Barak W. Bush

Discussion in 'Politics ......... (OPT IN)' started by racks-n-beards, Jun 2, 2009.

  1. racks-n-beards

    racks-n-beards Chiefs FANatic

    Obama continues to trash Bush in words — but his actions speak louder.

    By Victor Davis Hanson (Hoover Institute)

    Last July I wrote a column entitled “Barack W. Bush†outlining how candidate Barack Obama was strangely emulating Bush policies — even as he was trashing the president.

    Nearly a year later, President Obama has continued that schizophrenia, criticizing Bush while keeping in place Bush’s anti-terrorism protocols. The result of this Bush Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder is that, thanks to Obama, history will soon begin reassessing George W. Bush’s presidency in a more positive light.

    Why? Because the more Obama feels compelled to trash Bush, the more he draws attention to the fact that he is copying — or in some cases falling short of — his predecessor. He seems to wish to frame his presidency in terms of the Bush years, even though such constant evocation is serving his predecessor more than it is serving Obama himself.

    For eight years conservatives whined — and Democrats railed — at the Bush deficits. In the aggregate over eight years they exceeded $2 trillion. The administration’s excuses — the 2000 recession; 9/11; two wars, in Afghanistan and Iraq; Katrina; and two massive new programs, No Child Left Behind and Medicare Prescription Drug — fell on deaf ears.

    Between 2001 and 2008 we still spoke of annual budget shortfalls in billions of dollars. But an early effect of the Obama administration is that it has already made the Bush administration’s reckless spending seem almost incidental. In the first 100 days of this government we have learned to speak of yearly red ink in terms of Obama’s trillions, not Bush’s mere billions. Indeed, compared to Obama, Bush looks like a fiscal conservative.

    Another complaint was the so-called culture of corruption in the Republican Congress — and the inability, or unwillingness, of the Bush administration to address party impropriety. Jack Abramoff, Larry Craig, Duke Cunningham, Tom DeLay, and Mark Foley were each involved in some sort of fiscal or moral turpitude that — according to critics — was never convincingly condemned by the Bush administration.

    But compared to some of the present Democratic headline-makers, those were relatively small potatoes. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has slurred the CIA and accused it of habitually lying to Congress. Rep. Charles Rangel has not paid his income taxes fully, and has improperly used his influence to lobby corporations for donations; he has also violated rent-stabilization laws in New York. Sen. Chris Dodd has received discounts and gifts from shady corporate insiders in clear quid-pro-quo influence peddling. Rep. Barney Frank got campaign money from Fannie Mae before it imploded, despite the fact he was charged with regulating the quasi-governmental agency — which at one time hired his boyfriend as a top executive. Former Rep. William Jefferson, an outright crook, is about to go on trial in federal court.

    As for other prominent Democrats, the sins of Blago and Eliot Spitzer bordered on buffoonery. A series of Obama cabinet nominations — Daschle, Geithner, Richardson, Solis — were marred by admissions of tax evasion and the suspicion of scandal. In other words, should either the Democratic leadership or President Obama now rail about a “Culture of Corruption†— and neither unfortunately has — the public would naturally assume a reference to Democratic misdeeds.

    For the last eight years, a sort of parlor game has been played listing the various ways the Bush anti-terror policies supposedly destroyed the Constitution. Liberal opponents — prominent among them Sen. Barack Obama — railed against elements of the Patriot Act, military tribunals, rendition, wiretaps, email intercepts, and Predator drone attacks. These supposedly unnecessary measures, plus Bush’s policies in postwar Iraq, were said to be proof, on Bush’s part, of either paranoia or blatantly partisan efforts to scare us into supporting his unconstitutional agenda.

    Now, thanks to President Obama, the verdict is in: All of the Bush protocols turned out to reflect a bipartisan national consensus that has kept us safe from another 9/11-style attack.

    How do we know that?

