« Jay Tea's Whine Of The Day | Main | Oklahoma civil rights pioneer Clara Luper dead at 88 »

Remember when Bush was called a warmongering cowboy?

Compared to Obama, I'd say the man was more like Gandhi:

The Obama administration has intensified the American covert war in Yemen, exploiting a growing power vacuum in the country to strike at militant suspects with armed drones and fighter jets, according to American officials.

The acceleration of the American campaign in recent weeks comes amid a violent conflict in Yemen that has left the government in Sana, a United States ally, struggling to cling to power. Yemeni troops that had been battling militants linked to Al Qaeda in the south have been pulled back to the capital, and American officials see the strikes as one of the few options to keep the militants from consolidating power.

On Friday, American jets killed Abu Ali al-Harithi, a midlevel Qaeda operative, and several other militant suspects in a strike in southern Yemen. According to witnesses, four civilians were also killed in the airstrike. Weeks earlier, drone aircraft fired missiles aimed at Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical American-born cleric who the United States government has tried to kill for more than a year. Mr. Awlaki survived.

The recent operations come after a nearly year-long pause in American airstrikes, which were halted amid concerns that poor intelligence had led to bungled missions and civilian deaths that were undercutting the goals of the secret campaign.

Coming our way via Matt Drudge who called this War No. 4.

Wonder what the Nobel Peace Prize committee is thinking these days?


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/41723.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Remember when Bush was called a warmongering cowboy?:

Comments (24)

More and more I'm convinced... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

More and more I'm convinced that the Dems/Libs were simply showing classic signs of projection when criticizing Bush.

They bitched about his handling of the war - yet don't have any problems at all about what they do when they're in charge.

They bitched about his foreign relations efforts - yet our current policy of pissing off allies (I guess they figure they'll always BE allies, so who gives a shit about 'em?) and sucking up to dictators and repressive regimes (until we decide to bomb the crap out of them) doesn't exactly seem to be winning the ol' 'hearts and minds' of those who hate us. Wow, who could have expected THAT?

They bitched about his handling of the economy - yet seems pretty much clueless, and won't even do a fucking BUDGET. (And don't get me started on taxes.) So... how are they 'better'?

They bitched about his handling of civil liberties - yet have no apparent hesitation about trying to set an internet 'kill switch', or expand TSA powers.

They bitched about his secrecy regarding any sort of medical reform - yet hand us a pile of crap that had to be passed before it could be read that looks to FUBAR what's left of the economy.

They bitched about his handling of energy policy, but their current 'efforts' are laughably ineffective in INCREASING the supply of energy.

Come to think on it, can anyone point to any actual, physical successes by the Dems in the last 3-4 years? REAL successes, where the intended results came about without any 'unforseen' side effects or complications? Obama's had a media that did everything it could for him, a Congress totally controlled by the Dems, and yet things just seem to keep spiraling down for him - and the left.

And now Obama's going into permanent campaign mode to try and grab a second term? Barring the question as to WHY we'd want another 4 years of this incompetent clown messing up in Washington, WHY is he absenting himself from...

Oh - wait a sec. If he's not there, he can't do much damage. Hey, Obama! How about getting out on the road 24/7/365 for the next year or so? And don't forget to hit every golf course you can, man - it's HARD to be the President, and we need... I mean YOU need the stress relief!

I'm starting to think we're going to be REALLY nostalgic for Ol' Jimmah in a year or so.

Jlawson"Come to th... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Jlawson

"Come to think on it, can anyone point to any actual, physical successes by the Dems in the last 3-4 years? REAL successes, where the intended results came about without any 'unforseen' side effects or complications?'


Everything about Obama is unforeseen. That is everything that Obama has done has been pretty much bad for the country and therefore is unforeseen by the libs. Conservatives have predicted the results of Obama's policies since before he was elected but even though we have preached the results for years the LSM still say "this is unexpected".


Why should we care what the... (Below threshold)

Why should we care what the Nobel Committee thinks?

Yes, Obama is being a hypocrite. But I'm not going to criticize him when he does what he's supposed to do (i.e., kill terrorists. In fact, I wish Bush had been this aggressive in utilizing missile attacks in Pakistan and Yemen).

Isn't it better that he be a hypocrite than remain dogmatically anti-war?

Well, Barry got the award f... (Below threshold)
Sep14:

Well, Barry got the award for nothing just like his affirmative degrees, so now he feels compelled to earn that Nobel.

He is going to bring peace if he has to kill everyone to do it!

Does anyone really care abo... (Below threshold)
moseby:

Does anyone really care about the nobel peace prize...or what the committee members think anymore? Their "gifting" of it to barry hussein proves to me that they're obviously a bunch of old puddin brained europeans racing to see who can fill their diapers the fastest.

Hell, at this rate Rambobam... (Below threshold)
Tsar Nicholas II:

Hell, at this rate Rambobama will win the Nobel Peace Prize every year he's in office.

We're still engaged in a wa... (Below threshold)
Art W:

We're still engaged in a war on terror, except for some odd reason now that we are actually hunting down and killing their leaders and meeting Al Qaeda head-on the right is getting skittish.

Obama is taking the fight to Al Qaeda, and he has the nation's support.

The acceleration of the American campaign in recent weeks comes amid a violent conflict in Yemen that has left the government in Sana, a United States ally, struggling to cling to power. Yemeni troops that had been battling militants linked to Al Qaeda in the south have been pulled back to the capital, and American officials see the strikes as one of the few options to keep the militants from consolidating power.

On Friday, American jets killed Abu Ali al-Harithi, a midlevel Qaeda operative, and several other militant suspects in a strike in southern Yemen.

Bush invaded Iraq and hunted down their leader, ignoring AQ.

There's a big difference between those two approaches. I applaud Obama's effort to hunt down and eliminate AQ. After 7 years of Bush ignoring AQ it's a welcomed change for the better.

Shorter Art W: Hey, he kill... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

Shorter Art W: Hey, he killed bin Laden. You guys do know that he killed bin Laden, right?

How was Bush ignoring Al qu... (Below threshold)
Sep14:

How was Bush ignoring Al quade by going into Crapganistan Art?

Have some more grape and chill.

Like the folks at American ... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

Like the folks at American Thinker, I'm far more worried about Obama's WOA (War on America.)

Art W, you're ignoring the ... (Below threshold)
recovered liberal democrat:

Art W, you're ignoring the facts. Typical for liberals described so well by J Lawson in #1.

Wow! Where is the left's ch... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Wow! Where is the left's chanting "Soverign Country, we shouldn't involve ourselves". Another hypocritical example of millions. ww

Don't be so hard on obama. ... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Don't be so hard on obama. He's just emulating those world leaders he admires most (Mao, Chavez, Castro, Assad)

Tin hat dictators have always sought foreign conflict to distract from domestic woes. As Far back as Napoleon this is true. obama knows that he can't get congressional approval for wiping his ass at this point (when Dick Durbin is blaming you for the economy you have totally lost it). Plus, his history of appointing czars, who don't go through the confirmation process, tells you that he doesn't have any interest in allowing Congress to have any input on his administration.

He wants to rule by fiat.

"Isn't it better that he be... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"Isn't it better that he be a hypocrite than remain dogmatically anti-war?"

Facepalm.

Steve... As was repeatedly pointed out (TO BUSH, YOU FLAMING MORON! Ah... ahem, sorry about that...) there are laws and rules and procedures that've been set in place to LIMIT the President's and Congress's ability to make war. You jump through all the hoops, let everyone have their say, get all the votes, let the Judiciary chime in, get the appropriate bills passed - and THEN you can go when you've got all the paperwork done.

But that's only for Republicans. With Dems it's "Does it make the President look macho and increase his poll numbers?" IF the answer is construed to be 'Yes' then screw the paperwork, let's get this party started!

War isn't some fun little game to be used to gather points for re-election. It's got serious consequences, and when we go to war the country has to be convined that (a) it's the right thing to do, and (b) all the laws have been followed, and (c) we have a CLEAR reason and goal we're going for, and (d) we're going in to WIN. Not go in half-assed as in Libya, sending out both contradictory info as why we're there or who we're supporting, and not going full out to try to win, never getting the paperwork done.

We're a nation of laws and rules. When we go to war, either both sides have to follow them to the letter, or they need to be scrapped. Your favorite political party doesn't get a pass just because they're your favorite - just like your favorite team (football, hockey, curling, cricket, or synchronized underwater croquet) has to follow the rules of the game or be penalized/lose the game.

It used to be the media was the referee in shit like this. Nowdays, they're way off center and partisan as hell, which makes it really hard to follow the laws and rules in place. After all, if the ref won't call fouls properly, how can you have an honest outcome?

"He wants to rule by fiat."... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"He wants to rule by fiat."

I had a Fiat in the '70s. I think we should weld him in one and let him try.

Woop, Woop! We're all tea ... (Below threshold)
epador:

Woop, Woop! We're all tea partiers dressed up like Indians. Everyone in the administration and their circled wagons looks like a cowboy now.

Yes its true. Barry rules b... (Below threshold)
Sep14:

Yes its true. Barry rules by fiat and decree.


Wonder what the Nobel Pe... (Below threshold)

Wonder what the Nobel Peace Prize committee is thinking these days?

Whether it would be in bad taste to give him another in 2012 so he can wear them campaigning as (cue the wrestling/boxing/drag racing announcer music) the 'two time Nobel Prize champeeeeen of the woooooorld!'

JLawson, I always read your... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

JLawson, I always read your comments and agree almost all the time. This comment here is absolutely on the mark. Thanks. ww

Obama is taking the fight t... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Obama is taking the fight to Al Qaeda, and he has the nation's support.

So are we then to understand that you support George Bush in taking the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Iraq? You never criticized him for doing so, never bleated about "Blood for Oil," never called him a "warmonger" or a "war criminal," nothing like that? Ever? I doubt it. I doubt it very very much.

Jay,The estimates ... (Below threshold)
Rodney Graves Author Profile Page:

Jay,

The estimates I see indicate that U. S. and allied forces in Iraq killed between 50,000 and 60,000 Jihadi. Iraq was the roach motel of international Jihad, and largely broke the strength of al Qaeda and affiliated groups.

The Afghanistan campaign eliminated Afghanistan as a safe haven for the Taliban and al Qaeda (which is why ObL was found and killed in Pakistan, our putative ally in the War on Terror).

Note further that President Bush sought and received Authorization from the Congress in a very public campaign before both actions.

In contrast, 0bama campaigned against the war in Iraq, championing Afghanistan as the "good" and "forgotten" war, yet is trying to wind down operations there before the enemy is defeated and without leaving a stable and self sufficient state in place.

In further contrast, the 0bama [mis]Administration has committed U. S. Forces to combat operations in Libya and Yemen without seeking, let alone securing, Congressional approval via an AUMF.

As a matter of policy (pursuing the War on Terror) I'm far more inclined to support military action in Yemen (which has become an al Qaeda holdout since Iraq and Afghanistan became so unhealthy for them) vice military action in Libya (hell, I'd support military intervention in Syria before Libya). Then again, we haven't had that public debate have we?

Final take away: The Democrats are demonstrably not a party which feels bound to equally enforce and obey the law. They are a Party of Government by Men, vice a Party of Government by Law.

Al Queda is in Libya, Art? ... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Al Queda is in Libya, Art? That is why "we're" there?

Al Queda is in ... (Below threshold)
Al Queda is in Libya, Art?
That's what Mummer GoDaffy says, and why would he lie?
I personally think that Oba... (Below threshold)
JDL:

I personally think that Obama is depleteing our military war stock/supplies and spreading our military very thin on purpose. I also believe he is trying to spend as much money as possible to dig us into a hole we cannot dig out of.

61 trillion of unfunded liabilities, staggering numbers folks.




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