« Waiting for Superman | Main | Obama meets Jan Brewer »

President Bush On Water Boarding: "I'd Do It Again"

During a visit with the Economic Club of Grand Rapids, Michigan President Bush said this about the water boarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:

"Yeah, we water-boarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed," Bush said of the terrorist who master-minded the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. He said that event shaped his presidency and convinced him the nation was in a war against terror.

"I'd do it again to save lives."

KSM was the person who, according to President Barack Obama, captured the imagination of the world when he sawed off Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl's head with a knife and broadcast the grisly murder to the world. Listening to President Bush it's refreshing to hear a president speak directly and unequivocally about the murderous Islamists that want to kill Americans. Jennifer Rubin said this about Bush's comments and how they compare to our current president:

Emotional. Direct. Morally unambiguous. Deeply loyal to allies. A true friend of Israel. A clear-eyed understanding of the enemy we face. Yes, Obama is the un-Bush, and the U.S., the West, and Israel are the worse for it.

While I took issue with his failure to rein in spending and Republican Congressmen who spent money like Democrats, I sure miss the Bush/Cheney team now. Those fiscally irresponsible Republicans in Congress were just pikers compared to the Obama/Pelosi/ Reid crew we have in charge now. In the far more serious arena of national security and the war on terror the contrast is even greater. Ed Morrissey makes the point that if President Bush had made this comment just a year ago the elite media would have been in high dudgeon, demanding that the former president beg forgiveness for such honesty. They're strangely quiet today because not only has the nation experienced several terrorist attacks (some successful) but also because of the stark reality of the present Executive who is unprepared and unwilling to confront an enemy the Bush administration openly called out (to say nothing of this administration's utter disloyalty to Israel).

Yeah, I miss George Bush.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/39256.

Comments (50)

Emotional. Direct. Morally ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Emotional. Direct. Morally unambiguous. Deeply loyal to allies.

In other words, just the opposite of President Joe Cool. Who's getting pissed on now by former allies and foes alike.

Going to start calling him President Golder Shower.

HughS - LW will be by short... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

HughS - LW will be by shortly to defend his Obamassiah. Featured prominently will be the RACE CARD! Must be "today's special".

Can't speak for anyone else... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

Can't speak for anyone else, but I began missing the man late in the afternoon of 01/20/09.

"Emotional. Direct. Morally... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

"Emotional. Direct. Morally unambiguous."

Or, driven by emotion, not logic. Undiplomatic. Holier-than-thou.

"Deeply loyal to allies."

Tell it to France and Germany.

"A true friend of Israel."

A BLIND, BUMBLING friend of Israel, whose call for free elections in the Occupied Territories was bound to result in a victory for Hamas. What a rube.

"A clear-eyed understanding of the enemy we face."

Only he didn't know there was a difference between a Sunni and a Shia, telling Karzai, "I thought Iraqis were Muslims!" Yeah, he was VERY well informed.

"Yes, Obama is the un-Bush..."

Thank God.

Go ahead and miss Bush. I know people who still insist Nixon got a raw deal. They're as wrong as you are.

Double header Hugh.<p... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Double header Hugh.

bryanD AND Bruce Henry.

You sure know how to TROLL.

brucie-boy -What's... (Below threshold)
apb:

brucie-boy -

What's it like having your own personal Nixon - in the guise of Obama? Of course, Nixon was all about a cover-up for his incompetent staff; Duh Won's staff are covering for their incompetent boss...

At least George W Bush is a... (Below threshold)
Sky Captain:

At least George W Bush is an American patriot.

D'OH-bama is our first ANTI-American President.
Of course what do you expect from a Kenyan (according to his wife).

Wow! Brucy, you are surely ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Wow! Brucy, you are surely a hateful, spiteful human being. GW kept us safe for 7 years. Citizens started dying the first year Obama was in. Obama took his eye off the ball. Too busy trying to please rubes like you. ww

Can't speak for anyone e... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Can't speak for anyone else, but I began missing the man late in the afternoon of 01/20/09.

You can speak for me.

Waterboard Barry. We'll find out what he knew about Ayers, when he knew it, what his grades were, and most importantly, who's behind this Milli Vanilli knockoff.

Then let's Bruce Henry, just ... because.

Er...make that..."Then let'... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Er...make that..."Then let's waterboard Bruce Henry, just ... because."

Tell it to France and Ge... (Below threshold)

Tell it to France and Germany.

Yes. France. Truly a loyal ally.

