« Too little, but not too late. | Main | Comes around, again »

Comes Around

As Barack Obama finishes his first term as President-Elect and gets ready to suit up for the real thing, debate has come up between conservatives and liberals regarding the respect due him. Conservatives cite the constant derision and undeserved insults heaped upon President Bush and say that the Democrat is only getting a dose of what the liberals considered reasonable treatment of the Chief Executive for the last eight years. Liberals respond by saying that they gave Bush a fair chance, and did not begin attacking him until he had earned it, that they were not spitting insults before he even began his term.

I do not agree with the deliberate disrespect against Obama, but the liberals are lying to pretend they ever gave President Bush a chance.

Thousands of liberals protested Bush's inauguration, pelting his motorcade with bottles and at least one egg.


Before he even took office, mockery of him was common among liberals.

The fact is simple - liberals refused to show respect at all to President Bush, so while it would be better for conservatives to try to work with Obama and give him a chance to do his job, it is absolutely false for liberals to pretend they have any right to expect it. If Obama never catches a break as President, he can thank his liberal base for poisoning the well.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/33780.

Comments (58)

F*** that stuttering lying... (Below threshold)
GianiD:

F*** that stuttering lying POS liberal from Ill. He's not my President.

Dissent is patriotic, remember? I'M A PATRIOT!

Do you think it was ... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:


Do you think it was just a lucky guess on the part of Liberals or did they know something that Conservatives did not?

Rather the opposite, Adrian... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Rather the opposite, Adrian. Conservatives understood things in 2001 that are still beyond liberals in 2009.

Neither, Adrian. Having dea... (Below threshold)
ke_future:

Neither, Adrian. Having dealt with liberals for many years, there is a belief in them of the righteousness of their cause, and any who do not believe are the incarnation of evil. It's been that way since before GWB. Look at the way that Bork or Thomas were treated, or Reagan, or Thatcher.

I'm rooting and hoping for... (Below threshold)
corwin:

I'm rooting and hoping for Obama.Just because left wing idiots are idiots doesn't mean I am.And they have the excuse of being stupid.I don't

Adrian ref Obama"D... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Adrian ref Obama

"Do you think it was just a lucky guess on the part of Conservatives or did they know something that Liberals did not?"

That double edge swords works both ways. And that is the point of DJ's column but maybe some liberals are too blind to see it.

Its very selfish of me, but... (Below threshold)
epador:

Its very selfish of me, but I hope that Mr. Obama does a great job as President.

There is no point is trying to identify "who poisoned the well." Its tasted horrible for years, in my memory since Eisenhower left office.

Out of the schoolyard, everyone!

"Rather the opposite, Adria... (Below threshold)
Pretzel Logic:

"Rather the opposite, Adrian. Conservatives understood things in 2001 that are still beyond liberals in 2009. "

BooooYaaaaaaaaaa

How many trees were chopped... (Below threshold)
SPURWING PLOVER:

How many trees were chopped down to make their stupid signs these liberal jerks are waving in the air?

Perhaps one day you too wil... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

Perhaps one day you too will be able to taste of the Fruit of Total Vindication but for now you can take my word that it is sweet and very satisfying.

Mr. Obama will be my Presid... (Below threshold)
Greg:

Mr. Obama will be my President when he takes the oath of office shortly. At that time I will try to be respectful and will wait to see what he can accomplish as my President. It is better for us all. Mr. Bush hasn't been the best President and I regret that. He tried hard, but wasn't really a great politician. BUT, why can't the fools on the left see how much they damaged the USA since Mr. Bush was elected. Fools, just fools. And they prove it with most of their comments, every day. We will try hard to be better than them. Why couldn't they see; it's better for all of us?

I would not mind showing a ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

I would not mind showing a little support for the ordained one, but the lefties today actually argue that they gave GW a fair shake at the beginning of his term. That is not a lie, it pasts that. It is fantasy. If the left cannot even be honest with themselves, well, all bets are off. Obama will be one of the worst presidents in the history of this country. He will also be a one termer is not sooner with the Blago mess. ww

To try a defend th... (Below threshold)
dr lava:

To try a defend this malignancy on our country, is about like defending Bin Laden. To give him a pass when his ignorance, arrogance, incompetence and evil has left this country in the worst shape since the thirties is to display such a level of blindness and incomprehension that it can only be the result of some level of dementia.