    Because President Obama — despite earlier opposition and current name changes and nuancing — has kept intact the entire Bush anti-terrorism program. Apparently President Obama has kept these protocols because he suspects that they help to explain why his first few months in office have been free of successful terrorist attacks — witness the foiled plot earlier this month to murder Jews in New York City and shoot down military planes in upstate New York.

    There are only two exceptions to Obama’s new Bushism. Both are revealing. The president says he wishes to shut down Guantanamo in a year, after careful study. But so far no one has come up with an alternative plan for dealing with out-of-uniform terrorists caught on the battlefield plotting harm to the United States. That’s why Obama himself did not close the facility immediately upon entering office, and why the Democratic Congress has just cut off funding to close it. So we are left with the weird paradox that Obama hit hard against his predecessor for opening Guantanamo, while members of his own party are doing their best to keep it open.

    Obama says he opposes waterboarding and calls it torture. Many of us tend to agree. But despite the partisan rhetoric of endemic cruelty, we now learn that the tactic was used on only three extraordinarily bad detainees.

    Furthermore, the administration that disclosed the once-classified technique to the public now refuses to elaborate on whether valuable information that saved lives emerged from such coerced interrogations.

    Meanwhile, liberal congressional icons like Jay Rockefeller and Nancy Pelosi are on record as being briefed about the technique — and, by their apparent silence as overseers, de facto approving it. Senator Schumer, remember, all but said that we must not rule out the resort to torture in the case of terrorist suspects.

    Mini-histories have already been written blasting Bush for unprecedented deficits, for being in bed with a sometimes corrupt Republican Congress, and for weakening our civil liberties. Now the historians will have to begin over again and see Bush as a mere prelude to a far more profligate, and ethically suspect, administration.

    More important, President Bush bequeathed to President Obama a successful anti-terrorism template that the latter has embraced and believes will keep the nation safe for another eight years. And, oddly, we are the more certain that is what he believes, the more a now obsessive-compulsive President Obama attacks none other than former President Bush.

    — Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal and the 2008 Bradley Prize.
     
  2. TrackerCasey

    TrackerCasey Active Member

    Sep 20, 2006
    Mid-Michigan

  3. 20 feet high

    20 feet high CROSSBOW HATER!

    Feb 19, 2009
  4. nastyjack63

    nastyjack63 Well-Known Member

    Dec 17, 2006
    osage county
    Did anybody see the clips of Bush's responce to how Obama was doing? Pretty classy answer IMO. He said I didn't like it when the president I replaced complained about how I was doing so I won't say anything negative about the current president (kinda paraphrased, I can't remember the exact quote). It seems BO's obsession with Bush and constantly blaming everything he inherated on him is counter-productive. Just do the job you were hired for and move on. It's obviously eaiser to point and blame than to actually roll up your sleeves and move forward.
     
  5. marshallgrn

    marshallgrn New Member

    Apr 20, 2008
    in hiding
    uh oh henry,ghost hunter and knockem isnt going to be happy about this one :peepwall:
     
  6. pinwheel

    pinwheel Jenny's Lackey

    Jun 17, 2006
    middle of nowhere
    [rquote=1284330&tid=89786&author=marshallgrn] uh oh henry,ghost hunter and knockem isnt going to be happy about this one :peepwall:[/rquote]

    It's in the political forum & neither of them are members here, so they'll never read it.
     
  7. marshallgrn

    marshallgrn New Member

    Apr 20, 2008
    in hiding
    [rquote=1284332&tid=89786&author=pinwheel][rquote=1284330&tid=89786&author=marshallgrn] uh oh henry,ghost hunter and knockem isnt going to be happy about this one :peepwall:[/rquote]