Excellent post. A... (Below threshold)
Tsar Nicholas II:

Excellent post.

Among rational adults Bush 43 has to be considered not only a great U.S. president (despite his various foibles on some domestic policies) but also one of history's finest overall leaders.

One point about waterboarding: it's probably the best investigative technique ever invented. Al-Qaeda scum like KSM are very tough hombres, yet as soon as they were waterboarded they melted down like ice cream cones in the desert. It's not a coincidence that from 2002-2009 there was not a single successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

"Holier-than-thou."<p... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"Holier-than-thou."

Yep, that's Barry. Mr Arrogance.

Or, driven by e... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Or, driven by emotion, not logic.

Better than bent over the kitchen table and driven by Soros, as Buraq is.

"Deeply loyal to allies."

Tell it to France and Germany.

They're not allies.

Only he didn't know there was a difference between a Sunni and a Shia, telling Karzai, "I thought Iraqis were Muslims!" Yeah, he was VERY well informed.

No fair. Of course Obama knows all about Muslims; he was raised as an effing Muslim. ("Buraq" was the name of the mythical creature who supposedly bore Mohammed from Mecca to Jerusalem and back in one night. The etymology of "Hussein" you doubtless know already. Dear old Dad, the playa, was a Muslim, as was Soetoro. But Muslim men are well-known for their open-mindedness, so probably they were happy to let "Buraq" choose his religion when he grew up. Not.)

On the other hand, he's not so clear on how many states there are, or what language is spoken in Austria, and thinks that asthmatics use breathalyzers. The man's a genius.

PS: Waterboard bryanD also.... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

PS: Waterboard bryanD also. Just for the hell of it.

he 550-lb crypto-fag).</... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

he 550-lb crypto-fag).

Why do liberals always alternate between calling people "homophobic" and then saying they're "fags?"

Why can't they make up their minds - are they for or against homosexuality? Advocating queering off and then using accusations of such as an insult makes zero sense.

"I know people who still in... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

"I know people who still insist Nixon got a raw deal."

That's nice. But what's your point?

No one ever wondered where ... (Below threshold)

No one ever wondered where the Decider stood. Or the Gipper, for that matter.

http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
[For a light hearted take on our present peril]

brucie - "Go ahead an... (Below threshold)
Marc:

brucie - "Go ahead and miss Bush. I know people who still insist Nixon got a raw deal. They're as wrong as you are."

And I'd bet a dollar to your donuts that you think the U.N. is giving obummer a raw deal:

02 June, 2010 U.N. Investigator Condemns Drone Attacks, Fears "Playstation" Mentality

Philip Alston, a "U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions," believes that drone attacks should only be carried out if circumstances make it impossible to capture a suspect alive and, if drone strikes do need to be used, only regular U.S. Army personnel, armed with "proper oversight and respect for the rules of war," should control the craft, according to a Reuters report.
"Extrajudicial executions?"

Damn, obummer is becoming, umm... a Cowboy just like Bush.

bryanD,I'd ask you... (Below threshold)
Sky Captain:

bryanD,

I'd ask you for the English translation of your liberal stupidity, but you are not worth that much.

bryanD - "Eh, your pean... (Below threshold)
Marc:

bryanD - "Eh, your peanut brain can't comprehend that a failure of Warhawks to enlist in the armed services means that those Warhawks are automatically fags in the Messiah's view of things."

Unlike the current war hero in the WH... oppsy, he's a chicken hawk also isn't he.

Or were you referring to Clinton... oppsy that fails to fit your narrative also.

bryanD,I understand ... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

bryanD,
I understand your anger. The standard-bearer for the liberal/progressive agenda is a moron. It angers you that there is nothing about him which you can defend so calling the opposition childish names is the only defense you have. It's for the same reason you used to retreat to your room and yell at your Teddy bear, or GI Joe (or maybe Barbie) when as a kid your parents said no to you when you thought you had it all figured out or thought you were special. You just never grew out of this acting out phase. I think you should sit out commenting for the rest of the Obama administration. There is nothing about him for which you can present a coherent defense. Like Barry himself you draw attention away from his failues by blaming Bush or casting irrelevant aspersions on others.

Good old BryanDD214 talking... (Below threshold)
Ran:

Good old BryanDD214 talking trash about serving, while he sat on the beach, smoking dope.. waiting for his discharge papers. Devil Puppy

Bruce HenryYou mea... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Bruce Henry

You mean the same France and Germany that were working to lift the sanctions in Iraq so they could get oil leases?

You mean the same France and Germany that we spent Billions rebuilding after WW1 and WW2 and whom we have still taken a large part in their defense so they wouldnt have to.

Yep those are the France and Germany that you mean.

We just Lee Ward coming by with a racism comment to make this complete.

Well bryanD, that explains ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Well bryanD, that explains why you view pissing on your own feet as an 'accomplishment'.

Up your dosage, bryanD.... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Up your dosage, bryanD.

Guys, I apologize for risin... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Guys, I apologize for rising to the redolent bait offered by the troll.

Back on topic, in the fullness of time, Bush will be considered one of our greatest Presidents.

I don't say that as a partisan, but rather as a student of history. Bush took tough decisions that he considered in the interests of America, and he saw those tough decisions through.

Despite the vitriol poured on him by the Reds and the cognitively-challenged, he never became bitter, never lashed out, never bleated about how tough he had it (unlike Buraq, who is whining already that his first 18 months were the worst of any President since the Great Depression. Please.)

If Iraq continues to come right, as it has been doing since the surge, and ends up as the first free, prosperous and democratic state in the Middle East, Bush will have changed the course of history for that entire region of the globe - for the better. When citizens of neighboring autocratic regimes inevitably begin to wonder why they can't have the same, those regimes are finished, just like the collapse of the Iron Curtain. Lincoln's contribution - which had precisely zero effect on history outside the US - will pale in comparison. And btw, Lincoln was even more unpopular than Bush, and considered more of a moron, and by the same people: Democrats.

I think I begin to see a pattern...

Well, all Bush's accomplish... (Below threshold)
Jim Addison:

Well, all Bush's accomplishments in the region will be meaningless if Obama allows Iran to go nuclear, as he seemingly intends to do.

retired military ~ France and Germany weren't fighting to get the Iraq/Saddam sanctions lifted, they were illegally flouting them. They supported the sanctions because it gave their firms a monopoly on Iraqi business AND allowed them to pad their contracts due to the illegality of it (the national governments of France and Germany closely monitor all foreign trades of their domestic companies - not for security, but to make sure they don't miss a opportunity to tax and regulate something).

But Bruce Henry seems to believe we weren't good to our allies France and Germany if we didn't follow their surrender-monkey advice. As if paying for most of their national defense costs through NATO weren't enough, now the Left demands a full kow-tow (and Obama's just the obsequious groveler to give it to them) to France and Germany, too.

Circumstances compelled me ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Circumstances compelled me to comment and run. Sorry.

Note to Wizbangers: Whenever a commenter tells you what someone else "seems to believe," especially if said commenter is Gravitas Emeritus Extraordinaire Jim Addison, you can be sure that said someone else is being misrepresented. Loves him a strawman, does Mr Addison! Easier to refute, don'tcha know.

Bush stuck to his decisions, alright. Made 'em on gut instinct, then stuck with them. What a terrific quality for a leader of the free world! Like invading and occupying Iraq, so that, 5 years after we leave, another strongman will be in Saddam's place, Iraq will be Iran's most loyal ally, and a different President will be blamed. But, hey, Republicans will win a few elections, voted in by those easily fooled by flagwaving chickenhawks.

Or clinging to the clearly wrong belief that "elections=democracy". That worked out great in Gaza, didn't it? What a true friend of Israel!

But it's the decisions he FAILED to implement that should give Wizbangers pause about nominating Jr to the Hall of Fame. What would have happened to Social Security if we had been playing StockMarketLotto with it, as W wanted? You guys already took a 40% hit on your 401Ks - I suppose it would have been OK with you if your SS contributions had lost 40% of their value, too. And let's remember that if W (and John McCain) had had his way, millions of illegal aliens would be enjoying what you call "amnesty" right now.

But Mr Gravitas does have a point in that one President's hard work can be undone by his successor. Bill Clinton came within inches of a Middle East Peace settlement, only to see the issue neglected by the next administration. Now peace is further away than it's ever been. And Clinton contained North Korea, while it achieved both nuclear weapons and delivery capability under Bush. Thanks, Mr Squinty Cowboy dude!

Bruce -You warn ab... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Bruce -

You warn about strawmen, then set them up yourself. Project much, Mr. Henry?

Bush advocated voluntarily putting all of 1-2% of a person's social security contributions in the stock market. Now, I don't know about you but for me that would amount to well less than 5% of what I'm currently shoveling into my 401K. (And THAT took it hard in the 'nads, I gotta admit. Things are recovering, but it hurt.)

Now, one of the nice things about putting money in stocks on a constant dollar basis - when the stocks go down, your value goes down... but your money buys more shares.

And the stock market is cyclical. So in time, those shares WILL be worth more - if you buy decent stocks. (GM... iffy. GE? Less so. That's why mutual funds are so convenient - you spread the risk.)

As far as Social Security's stability goes - I'm glad it's there for my folks. I don't think it's going to be there for me. I'm quite sure it's not going to be there for the little guy, though he's going to be tapped for it once he starts working. Dems blocked the discussion of reform when it would have been less painful (based on the theory that the farther ahead you start on something that HAS to be changed in order to avoid a catastrophy down the line, the less difficulty you'll have in changing the conditions that are causing the problem) and now we're seeing the same unwillingness to actually deal with the problem. Yes, it's all fun and good to get up and make big speeches and have the press tell you just how smart and wonderful you are - but the real test is when something is implemented and the problem is dealt with. At that point, the solution meets the problem and something 'wins'.

So far, I don't see anything that resembles workable reform on the horizon. Perhaps you've got different info - but it's not looking good in my opinion.

Re ME Peace - yes, Clinton came within inches. But you're discounting Arafat's determination to reject the peace proposals. He was offered virtually everything he (supposedly) wanted for the Palestinians - then he rejected it and started the Second Intifada. And democracy in Gaza? One man, one vote - one time. The Palestinians have proven once again they're their own worst enemies.

Come on, Bruce - stop with the Winston Smith job. Let history stand as it IS - don't reinterpret it to fit your spin. (That is, after all, the job of a journalist. Why would you want to take their jobs away?)

Re ME peace, Mr Lawson:... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Re ME peace, Mr Lawson:

The myth that "Arafat was ofered virtually everything he wanted" in 2000 is just that - a myth.

The Palestinians were offered limited authority over a non-contiguous "state," criss-crossed with "by-pass roads" and dotted with "settlements." They were NOT offered control of their own airspace, borders, foreign policy, or judicial system. They were never offered real sovereignty. Yet Clinton ALMOST got them to accept this half-measure. Bush allowed the process to atrophy. And Ariel Sharon is as responsible for the Second Intifada as is Arafat, IMO. And, by extension, Sharon's "true friend," Bush.

Imagine a Middle Eastern country which has for years been armed by the West, governed by an aging war criminal known to have committed crimes against humanity over decades, which has seized territory and dispossessed its inhabitants, which has attacked civilians and destroyed their homes, which carries out torture and sends out assassination squads to murder its enemies both within its borders and without, which has ignored and defied UN resolutions for decades. What should the international community do? The alternatives are to strangle it with sanctions for 12 years, destroy its economy, then attack it on a pretext and expect its gratitude; or to reward it year after year with billions of dollars in aid to protect it from its own victims. What to do?

Depends on if you're talking about Israel or Iraq, I guess.

P.S. I paraphrased that paragraph from a book by Dan Cohn-Sherbok and Dawoud el-Alami.

Everything subject to inter... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Everything subject to interpretation, isn't it? If I were Israel, I'd sure as hell want the Palestinians to have airspace soverignty (which would imply their own air force) and their own army - wouldn't you? I mean, what could POSSIBLY go wrong?

There's points to be made on both sides - but as far as I can tell the Palestinian leadership all along has been destructive to any peace process - and world opinion hasn't helped. The Palestinians don't negotiate in good faith, and have little intention of following any treaty.

Israel is held to both the letter of and the intent of any 'peace' treaty, the Palestinians seem exempt from holding up their end of any bargain.

It is very difficult to have sympathy for them. In fact, my sympathy meter pegged to left for them back in the mid-90s, and I've seen nothing that modifies that. The people? Yeah, I've got some sympathy for the people - but they've consistently put into 'leadership' positions folks who see them as expendable munitions and cannon fodder, and see no gain for their personal glory (or fortunes) in even peaceful co-existance with Israel.

So my sympathy is extremely limited. I'm sure you understand.

Miss Me yet?... (Below threshold)
914:

Miss Me yet?

"President Bush On Water... (Below threshold)
914:

"President Bush On Water Boarding: "I'd Do It Again"


Can I help this time?

A smooth & slick talker who... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

A smooth & slick talker who promises the world initially trumps an inarticulate man despite the truth and facts. But the inarticulate man with the courage of his convictions and truth & facts to back them up eventually cuts down the smooth & slick talker with the weight of evidence.

But it's the decis... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
But it's the decisions he FAILED to implement that should give Wizbangers pause about nominating Jr to the Hall of Fame. What would have happened to Social Security if we had been playing StockMarketLotto with it, as W wanted? You guys already took a 40% hit on your 401Ks - I suppose it would have been OK with you if your SS contributions had lost 40% of their value, too.

Being you're scoring Bush on ideas he failed to get passed into law it's only fair to ask what would have happened if Bush has been successful in implementing controls on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as he proposed in his first budget? The answer is that there would have been no housing bubble or at least nothing of the magnitude we experienced.

Yes, stocks lost 40% overall, but you neglect to mention that most of that loss has been recovered for those who didn't panic and sell low. Also, not everyone lost money. I moved my investments into bonds prior to the downturn and made a nice return, then moved back into stocks and made more. Now I'm in cash waiting for one or more of the NK, Iran vs Israel, or Euro shoes to drop.

Politicians talk about SS as an entitlement rather than the worker funded retirement plan that it is and because of that it's subject to politics. You've already heard Obama talking about entitlement reform and SS is now paying out more than it's taking in, so it's no safe bet that it will be able to pay out promised benefits, particularly for folks younger than 55.

It's a little known fact that on the wages you earn over $744 a month you only get credit for 32 cents for every dollar you pay FICA tax on and the rate goes down to 15 cents for dollars you earn in excess of about $4,483. Any reform of SS should take it out of the "entitlement" category and put it in the "retirement plan" category where people get full credit for the funds they put in.

"But, hey, Republicans w... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

"But, hey, Republicans will win a few elections, voted in by those easily fooled by flagwaving chickenhawks."

Speaking of .... how's that hope-n-change workin out for ya? You weren't fooled were ya? You know, after the couple elections the Dems have won and how they squandered any trust the public put out for them. You know, the fresh-faced cool guy they put in the White House who's developed a huge bicep in his left arm from throwing people under the bus while simultaneously breaking promise after promise he made on the campaign trail; transparency, no lobbyists, healthcare negotiations on CSPAN, no higher taxes for anyone making under $250K or any taxes at all for seniors making under 50K, 5 days of comment before he signs a bill, reduce earmarks, close Gitmo, etc

So whatever, Bruce.

Back on topic, in the fu... (Below threshold)

Back on topic, in the fullness of time, Bush will be considered one of our greatest Presidents.

HA hahahahahaaaa!!!!!

OH, thank you for the morning laugh. I needed that.

I mean, I'm just going to g... (Below threshold)

I mean, I'm just going to go through a list off the top of my head.

- Presided over the single greatest security failure in US history - 9/11. Was repeatedly warned by nonpartisan experts who served in multiple administrations, yet didn't have one single meeting on terrorism until after 9/11. Effectively *demoted* the one expert on terrorism, Richard Clarke, because Clarke was being too much of a pain in demanding meetings.

- invaded a second nation unnecessarily, while we were in the middle of an occupation of the first nation that was protecting our attackers.

- completely bungled the occupation of Iraq, by among other things **not even reading** the report by Colin Powell on what would be needed after the invasion.

- outsourced the actual capture of Bin Laden, so he could focus troops on Iraq. Later said he wasn't that concerned that the killer of 3000 American citizens was running around freely.

- did not keep us safe after 9/11, either - remember the Anthrax attacks?

- turned Clinton's surplus into a huge deficit

- lied to his own party about the Medicare bill - and had one of his own staffers fired for telling the truth

- promised to fire anyone connected with the outing of Valerie Plame. Fired no one, of course.

- flew around the country doing photo ops while New Orleans drowned.

- refused to talk to North Korea, during which time Kim Jong Il responded by going from zero to at least 5 nukes.

- circumvented the nuclear non-proliferation treaty with India, watering down a universally-approved initiative of several-decades, and in return got a deal for freaking *mangoes*.

Any single one of those failures would be absolutely inexcusable to you, in a Democratic president. You know it and I know it.

So like I said earlier, thanks for the laugh. Let the excuses now commence...but I wonder if you're even fooling yourself.

Waterboarding has proven mo... (Below threshold)
olsoljer:

Waterboarding has proven more effective and quicker but hooking their testicles to a TA312-PT was a lot more entertaining.

"Back on topic, in the f... (Below threshold)
914:

"Back on topic, in the fullness of time, Bush will be considered one of our greatest Presidents.

HA hahahahahaaaa!!!!!

OH, thank you for the morning laugh. I needed that."


your welcome! Ha haahahahahahahahahahahahjahah


I say again: in the fullnes... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

I say again: in the fullness of time, Bush will be considered one of our greatest Presidents.

Mistakes aplenty, no doubt, but read the history of the Civil War and Lincoln's Presidency. Lincoln was subjected to vituperation right up to the day of his assassination - when Americans, North and South, suddenly realized what they'd lost.

Someday you will tell your grandkids that you supported Bush, and that although you had a few small policy disagreements, he was a great President.

Count on it. It will happen.

- Presided over th... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
- Presided over the single greatest security failure in US history - 9/11. Was repeatedly warned by nonpartisan experts who served in multiple administrations, yet didn't have one single meeting on terrorism until after 9/11. Effectively *demoted* the one expert on terrorism, Richard Clarke, because Clarke was being too much of a pain in demanding meetings.

You forget that under Clinton terrorism was a law enforcement problem and 9/11 was the result. By the Way, Obama seems bent on going back to the law enforcement model.

- invaded a second nation unnecessarily, while we were in the middle of an occupation of the first nation that was protecting our attackers.

Bush realized we could never focus on Afghanistan without first neutralizing Saddam. We now know that Saddam was close to bribing his way out from under UN sanctions and then he would have been free to spend billions of oil dollars on extracting his revenge upon the U.S. for his humiliating defeat by Bush Sr.

- completely bungled the occupation of Iraq, by among other things **not even reading** the report by Colin Powell on what would be needed after the invasion.

You forget that it was Turkey who prevented the needed manpower from arriving in a timely manner. Also, Saddam's army collapsed faster than any similar army in history. Colin Powell missed both those scenarios in his report, so reading it or not made little difference.

- outsourced the actual capture of Bin Laden, so he could focus troops on Iraq. Later said he wasn't that concerned that the killer of 3000 American citizens was running around freely.

It was by that same outsourcing that the Taliban were defeated with minimal loss of American lives. Bush wasn't concerned because Bin Laden hiding in a cave took him out of the loop and that means there was no need to risk lives in a PR stunt to capture him.

- did not keep us safe after 9/11, either - remember the Anthrax attacks?

The Anthrax attacks had nothing to do with Islamic terrorists. It was the crime of a single individual who felt his work, an Anthrax vaccine, wasn't getting the attention it deserved and so he went about creating the need.

- turned Clinton's surplus into a huge deficit

That's true, but eight years of Bush spending was surpassed by Obama in just 18 months.

- lied to his own party about the Medicare bill - and had one of his own staffers fired for telling the truth

Bush's lies pale in comparison to those of Clinton and Obama.

- promised to fire anyone connected with the outing of Valerie Plame. Fired no one, of course.

That's because the person responsible for outing her didn't work for the Bush administration.

- flew around the country doing photo ops while New Orleans drowned.

You mean like what Obama is doing about the BP spill?

- refused to talk to North Korea, during which time Kim Jong Il responded by going from zero to at least 5 nukes.

And we see how useful talking is by Obama's example with Iran. It gives people a false sense of something being done.

- circumvented the nuclear non-proliferation treaty with India, watering down a universally-approved initiative of several-decades, and in return got a deal for freaking *mangoes*.

Bush chose not to alienate India over their development of nuclear weapons.

Any single one of those failures would be absolutely inexcusable to you, in a Democratic president. You know it and I know it.

Only true for deficit spending and passing of more entitlements, but of course liberals see that as good.

Time and time again we have seen Obama follow Bush's lead. The longer Obama serves as president the more he realizes that Bush was right on the important issues. That's why we can say with confidence that history will rate Bush much higher than he is now.

I see BDS has no expiration... (Below threshold)
Hank:

I see BDS has no expiration date nor a cure.

Side note: Nice to see Mac Lorry back

Absolutely. We face a very ... (Below threshold)
Bigmo:

Absolutely. We face a very common enemy. Very common enemy

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/CofCchap7.pdf

Take care

It has been noted many time... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

It has been noted many times and accurately about Iraq, 9/11, financial collapse on 9/11, all the free nations swearing Iraq had WMD, no precedent on how to respond to a terrorist movement, etc., but Brucy and Jim X and the other historical challenged lefties continue to try and rewrite what actually happened. Sad really. That is why I said much earlier, Brucy is a hateful, spitefull guy as is Jim X. They are Party first people. Country second. ww

You forget that un... (Below threshold)
You forget that under Clinton terrorism was a law enforcement problem and 9/11 was the result.

No, sorry; not seeing how an event that happened 9 months into Bush's term - that he was warned repeatedly could happen and which he refused to hold a single meeting about - is Clinton's fault.

If Bush had paid enough attention to hold one single meeting on the subject, this excuse might hold one ounce of water. But, Bush didn't. You can make excuses for wrong actions; but you can't make excuses for NO actions.

Bush realized we could never focus on Afghanistan without first neutralizing Saddam.

The problem is, this "realization" was absolutely and utterly wrong.

Saddam was not supporting Al Qaeda in any way. Saddam was not supporting the Taliban in any way.

We now know that Saddam was close to bribing his way out from under UN sanctions and then he would have been free to spend billions of oil dollars on extracting his revenge upon the U.S. for his humiliating defeat by Bush Sr.

And this hypothetical possibility while Saddam continued to be under UN inspections, was worth wasting the efforts of our soldiers in Afghanistan how exactly? (Those UN inspectors who, by the way, continued to say Saddam had no WMD's and were proven 100% right?)

And how was that worth letting Osama Bin Laden get away?

You forget that it was Turkey who prevented the needed manpower from arriving in a timely manner.

Oh, Turkey prevented Bush from even **reading the report**? Which said that we would have, with the forces we went in with, mass unrest unless we trained a police force - because policing a country is entirely different from invading it?

That's true, but eight years of Bush spending was surpassed by Obama in just 18 months.

I can get in and argue that what's important is what you spend money on - that you can go into debt for stupid things (i.e. gambling at Vegas) or smart things (going to college). But that's even besides the point - the point is, Bush as zomg the greatest President evar. This, as you apparently agree, certainly disqualifies Bush from that category.

Bush's lies pale in comparison to those of Clinton and Obama.

Exactly which of Clinton or Obama's lies - which were proven factually untrue - led to billions of dollars in debt? Gimme some specific examples.

That's because the person responsible for outing her didn't work for the Bush administration.

Bush didn't say responsible - he said **involved**. Cheney and Rove were both involved; they both kept their jobs. So scratch that excuse. Next?

You mean like what Obama is doing about the BP spill?

Seeing as how Obama actually paid attention when the disaster hit, and had people on the ground without his staffers needing to **burn him a DVD** of what's going on, no, entirely NOT like that. See, Bush did nothing, where Obama is doing **something**.

Once again, like 9/11, if Bush did **something**, excuses for him could hold an ounce of water. Since he did **nothing** when he knew there was a disaster, those excuses hold none.

And we see how useful talking is by Obama's example with Iran. It gives people a false sense of something being done.

Not talking about Iran. Talking about North Korea. Ask the Asians how they feel about Bush not talking with North Korea. I guarantee you they prefer we had. Now, because Bush didn't want to deal with a tough issue, North Korea is giving the world a whole new level of problems.

Again - do something, there can be some little bit of an excuse. Do nothing, there's no excuse. Bush did nothing.

Bush chose not to alienate India over their development of nuclear weapons.

...and therefore watered down the non-proliferation treaty, and brought more nukes into the world. Thereby giving countries who ***aren't*** our allies more reason to get nukes. Smart consequences. But we got mangoes.

But what they? Cling to your dream that people will forget the facts. They still haven't about Hoover or Nixon, but a good whitewashing with Reagan was achieved, it's true.

all the free nations swe... (Below threshold)

all the free nations swearing Iraq had WMD

And WildWillie, this is absolutely factually untrue. If facts will change your mind, I will look this up and prove it to you. But tell me first: will facts change your mind?

No, sorr... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:


No, sorry; not seeing how an event that happened 9 months into Bush's term - that he was warned repeatedly could happen and which he refused to hold a single meeting about - is Clinton's fault.

The attack was planned and funded under Clinton because their "law enforcement" model was not able to disrupt such attacks. Besides that, no one who supports Obama should be asking how one administration can blame the prior administration for problems.

If Bush had paid enough attention to hold one single meeting on the subject, this excuse might hold one ounce of water. But, Bush didn't. You can make excuses for wrong actions; but you can't make excuses for NO actions.

Bush knew from his private experience that holding meetings is not the same as taking action. It's not like Bush didn't get briefings, but because of the Clinton "law enforcement" model there was little he could do to prevent an act of war.

The problem is, this "realization" was absolutely and utterly wrong.Saddam was not supporting Al Qaeda in any way. Saddam was not supporting the Taliban in any way.

Irrelevant. Saddam was dangerous on his own and about to escape from the UN sanctions.

And this hypothetical possibility while Saddam continued to be under UN inspections, was worth wasting the efforts of our soldiers in Afghanistan how exactly? (Those UN inspectors who, by the way, continued to say Saddam had no WMD's and were proven 100% right?

It's a fact that Saddam had bribed French and Russia officials and was well on his way to getting the UN sanctions removed. That means no UN inspectors and no restrictions on what Saddam used his oil money for. We know for a fact that Saddam was a vengeful sadistic murder who had been humiliated by Bush Sr. Had he been left in power he would have allied with Al Qaeda and the Taliban just as Iran has. Bush took the opportunity to remove Saddam and his sadistic sons from power.

Oh, Turkey prevented Bush from even **reading the report**? Which said that we would have, with the forces we went in with, mass unrest unless we trained a police force - because policing a country is entirely different from invading it?

The key was having enough manpower on the ground when Saddam's government failed. Reading a report that says you need lots of manpower is irrelevant because that report didn't foresee the possibility of Turkey preventing our troops, who were already staged in Turkey from invading Iraq. That report also didn't foresee how fast Saddam's government would collapse. That meant there was a severe manpower shortage in Iraq at a critical time. Reading the report wouldn't have changed that, so it's irrelevant.

Bush as zomg the greatest President evar. This, as you apparently agree, certainly disqualifies Bush from that category.

I'm not claiming Bush was the greatest President ever, only that History will rate him much higher than most people now think.

Exactly which of Clinton or Obama's lies - which were proven factually untrue - led to billions of dollars in debt? Gimme some specific examples.

Certainly there's no doubt about Clinton telling lies and I didn't tie them to billions of dollars. Besides that, Bush didn't lie about Iraq any more than Clinton and most of the top Democrats. Being wrong is not the same as telling a lie. As for Obama it's hard to know where to start. How about the stimulus bill which he said would keep unemployment below 8 percent? Also, we are seeing that the healthcare bill is already costing more than we were told and in a few years we likely find that it's far more costly than Obama said.

Bush didn't say responsible - he said **involved**. Cheney and Rove were both involved; they both kept their jobs. So scratch that excuse. Next?

Of course Cheney was elected, so Bush couldn't fire him. As for Rove, his flub was after the fact. You can't be involved in revealing a secret if that secret has already been leaked by another, who by the way was never prosecuted proving there was no crime committed.

Seeing as how Obama actually paid attention when the disaster hit, and had people on the ground without his staffers needing to **burn him a DVD** of what's going on, no, entirely NOT like that. See, Bush did nothing, where Obama is doing **something**.

Bush was following the law that left the state in charge until the governor asked for help, which she delayed doing. For two weeks Obama held up approval of the governor's request to construct sand barriers to stop the oil from reaching the wetlands.

Not talking about Iran. Talking about North Korea. Ask the Asians how they feel about Bush not talking with North Korea. I guarantee you they prefer we had. Now, because Bush didn't want to deal with a tough issue, North Korea is giving the world a whole new level of problems

Iran is an example of how useless talking is when the other party is not receptive to solutions. Clinton talked to NK and got nothing. The key to NK is China and Bush did get the six party talks going.

...and therefore watered down the non-proliferation treaty, and brought more nukes into the world. Thereby giving countries who ***aren't*** our allies more reason to get nukes. Smart consequences. But we got mangoes.

The treaty didn't change, so there was no watering it down. The idea that nations that have nukes can prevent other nations from acquiring 65 year-old technology is fundamentally flawed. The more the U.S. retreats from its world cop role the more other nations are going feel they need to join the nuclear club.

But what they? Cling to your dream that people will forget the facts. They still haven't about Hoover or Nixon, but a good whitewashing with Reagan was achieved, it's true.

The facts are what will prevail, not the partisan spin of 2005 to 2008. You only need to see what history did for Harry S. Truman even though he was wrong on many issues of his day including NK. The best indicator of Bush's long term reputation, however, is how Obama has followed Bush policy, even ones he campaigned against.

And WildWillie, this is ... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

And WildWillie, this is absolutely factually untrue.

Horseshit. It's absolutely true. Every Red Democrat in Congress thought so too.

How many links to YouTube proving that would you like? Round off to the nearest 100.




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:

tips@wizbangblog.com

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