Dr LavaWe are tryi... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Dr Lava

We are trying to have a discussion about Obama here not Clinton. Stay on topic.

Now presenting - dr lava as... (Below threshold)
apb:

Now presenting - dr lava as "Exhibit A"

To try a defend this mal... (Below threshold)

To try a defend this malignancy on our country, is about like defending Bin Laden.

Is English your 4th or 5th language?

i despise bu$h. i cannot im... (Below threshold)
peabody3000:

i despise bu$h. i cannot imagine a worse candidate could have snaked his way through the american electoral process

but i voted for him in 2000. i can admit i was wrong wrong wrong to ever have supported him

"Since the thirties" indeed... (Below threshold)

"Since the thirties" indeed. dr lava was apparently not born yet in the seventies. He has no practical knowledge of the oft used term in those days:

"Misery Index"

Ah to be young and ignorant again...but then, at least I had the common sense to keep my mouth shut if I didn't know what I was talking about.

Gave President Bush a fair ... (Below threshold)

Gave President Bush a fair shake??!! Are these people as drunk as the masses in England on New Years?! They tried to STEAL the 2000 election and when they could not, they began a relentless assault against President Bush.

more like bu$h began a rele... (Below threshold)
peabody3000:

more like bu$h began a relentless assault on american democracy. im actually suprised at how well it has survived the battering bu$h gave it

"Thousands of liberals prot... (Below threshold)
Herman:

"Thousands of liberals protested Bush's inauguration" -- D.J. Drummond

I was one of them.

Traveling with a group of other upset people from Pittsburgh to DC, I found myself with my sign not far from the bustling, intriguing Dupont Circle, there being so many protestors that we had to spread ourselves out, away from the White House. On a bitterly cold winter day, we marched up and down the streets protesting.

Just what were we protesting? --> The Theft of the Presidency.

For one thing was clear to everyone that day, that a majority of American voters throughout the country had preferred Gore to Bush, the liberal votes of Gore and Nader exceeding the votes for Bush by 2 to 3 million, Al Gore's votes exceeding Bush's by half a million. In addition we knew that even more Floridian voters had preferred Gore to Bush, but that a small portion of Gore voters had got hung up by the "butterfly ballot" and had mistakenly voted for Pat Buchanan instead of Gore.

Being WICKED TO THE CORE, the Republicans of course didn't give a damn about this, taking advantage of other people's mistakes being the "Jesus thing to do," right, conservatives?? Being WICKED TO THE CORE, the Republicans didn't care about who got the most votes; heck, if a system existed that unfairly weighed their votes more heavily than the votes of liberals, they rejoiced that they could exploit it! Being WICKED TO THE CORE, the Republicans didn't care that the only reason that Bush was being anointed president was that he and the Republican majority on the Supreme Court had WICKEDLY SUCCEEDED IN SHUTTING DOWN DEMOCRACY IN ACTION, the counting of votes (in Florida). Later everyone would learn from the NORC study that had all recoverable undervotes AND OVERVOTES been counted, Al Gore would have won Florida (not that Florida should have even mattered given that he got the most votes nation-wide).

We protestors wanted to spare both our country and the rest of the world from the stupidity of the Bush Administration. We wanted as president the future Nobel Laureate, instead the world had to endure 8 tragic years of The Moron King. We did what we could, but it wasn't good enough. To the residents of the rest of the world and also to future generations, I am truly sorry.

Herman"For one thi... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Herman

"For one thing was clear to everyone that day, that a majority of American voters throughout the country had preferred Gore to Bush, the liberal votes of Gore and Nader exceeding the votes for Bush by 2 to 3 million, Al Gore's votes exceeding Bush's by half a million."

It is called the electoral college and part of the constitution. Sorry you dont like the constitution but umm DEAL WITH IT. I am sure that if your candidate had won like that you would have zero complaints.


" In addition we knew that even more Floridian voters had preferred Gore to Bush, but that a small portion of Gore voters had got hung up by the "butterfly ballot" and had mistakenly voted for Pat Buchanan instead "

And you know this how? Did you inspect each of the ballots? If Gore had won and enough voters came forward and said "I voted for Gore by accident I meant to vote for Bush " Your response would have been what?

" Later everyone would learn from the NORC study that had all recoverable undervotes AND OVERVOTES been counted, Al Gore would have won Florida (not that Florida should have even mattered given that he got the most votes nation-wide)."

So why bring it up in the first place?


You are a whining, crying idiot and a sore loser to boot. Get over it.


"We wanted as president the future Nobel Laureate,"

A nobel luareate of what? A hoax. In the computer world there is a saying. A "fixed "(meaning rigged up for show) is just as good as working model. The global warming proclaimed by a Goreacle is a joke and he disgraces the Nobel prize he won.

Stop drinking the Kool Aid. I mean I know you arent legal enough to drink alcohol because I dont know of an adult that is that whiney.
------------------------
Adrian

"Perhaps one day you too will be able to taste of the Fruit of Total Vindication but for now you can take my word that it is sweet and very satisfying."

We tasted it twice. In 2000 and 2004. I expect to taste it again in 2012 as well.

HermanBTW... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Herman

BTW

"To the residents of the rest of the world and also to future generations, I am truly sorry.
"

Yes you truly are. A truly sorry individual.
I might add that proclaiming it to the world is truly admirable.

Wow, so much insanity.... (Below threshold)
SpideyTerry:

Wow, so much insanity.

1) Bush didn't steal the 2000 election. He won it fair and square. It's not Bush's fault that Gore voters in Florida were too dumb to master the most simplisitic ballots in history of humanity. Given their inability to do so, those Gore voters demonstrated why they shouldn't be allowed to take part in the electoral process in any way. Also, if Gore did deserve Florida in 2000 and was so certain of that, why did he only want recounts in heavily Democratic counties - not the whole state? And, also, Gore was the one that took the matter to the Supreme Court - not Bush. Given that, Gore knew what many Democrats refuse to acknowledge to this day - Bush beat him. (Also, throw in the fact that Gore couldn't even win his home state. What's that say about him? Nothing good.)

2) On the matter of disrespect to Bush, let's not forget all that 9/11 truther crap. Now, tell me, which side do those nutjobs who claim 9/11 was inside job typically fall on? Oh, yeah - the far left liberal side. Why? Because of their intense hatred of Bush.

3) Hmm, Bush tried to wreck democracy? Um, how did he do that again? Oh, wait, I forgot - the people that typically say that kinda crap have no idea. They're just talking out of their asses. These are the kinda of idiots that compare Bush to Hitler - thus demonstrating they have no historical knowledge or knowledge period. Fun fact - in real dictatorships, when you speak out in any way against the one in power, you tend to get beat up, imprisoned or killed. Has that happened in America under Bush? Uh, no, as evidenced by the mass protests against him over the years. (Oh, here's another fun fact - the people that scream about freedom of speech when complaining about Bush, tend to get rather annoyed with people that disagree with them. Funny how that works out, huh?)

The treatment liberals by and large have given Bush is disgusting. History will reflect very well on him, given the beating he gave AQ and the likely chance Iraq will be a stable democracy.

As for Obama, I say give him respect. I didn't vote for him, but I'll give him the proper respect - especially if he does something I agree with. If he screws up, then I'll criticize him - though I hope I won't go to the deranged depths of the mentally unhinged Bush haters on the far left. Of course, I have no doubt Obama's more rabid supporters will scream bloody murder if Obama is criticized in any way - even if it is simple, constructive criticism.

Mr. Obama is even less qual... (Below threshold)

Mr. Obama is even less qualified for any responsible position than was Mr. Carter back in the 70s. The result of Mr. Obama's presidency will likely be even graver damage to the US economy and self respect than what occurred under Mr. Carter's administration. A national malaise with double digit unemployment, inflation rates, and interest rates on basic loans.