    It's in the political forum & neither of them are members here, so they'll never read it.[/rquote]


    whew dodged a bullet then, thank goodness
     
  8. hillbilly

    hillbilly Senior Member

    Dec 27, 2006
    Fulton Mo
    [rquote=1284306&tid=89786&author=nastyjack63]Did anybody see the clips of Bush's responce to how Obama was doing? Pretty classy answer IMO. He said I didn't like it when the president I replaced complained about how I was doing so I won't say anything negative about the current president (kinda paraphrased, I can't remember the exact quote). It seems BO's obsession with Bush and constantly blaming everything he inherated on him is counter-productive. Just do the job you were hired for and move on. It's obviously eaiser to point and blame than to actually roll up your sleeves and move forward.[/rquote]







    Obama's follower's and Obama think It Is easier just to blame everybody else IMHO cause they are to stupid to do any work themselves:cheers:
     
  9. UrbanHunter

    UrbanHunter Well-Known Member

    PW, henry had a post on another political post subject, I think the N Korea thread.
    Don't be calling them out in advance, guys. Good, well thought-out articles like the above may just change an opinion... but calling someone a buffoon or idiot won't.
    MAO
     
  10. pinwheel

    pinwheel Jenny's Lackey

    Jun 17, 2006
    middle of nowhere
    [rquote=1284338&tid=89786&author=UrbanHunter]PW, henry had a post on another political post subject, I think the N Korea thread.
    Don't be calling them out in advance, guys. Good, well thought-out articles like the above may just change an opinion... but calling someone a buffoon or idiot won't.
    MAO[/rquote]

    I completely agree with the bold statement. The political forum is not a place to be launching personal attacks on other members of MWT, whether they're here to defend themselves or not. It's a place to discuss issues that affect us & have debate on issues that we don't see eye to eye on.

    Personally, all the shots at the current admin on the main forum & even in here, reminds me of 6th graders & not grown men.
     
  11. hillbilly

    hillbilly Senior Member

    Dec 27, 2006
    Fulton Mo
    [rquote=1284338&tid=89786&author=UrbanHunter]PW, henry had a post on another political post subject, I think the N Korea thread.
    Don't be calling them out in advance, guys. Good, well thought-out articles like the above may just change an opinion... but calling someone a buffoon or idiot won't.
    MAO[/rquote]




    Urban who called someone a buffoon or Idiot?:confused:
     
  12. marshallgrn

    marshallgrn New Member

    Apr 20, 2008
    in hiding
    yea i dont recall seeing any name calling or personal attacks on anybody either
     
  13. Jeremy

    Jeremy REGULAR MEMBER

    Dec 22, 2006
  14. hillbilly

    hillbilly Senior Member

    Dec 27, 2006
    Fulton Mo
    [rquote=1284352&tid=89786&author=Jeremy]:confused::confused::confused:[/rquote]






    Me to:pop:
     
  15. UrbanHunter

    UrbanHunter Well-Known Member

    HB, I'm paraphrasing. You know what I mean, though. Some of the threads get off on beating up a poster, rather than making the point.
    Facts alone are enough to hammer this current administration.
    I'll quit now... just thought I'd throw that out.
     
  16. hillbilly

    hillbilly Senior Member

    Dec 27, 2006
    Fulton Mo
    Urban still don't know how called who out:confused:I just didn't see any beating up a poster:confused:
     
  17. Jeremy

    Jeremy REGULAR MEMBER

    Dec 22, 2006
    this was a trick to get off topic
     
  18. marshallgrn

    marshallgrn New Member

    Apr 20, 2008
    in hiding
    so urban all of that was INCASE someone calls someone a name, maybe? and even got pin to engage ya?, and were the sixth graders? geeze :blah::blah::blah:
     
  19. hillbilly

    hillbilly Senior Member

    Dec 27, 2006
    Fulton Mo
    [rquote=1284359&tid=89786&author=Jeremy]this was a trick to get off topic[/rquote]





    Well I saw PW typed something and that was enough to :confused:me:rof2::rof2::rof2::wave:pW:D
     
  20. UrbanHunter

    UrbanHunter Well-Known Member

    Well... reading back, I think it was ME "beating on" a poster! :peepwall:
    Sorry. Ignore it all.
    Great article above.:smiley: