Constitution of the United States is as close to failsafe as one can get in this imperfect world, shit still happens. For instance, Obama.
There's an additional problem with the Democratic Party in America. Always has been since its inception with Thomas Jefferson, a man whom I greatly admire. And the problem is that it garners much of its support by appealing to the underdog, to the little guy. Sometimes this is a good thing, even a great thing now and again by putting the elite, which always pulls the rest of a society along, in its place when it starts to confuse elitism with snobbery, but such appeal is also a recipe for easy demagoguery. We now see this with Obama, Reid and Pelosi (never mind Al Franken who is representative of something even beneath demagoguery). And the damn problem of all this is complicated by the fact that conservatives, who usually have the best ideas, are not possessed of humor or coolness (when they are, they will be described as "haters" and their ideas will not be discussed, only dismissed). Same old shit. Democracy produces demagogues, folks with loads of bad ideas, and usually very square folk who have the right ideas and can't get such ideas across because they're not "cool." Such is the nature of the free world. Meanwhile, the non-free world, best represented by just about the most terrible idea ever to appear in the history of man, i.e., Islam, is emboldened by division and doubt and weakness in the free world. Interesting (and dnagerous) times, no?
Interesting (and dangerous) times, no?"
Absolutely, Wellington.
I disagree though that conservatives have no sense of humor.
Humor and comedy essentially involves recognition of the truth; that's what makes comedy: truth.
Without an element of truth, comedy is not funny.
In my experience the Left is devoid of humor because they do not recognize truth.
For an example of conservative humor, Tim Blair's blog has some very, very funny and intelligent conservative commentary:
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/
Thanks for your reply, Mike_W. Yes, some conservatives do have a sense of humor but, as Alexander Solzhenitsyn observed, one of the reasons why Western liberals make as much headway as they do is that they tend to be funnier than conservatives, even though they're possessed of the poorer ideas. The exception proves the rule and all that.
I've often thought that if conservatives had 80% of the funny guys, rather than the other way around, conservatism would really clean modern liberalism's clock since it already has the better ideas nine times out of ten. After all, what redeems us more as a species than our sense of humor (or commands greater attention)? It's almost as though liberals stumbled into the truth on this one. Then again, it's a lot easier to tear down the establishment completley then to keep it going with improvements here and there. You know, not throwing the baby out with the bath water, which liberals just don't get.
Wellington,
could you please give an example of one Lefty who is funny, rather than just absurd, such as Al Franken; I just can't think of any.
George Carlin, recently deceased, was a real Lefty and, if truth be told, actually quite funny (his routines on religion were very mocking but effective and his skit on "stuff" is great, though implicitly anti-capitalistic). Lenny Bruce before him was quite the liberal and humorous. Living today, Stephen Colbert can be dead-pan hilarious at times. Jay Leno, another liberal, is also a funny guy. There are many, past and present. Now, I will ask you, how many funny conservatives are there out there? I agree with you about Al Franken though. He's not funny, just a jerk.
While I agree the tendency to counter with "well the other guy....." can be immature and certainly hinders intelligent discusion, I can't blame "THE LIB!" for putting things in there proper perspective.
The criticism of Bush was usually chalked up to ignorance. The criticism of Obama is usually blamed on his supposed intentions and character He's anti-American... He's really a Muslim.. etc..
Once you open up that can of worms, all bets are off.
Get used to these articles ( they are a product of a multibilion dollar industry ) you will see a lot more of them.
While I agree the tendency to counter with "well the other guy....." can be immature and certainly hinders intelligent discusion, I can't blame "THE LIB!" for putting things in there proper perspective.
The criticism of Bush was usually chalked up to ignorance. The criticism of Obama is usually blamed on his supposed intentions and character He's anti-American... He's really a Muslim.. etc..
Once you open up that can of worms, all bets are off.
Get used to these articles ( they are a product of a multibilion dollar industry ) you will see a lot more of them.
Well, to be honest, I find very, very little on television these days to be entertaining OR funny.
For real funny, these days most of it for me is found on conservative blogs, such as Moonbattery, Ace of Spades, Iowahawk, anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, Paco Enterprises, Are we Lumberjacks and Tim Blair.
Some of the commentary at such sites is also brilliant.
Most of what I've seen is that passes for comedy or entertainment in the media seems just Lefty propaganda posing as comedy/entertainment, although South Park can be brilliant :)
Your taste in comedy seems very strange for a conservative, Wellington.
Wasn't Lenny Bruce notorious for being a bit foul mouthed?
I'm not familiar with George Carlin or Jay Leno really, but apparently they were/are popular on U.S. television.
But as I said earlier, my television is now off because I am so disgusted with what passes for news and entertainment these days.
Here though is one example of what might be a Lefty with a brilliant sense of humor; although there is much on this site that is NOT politically correct :)
Chiropractors are not real doctors
I'll spend the money on
drugs instead:
http://www.27bslash6.com/overdue.html
Well, I'm thinking over the past half century or more and when I do I think Solzhenitsyn's comment holds up. I agree that in the most recent years a lot of what passes for comedy just isn't funny. David Letterman here in America is a good example. And yes, Lenny Bruce had quite an edge to him, but sometimes it worked. Actually, just about the funniest person I've ever seen was one who was neither liberal nor conservative in his humor but did poke fun at both sides of the poltical spectrum. I'm talking about Johnny Carson, who was absolutely the best American talk-show host of all time. In a class by himself.
Enjoyed this give and take and will end by saying that I'm sure we have more in common than not, both politically and in the realm of humor. Might I suggest, though, that you google "George Carlin on Stuff" and watch the five minute routine. Not bad at all. Merry Christmas.
What's wrong with you? You do realise this a website for talking about the real threat from jihadists, not imaginary "blood-drinking witchdoctor" Catholics, right? Where did all the bile come from?
I'm distressed (as a European) that you claim European fascism is Catholic. Any cursory glance at history will tell you that it certainly wasn't. Even more worrying is that you dismiss it as a "Jewish cult" - are you aware that that was exactly how Hitler described Christianity?
Ignorance is not attractive so please know more about what you're talking about *before* you start slandering it on a completely unrelated thread.
To all of the Bush Bashers;
Hindsight is a lot more accurate than foresight. What was he to do after the Taliban refussed to hand over binLadin?
He tried to get oil drilling started on the North Slope of Alaska but the Democrats blocked him. Nobody knew for sure what Saddam was up to and most intellegence agencies at the time believed that he either had or was pursuing nuclear weapons.
Emotion is why Obama was elected?
Why was George Bush elected?
Intelligence?
Presentation?
Speaking Ability?
Track record?
Experience?
OR
1) MONEY
2) NAME
3) CONNECTIONS
C'mon Wellington!!!
No he was elected because he was funnier. Don't you get it.
Money, name and connections didn't hurt Bush's chances but many voted for him (like myself both times) because they thought him a better candidate than Gore (who really is a fruitcake) and Kerry (who has snob written all over him, had to take some of his Vietnam tales back {like being in Cambodia during Christmas of 1968} and, lo and behold, scored lower on his military entrance exam than did Bush). And I agree with "wally" that Bush was funnier than either Gore or Kerry, who are two stiffs. Mind you, Bush did a number of things I didn't agree with, including spending like a Democrat, but personally I still like him and think him far shrewder than many people realize. He also has a terrific memory. I never remember him getting a fact wrong. Again, reconsider.
As bad as GWB was on spending and other things, he was not a facist. Obama is a facist. He respects other facists and this is why we feel that we are on a dangrous ride and in a dangerous spot. His respect for facists exhibits itself in his attitude toward our enemies, who are all facists. He does not want to fight them because he would rather join them.
We must realize that 20% of our population (all Obama voters) hate America and freedom. They support facist dictators. That is Obama's true base and he is devoted to them.
What—at this point—would it take?
Maybe a 'mushroom' cloud? One poised over that black Rubic-cube in Arabia would be a nice touch. But if it's over some city in Europe?.. horrible 'wake up' call if that happens.
I realize this thread is dead, but I can't help myself.
"...Bush was funnier than either Gore or Kerry..."
Yup. He was funnier. Of course, we laughed AT HIM, not with him.
He [Bush] also has a terrific memory. I never remember him getting a fact wrong.
Hmmmm. Didn't know the difference between Iraq and Iran ("aren't they all mulims?")
Couldn't remember what he was talking about. Couldn't remember the question that he was asked. Couldn't remember the name of Guantanamo.
Wellington, you would vote for The Burger King if he was running on the Republican ticket.
Yankel, I stand beside all I've said about Bush. I noticed you didn't bother refuting any of the positives about him I pointed out, such as scoring higher than Kerry on the military entrance exam, being a fighter pilot and so on. And if you really want to believe that temporarily not remembering something is evidence of a bad memory, go ahead. Ditto if you really, truly think Bush didn't know the difference between Iran and Iraq. That's fodder for ad hominem attacks, not for real history. Bush had an extremely detailed knowledge of American government and the military. When he was Governor of Texas, the Democratic Speaker of the Texas House said that Bush could put on quite an act about not appearing to be too bright but behind the scenes he could snooker you real good like.
Your dislike and underestimation of Bush reminds me of a story about President Lincoln in his early days in office. Someone told the President that William Seward, Lincoln's newly chosen Secretary of State and someone who thought he deserved to be President more than Lincoln, considered himself the real force and brains in the new Administration and not the President. Lincoln thought for a moment and then said, "Well, it's all right if Seward thinks that." Think what you like, Yankel. There's no harm in it. But I ask you this: If you were walking down a dark alley in a terrible part of town and you could have only one person covering your back and you had to choose between Bush and Obama, who would you pick? I know whom I would.
And YOU would vote for an America hating Marxist, if he looked cool and was slick with a teleprompter.
Bush's Third Term continues with the same old lies about Iraq now being told about Iran.
Let Israel be Israel and do the dirty work itself. We were welcomed as liberators in invading/occupying Iraq for Israel so they owe us one.
And that was some secret nuke site, huh? I mean the one at Qom that Iran told the IAE about. The one that is legal under international law?
Man oh man. The same old lies are told for a reason. They work. Iraq was going to destroy America and over our future there hung a mushroom cloud (yeah, right) and now Iran threatens our very existence?
Get the author of that absurdity some Haldol. Quickly. In huge doses.
What is Amadinnerjacket gonna do? Ram a jet engine up some goat's ass and fly it over here where he can drop a bag of camel dung on your kids camping in the backyard?
Iran spend about 2% of what we spend on the military and most of what the spending purchases is directed against its own people and Iran has PLENTY of enemies in its own neighborhood - like Israel with 200 nukes.
Don't Americans EVER tire of this BS coming from the very same sort of Neo_Con Clowns who were wrong about every single damn thing during the ghastly eight years of that moron, Dubya?
Interesting (and exasperating) glitch in typepad.
My previous post was directed to Yankel not Wellington.
If you were walking down a dark alley in a terrible part of town and you could have only one person covering your back and you had to choose between Bush and Obama, who would you pick?
I'd take the Mulatto. I'd be more likely to avoid trouble walking with a Mulatto in a bad part of town.
Walking with Bush? He'd either step into an open manhole just when I needed him most, or, more likely, give the attackers a new entitlement program - after they attacked us - and then tell the Cops (late arriving to the scene) that he had avoided a major incidence due to his compassionate conservatism because he had been told by AIPAC that the attackers had secret plans to invade and violate a Synagogue.
I would contend that Bush didn't lie about anything. He had good reason to think that Saddam Hussein still had WMDs. No major intelligence agency thought or said otherwise. Saddam Hussein also was the only dictator that had WMDs AND had used them. He did not account for all of their whereabouts. Expecting any President to have 100% certainty before acting militarily in the defense of America would be quite stupid.
Morover, SH was violating on a daily basis the terms of the 1991 truce which ended the Gulf War, such as firing on American and British planes in the no-fly zones over Iraq. Bush was also disgusted by all the reports he had received of SH's slaughtering and torturing of his own people.
As for the Bush Administration not getting anything right, Bush moved to better relations with India than that of any previous Administration. He also made Poland and other Eastern European countries feel that they had a true ally in America, something Obama has dissipated quite rapidly. I had many disagreeements with the Bush Administration but when someone starts calling Bush a liar and a moron I know my chances of getting a sophisticated geopolitical analysis of the world during the Bush years hovers around zero.
Yeah, I understand that Bush lied is not a documented truth that you will admit.
The Brits, actually investigating the league of liars, admit the "information" about the Unicorns armed with WMDs came from a Taxi Driver.
dam Holloway, a defence specialist, said MI6 obtained information indirectly from a taxi driver who had overheard two Iraqi military commanders talking about Saddam's weapons.
The 45-minute claim was a key feature of the dossier about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that was released by Tony Blair in September 2002. Blair published the information to bolster public support for war.
After the war the dossier became hugely controversial when it became clear that some of the information it contained was not true. ...
In the report he wrote: "Under pressure from Downing Street to find anything to back up the WMD case, British intelligence was squeezing their agents in Iraq for information. One agent did come up with something: the '45 minutes' or something about missiles allegedly discussed in a high level Iraqi political meeting..... In the end it turned out that the information was not credible, it had originated from an émigré taxi driver on the Iraqi-Jordanian border, who had remembered an overheard a conversation in the back of his cab a full two years earlier.
A bit like reading that Ralph Kramdem was a source for Nazi Plans.
The No-Fly Zones were a violation of the UN mandates, no?
Is there ANY Neo-Con lie that you will even admit (I know rejection of same seems a bit much to expect)?
It is not for one to admit that someone else who claims lies have been told is reporting things accurately. You are treating with something axiomatically rather than as the assumption which it is and then expecting me to agree with it. The burden of proof is on you to show mendacity by Bush. You know this or should know it. And as an attorney, I can tell you that what you have offered so far would not stand up in a court of law. Not even close.
And yes, the no-fly zones were UN mandates that were being enforced by the British and Americans, who had their pilots put into danger on a daily basis because Saddam Hussein was firing upon them. What did you expect Bush to do? Call off the flights or just ignore the illegal firings upon American and British planes? What would you have done had you been President?
Re: "Bush lied" syndrome
If propaganda such as the "Bush lied" theory is repeated often enough, a lot of misinformed people will believe the propaganda. There is no reason to say that Bush lied regarding the Iraq WMDs. All intelligence agencies of the world claimed that Iraq had WMDs.
Bush will be remember as the worst president in america history. He wreach our ecomony with too low taxes, too hight military spending on weapon system which cost too much and will never work like star war missile defence system.We donot have than 3 million man army any more it is only 500,000 men and it is spead where thin around the world. America doesnot manufacture alot today compare to in the past. Bush didnot crack down on WND(world Net Daily) for
turning the war on terror into a christian crusade against Islam. The number of muslim in the world is increase to 1.85 billion est by the CIA World Fact Book.The invadeing of Afghanistan and Iraq weaknen our military forces.The airforce try to candle the F-22 200 million dollar fight but congress keep putting it in the budget.The number of muslim in american is increaseing. Bush didnot raise taxes to cover the cost of his two war.
Tamara,
Re: Obama
You have it about right.
And yes, the no-fly zones were UN mandates that were being enforced by the British and Americans, who had their pilots put into danger on a daily basis because Saddam Hussein was firing upon them.
Wellington, you lie like Bush. The No-fly zones were not established by The UN.
Bush's lies are well-documented in many places. Here is a link to one such place:
http://projects.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/
America's Honor Killing of Iran for Israel is being built on another mountain o flies:
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/index.php/2009/10/02/another-war-in-the-works/
And yes, the no-fly zones were UN mandates that were being enforced by the British and Americans, who had their pilots put into danger on a daily basis because Saddam Hussein was firing upon them. What did you expect Bush to do? Call off the flights or just ignore the illegal firings upon American and British planes? What would you have done had you been President?
Had I been Saddam, I'd have shot the damn planes down because they were flying over my country. What sort of insane person are you who expects leaders of foreign countries to kow-tow to such blatant illegal provocation?
I do not believe you are a lawyer because everyone knows the No-Fly Zones were illegal. You are just a Nationalistic Bush Butt-Buffer.
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0211h.asp
Catholic Guy,
On behalf of all our troops that lost their lives with the Iraq war and the no fly zone, you may go jump in a lake, sir. I would use stronger words but this website too nice a place for that.
Bush was inept in specific areas and I called him on these things at the time they happened. He had the inability to use good long term thinking. He also did not have good one on one social skills, the kind that we learn growing up with ordinary people. But I damn well voted for John McCain because Obama was totally bad. And now that I see what Obama and his Congressional friends are doing to us all, I will vote Republican the rest of my life. I will pull the Repub lever the rest of my life. Obama is trying to screw every U.S. citizen with his health care monstrosity. He is trying to kill all sick old people. Nice guy, Obama.
You are an insulting individual and one who makes all kinds of claims he can't back up. You also simply don't know what you're talking about. The no-fly zones were part of the agreement that Saddam Hussein signed onto when the Gulf War ended in 1991. They were not illegal and part of the truce terms put forward by a coalition of UN forces led by America (unfortunately, Norman Schwarzkopf, the overall commander of UN forces, most of which were American, did allow Saddam Hussein to continue to use helicopters, which were used by SH for truly murderous purposes). Remember, the Gulf War was a UN endeavor as was the Korean War. Hence the terms ending the war were UN mandates in effect.
I also find it quite revealing of you that you would support a brutal dictator's shooting down of American and British jets that were protecting the Kurds in the north and the Shiite Arabs in the south, among other reasons for the flights. Supporting SH over America. Nice. You might as well say it was illegal for the four Allied powers to have occupied all of Germany after WWII or for America to occupy Japan after the same war---and we're not even talking occupation here in the case of Iraq but fly-overs. When one loses a war, one ordinarily suffers all kinds of liabilities which are not illegal but rooted in international law going back to Hugo Grotius.
As for your claim I am not an attorney, you are as wrong about that as you are erroneous, insulting and puerile in your arguments. Again, you make a claim which you treat as fact in your own mind without any evidence to support such a "fact." Pathetic.
I read both of these articles and they're awful. What they in effect are doing is playing a game of gotcha' with American Presidents and American security. Unless we have 100% certainty that a particular threat exists, pursuant to the logic of folks who wrote these articles you provided links to, then an American President cannot act militarily to remove the threat. This is madness. Stupidity of the first order too. If you wish to belive rubbish like this (e.g., Iran really only wants to develop a nuclear capacity for peaceful purposes), be my guest but count me out because I prefer to live in the real world.
No major intelligence agency on the planet thought Saddam Hussein had gotten rid of all his WMDs (SH himself said after his capture that he would have reconstituted them had he not been overthrown) and no one who has half a brain should take Iran (or the inept IAEA) at their word that it is not developing a nuclear weapons capacity after stating publicly many times that once Iran develops such a capacity it is going to wipe Israel off the map. Outta' here.
Bravo Wellington!
I do enjoy it when you slap down these arrogant, insufferable little creeps that have made it a hobby to undermine the greatest hope for freedom and prosperity the world has ever known – the United States of America.
As a general rule, I have found that anyone who uses the term “neocon” in the pejorative, is a malicious jerk, up to no good.
Wellington, you lie like Bush. The No-fly zones were not established by The UN. Catholic Guy
They damn sure were! You need to lay off the left-wing whacko blogs; take a breather, watch tv, read a book. All those ridiculous conspiracy theories never materialized and Bush is no longer in office. The no-fly zones were established by the U.N. after the Gulf War. At least George the Liar Bush ad-libbed his "lies"; Obama needs a teleprompter to say "good morning". Without a prompter, Obama is more inarticulate and stumbling than Bush ever was. Obama is an empty suit, a nobody with no past. He has sealed every detail of his life prior to working as a "community organizer", and not much information is available on that. Wonder what he's hiding? If the corrupt and despicable news media in this country had done their jobs, Obama would not be president.
George Bush was no more of a liar, much less of one in fact, that Obama. All politicians lie. They are virtually controlled by their handlers and Obama is a Marxist Manchurian Candidate, a puppet. His administration is being run by Marxists, Maoists, radical, left-wing activists, and some of the most unsavory, corrupt scum in academia and intelligentsia. He has an abstract, Marxist agenda and he is content to let his thugs do the dirty work, attend to the details, and cover his "innocent" ass. Just as he tried to claim that trying the 9/11 butchers in NY was Holder's decision, he will deflect all bad decisions and blame them on his czars or Congress. The hideous health care reform debacle is a good example of Obama's M.O. I was thoroughly fed up and disgusted with George Bush, not because he's stupid or incompetent but because he was too liberal. But I would give anything to have him back right now!