Another term under Mr. Carter and the US would have collapsed before the USSR. Mr. Obama no doubt intends to complete the work that Mr. Carter began all those decades ago.

The actions and words from ... (Below threshold)
tyree:

The actions and words from many on the left expose the rank hatred that has consumed their souls. One radio personality moved from the "liberal" column to the "conservative" column when a good friend revealed that he had a bottle of champagne ready for the day Ronald Reagan died. Michael Moore called the terrorists "minute men" and said they were the real heroes. Face the facts, leftys, your "big tent" covers a lot of very nasty people.

Dont all the Florida 2000 f... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Dont all the Florida 2000 folks think it is about time to grow the hell up? Do you still sulk over Little Johnny causing you to drop your ice cream in 2nd grade? Or when the girl you had a crush on rejected you for someone that looked better? You dont see the hatred, vitriol, or whining from conservatives now that Obama won than you still see on this and other sites about Florida 2000.

IT IS OVER. GROW UP AND MOVE ON. Geesh, try being an adult instead of blaming all your life's troubles on the mean SCOTUS who you feel stole the 2000 election. Is your motto "
RECOUNT TILL WE WIN" ? Apparantly so when you look at Minnesota.

GROW UP.

neoconservatism is indeed a... (Below threshold)
peabody3000:

neoconservatism is indeed a disease

oh well, america has taken out the garbage. neocons are done

re comment #11: "BUT, why c... (Below threshold)
wolfwalker:

re comment #11: "BUT, why can't the fools on the left see how much they damaged the USA since Mr. Bush was elected. "

They do see it. It was their intention all along. Remember, the hard left hate the United States, its Constitution, and its status as the greatest nation on earth. They want to destroy all of that and re-create the USA as the Union of American Socialist Republics. The public dismemberment of the Bush Presidency was an essential part of that plan, as is the ongoing demonization and methodical outlawing of all opposition.

I'm still amazed that there were no serious assassination plots against Bush during his term in office. I guess that leftists are either too stupid to do such a thing, or too cowardly.

The result of Mr. O... (Below threshold)
StevenRobb:

The result of Mr. Obama's presidency will likely be even graver damage to the US economy and self respect than what occurred under Mr. Carter's administration.

Were you asleep during the past 8 years? Bush has managed to outdo Carter in every conceivable way - or did you just not want to mention our current President since it would deconstruct your poor argument?

If we were WICKED TO... (Below threshold)

If we were WICKED TO THE CORE, you'd be dead.

News Flash! The Electoral College was set in place by the Founding Fathers and there are damn good reasons for it.

It is NOT a "system that unfairly weighed their votes more heavily than the votes of liberals and your wild assertions change the truth not a whit.

The main difference between... (Below threshold)
sanssoucy:

The main difference between conservatives and moonbats is that conservatives aren't willing to see the entire country collapse into a shitpile of fail just to see Obama perish in the political wreckage.

Leftists, in sharp contrast, welcomed any national disaster so long as it reflected badly on Bush. Keerist, these asshats were squirting off in their pants every time they had a shiny new casualty in Iraq or New Orleans to crow about.

If the country does well under Obama, then I'm perfectly happy to see him succeed. It's gonna be sweeeeeeeet enough to watch the left cross-eyed with fury at the thought that Bush retires undefeated in 20 days.

I didnt vote for Obama b... (Below threshold)
MF:

I didnt vote for Obama but I certainly nobody does anything to him or his family. It is sad for our country when a nut does that.
Then we get Biden or even worse Pelosi.
You'll wish for the Bush days.

[ comment removed due to at... (Below threshold)
idiot fake:

[ comment removed due to attempted identity theft ]

Ever hear of IP addresses? We can find out who's real and who's a fake.

"Were you asleep during the... (Below threshold)
retired military:

"Were you asleep during the past 8 years? Bush has managed to outdo Carter in every conceivable way - or did you just not want to mention our current President since it would deconstruct your poor argument?

"

Inflation under Carter - about 10%
Under Bush - topped out at about 6%

Interest rates under carter - about 14-17%
Interest rates under Bush - about 5%

Under Carter we had gas rationing, a failed military effort, 400+ Hostages taken and kept for more than a year, an embassey overran and destroyed and the US military both in ruins and disgraced due to inability to do the job ( I know I was there).

Under Bush - Fought 2 wars, Freed 60 million people , Lost less servicemen in 6 years than we did in some weeks in WW2.

Bush wrecked a mountainbike and stumbled with words occasionally.
Carter puked in the Japanese ambassador's lap.

Under Carter we got into a recession.

Bush inherited a recession and climbed out of it and had a good economy until greed fueled by liberals (Can we say Dodd and Frank) assisted in the housing collaspe.

Under Carter we had several terrorist attacks. Under Bush we had one.

Shall we go on? The question is were you asleep during Carter or were you just too young, high, or both to pay attention.

re comment #34: you know, p... (Below threshold)
wolfwalker:

re comment #34: you know, purposely stealing another commenter's name in order to try to make him look bad is puerile, juvenile, and generally stupid. IOW, typical liberal behavior.

Well, there were plenty of ... (Below threshold)

Well, there were plenty of Liberals like me that that supported George Bush around 9/11 and wanted him to be tough with the devils that attacked our country. But as this issue wore off, new issues less appealing attributed to the Bush Administration really well-worn off both his welcome and support.

I certainly wish for any president to be successful, but like his father, the younger Bush was largely a failure and neither will make much of a mark in the history books. Too bad. It was a wasted effort, based largely on some shallow premise by his supporters that since his dad was president, then maybe he should be president as well. But what was missing from this premise was that the older Bush had a far better resume, yet was a big failure as a president, losing much of his support between the 1988 and 1992 elections. With the younger Bush there was never as much potential there. Ever.

Certainly our nation has had great orators such as Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy or Reagan. But Mr. comes up well short there as well.

To put it all very simply, the 2000 Gore vs. Bush election, and the 2004 Kerry vs. Bush election were both like an election on Gilligan's Island where Gilligan beat the Professor twice, yet some still wonder what went wrong? It's not rocket science here.

But Mr. Bush was an entertaining president, and inadvertently one of the funniest ever. And I'll certainly miss that. God bless him for all the laughs he gave us. I didn't think that all the pants down comedy of Bill Clinton could ever be topped. But darn if it wasn't. Mel Brooks couldn't have written a funnier presidential comedy in my view.

Carter puked in the Japa... (Below threshold)

Carter puked in the Japanese ambassador's lap.

Uhmmm... that was W's father, not Carter.

Still puke, still a lap. O... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Still puke, still a lap. Oh, the embarassment.

"Well, there were plenty of... (Below threshold)
Paul:

"Well, there were plenty of Liberals like me that that supported George Bush around 9/11 and wanted him to be tough with the devils that attacked our country. But as this issue wore off,"

That's the difference between you liberals and the rest of us. 9-11 will never just "wear off". But you did stumble into the truth: for liberals the war on terror was never a solemn commitment of blood and treasure, it was a season's fashion.

"Under Carter we had severa... (Below threshold)
daniel rotter:

"Under Carter we had several terrorist attacks. Under Bush we had..."

several terrorist attacks (the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon, the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center and the anthrax attacks). By the way, 9/11 claimed more fatalities than the "several terrorist attacks" that occurred under Carter.


danielThe 911 atta... (Below threshold)
retired military:

daniel

The 911 attacks count as one. THey were plotted as one, carried out as one.

If you want I can count each death at the marine corps barracks as one attack and say we had 200+ there.

And again. The attack was bigger yes. Shall we mention that it had been planned for years while Clinton was President? Yeah I didnt think you wanted to mention that. Shall we mention that Bin Laden was behind it and he was offered up to Clinton 3 times ? Yeah I didnt think you wanted to mention that.

The anthrax mailer was someone within the US. Not an Islamic terrorist.

BahScratch the beiru... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Bah
Scratch the beirut bombing. Wrong President.

How about I count each one of the 400+ hostages taken at the embassey as a seperate terrorist incident? They were all taken at one time but since you fail to recognize that the attacks on 911 was 1 incident than hey why not.

RM:Carter was hardly... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

RM:
Carter was hardly a great President, I'll grant you that. Not until Bush 2 was he outdone. But you got a few facts wrong there on #35.
The only "failed military effort" I recall in the Carter years was the attempt to rescue the Embassy hostages. Are you suggesting that commando-style efforts like that never failed before or since?
It was 40+ hostages, not 400+.
The Teheran Embassy was overrun, but not destroyed.
It was Bush Sr. who puked in the Japanese ambassador's lap, not Carter.
Bush lost 4100 US soldiers in Iraq. Carter lost 8, in Iran. If you're comparing Bush to Carter, why bring up WW2?
Carter didn't exactly inherit the healthiest economy, either. (I know, I was there, in the job market!) Remember Ford wearing "Whip Inflation Now" buttons as the economy slid into a recession? Inflation was already at about 7-8% when Carter took the oath. the word "stagflation" was coined in the Ford Administration.
Bush remains only the second President in history to hold office when foreign terrorists struck US soil. (Clinton was the first. The WTC was attacked in 1993 three weeks after he was sworn in. But according to WingnutLogic, that was Bush1's fault.) Please tell us about the "several" terrorist attacks during the Carter Administration. You know, the ones on US soil.
Dude, I respect your service, and you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

I would love for all Bush p... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

I would love for all Bush partisans to agree in advance to this sentence:
If al-Qaeda is planning an attack right now, and strikes the US in, say, September, that will be Bush's fault.
Well?

BruceI must be get... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Bruce

I must be getting old. I got the number of hostages and the number of days held mixed up. My fault on that one. The number of days stuck in my head.

Do we still have a Tehran embassey? Overrun, destroyed is about the same. Is the building still standing? Yes. Is it what it was? Umm no.

"The only "failed military effort" I recall in the Carter years was the attempt to rescue the Embassy hostages. Are you suggesting that commando-style efforts like that never failed before or since?"

"Bush lost 4100 US soldiers in Iraq"

So are you saying that during a 6 year conflict it isnt normal to lose 4100 men? Remember that Bush was bashed over the head repeatedly with casualty figures from just about everyone on the left. In WW2 how many men did we lose? (it was shorter than Iraq). In WW1? Korea? Civil war? Vietnam.

For it's length it is remarkable we only lost 4100 men.

I brought up WW2 for scale as in length. Nothing happened during the Carter years that was even close. If we had fought Iraq under Carter than I believe the casualties would have been much higher.

"Carter didn't exactly inherit the healthiest economy, either"

True but he made it much worse in the 4 years he was there. Bush inherited a recession, overcame it and had a good run for about 6 years before things went south.

Actually Stagflation was coined about 1965 I believe. To be honest I dont remember Ford administration that much (Hey I was 13 or so when he left office. I do remember Carter era very well as that was my enlistment in the military. I also remember Carter promisiing the military a 17% raise in 2 increments. 3% and 14%. Still waiting on that 14%.

Just because the terrorist attacks were not on US soil it doesnt mean that there werent attacks against the US. IE the Embassey takeover.

As for the ruined lap of the Japanese Ambassador/ruler (I forget) I stated above I made a mistake. I compounded that error with then naming Beirut but realized as soon as I hit submit that the barracks bombing was under Reagan (and yes I consider that a terrorist attack too even if it wasnt US Soil).

I do try to be accurate. Sometimes I dont bother to look up confirm the details which I am talking about especially when it happened about 30 years ago. In addition, I was raised a democrat (my mother voted for Clinton, and Obama). I didnt start paying attention to politics till Reagan and have been a republican ever since.

"you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. "

Agreed. I wish more on the left would put into practise this statement.



Bruce Henry- Using the left... (Below threshold)
tyree:

Bruce Henry- Using the lefts standard that attack would be President Obama's fault. Using our standard, it would be al-Queda's fault.

BruceWhen I said t... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Bruce

When I said that 911 was planned under Clinton did I was that it was Clinton's fault? Nope. I merely stated one of those facts. I also stated that daniel probably would not want to talk about it.

As you mentioned. Sometimes things start in one presidency and bleeds over to the other. 911 is one example. I have no doubt that had Clinton been in office it would have happened the same day, the same way all other things being equal.

As far as when America is hit again (and it will be ) and my blaming Obama. My feelings are this and you can hold me to it.

The fault of the attack will lay in whoever attacked us. That being said if Obama does something stupid ie removing security at airports (generic example) and the attack came as a result of that action than Obama could bear some of the responsibility for not preventing it.

The real measure for Obama will be how he deals with it. A surprise attack is just that, a surprise.

Will he do very little, ala the attacks we suffered under Clinton or will he do a lot, actions taken after 911? As we can see from Israel/ Hamas. If you get attacked and do nothing than it only encourages more attacks. After all why should someone talk to you when they are giving you a bloody nose every day and you keep sayin "I dont want to fight".

Good thing neither you nor ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Good thing neither you nor I are professional writers, huh? I did the same thing I played "gotcha" with you about, RM. I've had Limbaugh listeners tell me for 8 years that "9/11 was Clinton's fault," and "Clinton did nothing." And I conflated those guys with you. My apologies.
Also, sorry about the nitpicking, but I'm a stickler for details.
Speaking of nitpicking, I've read somewhere that we mostly have advances in medical technology to thank for the relatively low number of deaths in Iraq. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the ratio of wounded to killed 4:1 in Vietnam, and 16:1 in Iraq? If the ratio was the same, I believe that would be about 16,500 dead Americans instead of 4100. Would that still be OK with you?

BruceTo be honest ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Bruce

To be honest no death of an American serviceman (or woman lets be PC shall we ) is okay with me. I, as do most soldiers, accept it as something that will happen, along with the sun rising in the morning and setting at night.

I have heard and do believe that we have had a lot fewer casualties due to medical advances than we would have had without. But then that is true of any war. Look at the civil war. Most of the badly wounded men were shot (and quite a few by their own side).

You mentioned 4100 casualties but if you happen to look at the number died you will see that several hunderd are not as a result of direct combat. I am not talking about dying from wounds after a battle, but am talking about things like accidents, and in some cases just not paying attention and doing what you should. An example would be someone who is sleeping where they shouldnt and gets run over by a vehicle, or is clowning around and gets killed as a result. It happens. Whenever you put men and large machines together than accidents happen.

I did a quick google (and am using abbreviated numbers).


http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html

Vietnam US casualties
killed - 47k+
wounded - 304k+

http://icasualties.org/oif/
IRaq US casulties (using more precise numbers)
killed - 4221
wounded - 34618

So it appears by rough guess that both are around 7-8 to 1.


And of course it is hard to really compare vietnam vs Iraq. Different type of war. The same way it is hard to compare WW2 to Iraq. Again different type of war.

The thing is SO MUCH has been made of the number of casualties and in my mind it is really ridiculous. You cant have a "clean war" or a "nice war" or a "sterile war". It reminds me of the star trek episode where the "casualties" would report to the war centers to get euthanized after simulated attacks.

Yes it is a tragedy to lose american lives and I will be the first to say it and I dont want to lose one of them. I have several soldiers whom I trained that are in Iraq today. At work, I deal every day with soldiers who have been to Iraq/Afghan and who are going back. The vast majority reenlist knowing that they will be going back 2 or 3 more times. At the same time that is the main reason why soldiers dont like war. They have to fight them and they die in them. But they also realize what they are fighting for and the costs of not fighting. They know that the cost of not fighting can be much greater than the cost of fighting. The same can be said IMO of Israel today.

Was 911 Clinton's fault? You can argue he didnt take Bin Laden when he was offered. You can argue that they treated terrorism as police actions and not as part of a war. Folks can argue a lot. The end result is hindsight is 20 20. If Clinton had known that 911 was going to happen I sincerely believe he may taken Bin Laden when offered (or he could have taken other actions as appropriate). Yet on the left you have people that say that Bush not only welcomed 911 but had controlled explosions bring the buildings down.

I argue with friends that is really hard to ding Presidents on close calls because they see so much that is classified that we DONT see. In addition, Congress (on both sides) will see classified information and go out and lie about events knowing that they are telling lies and knowing the other side wont or cant correct them due to the classified nature of the proof that they are wrong. Yes politics play are large part in it and "I am gonna tweak the dems/ repubs with this or that" , along with election considerations. Kinda hard to get elected/reelected if you ticked off your base totally (McCain). And us normal folks will cherry pick things that we see and hold it up as gospel.

Even the classified data the President sees is filtered through so many layers and gatekeepers, many with their own agendas, prejudices and views.

So when we get attacked again, and we will. I will more than likely give Obama a pass on it based on just those things above.

"The 911 attacks count as o... (Below threshold)
daniel rotter:

"The 911 attacks count as one."

Then why use the plural ("attacks") instead of the singular ("attack")?

"The anthrax mailer was someone within the U.S. Not an Islamic terrorist."

So a terrorist attack is not a terrorist attack if the attack was not carried out by an Islamic terrorist? Timothy McVeigh (non-Muslim) wasn't a terrorist?

I'll respect their presiden... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

I'll respect their president like they respected mine.

Today, it's the steel industry and the governors from five welfare states lining up at the trough. Add that to Obama's great road building and public buildings program. On top of the Bank rescue program. On top of the auto industry bailouts. On top of the Dem's attempted multi-billion dollar giveaway to ACORN.

How much is the total now, anyway? At what point do the Democrats start blaming Bush for hyperinflation?

How long before the Dems pass their first tax increase? How much more of my retirement money is going to disappear before all my prayers are answered by Washington and uncontrollable happiness spreads over the planet like the plague?

God help us. The Messiah's not even sworn in yet. Buckle in folks. It's gonna be a bumpy ride.

Oh, yeah. I'm supposed to be polite about all this.

As much fun as bashing &Osl... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

As much fun as bashing Øbama can be, I'm going to withhold judgement until he's had a fair chance at bat. I know, I know, liberals never gave Bush the same benefit of the doubt, and many of them will be spinning in their graves when future historians look back and declare Bush one of the great Presidents. For the good of the nation I'll refrain from the toxic verbiage against Øbama that has become the hallmark of liberal comments about Bush. Well, at least until Øbama succumbs to the progressive brain disease and starts pushing leftist ideas. Until then I'm keeping my powder dry.

Daniel"Then why us... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Daniel

"Then why use the plural ("attacks") instead of the singular ("attack")? "

Geez. That is like saying all the battles in WW2 were actually wars. Why do you call it one war. Because they were all part of the SAME CONFLICT. The same way the ATTACKS on 911 were all part of the SAME Terrorist ATTACK.

Since you are going to count domestic attacks then fine. Hey Chicago had several hundred attacks of domestic terrorism this past year. Their murder rate was higher than Iraq. Do you see me blaming McVeigh's act on Clinton? Really get a life guy.

"...liberals never gave Bus... (Below threshold)
daniel rotter:

"...liberals never gave Bush the same benefit of the doubt..."

Right, because rightists were really on the "benefit of the doubt" side of the fence when Clinton got into office.

I do not agree with the ... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

I do not agree with the deliberate disrespect against Obama, but the liberals are lying to pretend they ever gave President Bush a chance.

Sorry, DJ. Obama gets all the support from me that he gave to his President.

So when we get attacked ... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

So when we get attacked again, and we will. I will more than likely give Obama a pass on it based on just those things above.

That depends entirely on what he does with curent programs. If he dismantles any of them, he gets torn a new one.

DrJohnI believe I in... (Below threshold)
retired military:

DrJohn
I believe I included that if Obama dismantles things and that can be shown to have enabled the attack to occur than I reserve judgement on that. For instance if he removed airline screeners and an airline gets hijacked than Obama would share in the responsibility for it being able to happen. Using the standards of some liberals if that happened and Obama was republican than not only did he personally pick the hijack team, but the target, and the flight plan along with piloting the plane halfway there himself.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy