Hitting the nail right on the head:
If Abu Ghraib was all Bush’s fault, then the the Taliban pissers are all OBAMA’s fault
And everyone in the chain of command on down, just like they blamed Bush.
The way the mainstream media covered the Abu Ghraib “scandal,” you would have thought that George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were the ones who were in all the pictures humiliating Iraqi prisoners.
It was simply an unfortunate incident that would never have generated “outrage” across the Muslim world had the media simply done what they would have done if they weren’t the treasonous rat bastards they have become and simply sat on the story as honorable American media would have done before liberals came to so completely own it during the 1960s and the Vietnam years.
But that’s not how the game is played today, is it?
One hitting the nail on the head moment is followed up by another as a commenter who calls himself ClearCase_guy says:
Bush supported the troops. If the troops did something bad, it reflected on Bush and made him look bad. They were all in this together.
Obama despises the troops and keeps them at arms length. If the troops do something bad, it justifies Obama’s disdain and proves him to be correct in his policies.
Doesn’t that work out swell for the Left?
Again, this is so true on so many levels.
As posted on my article, “How Do Marines Feel About Obama? When Silence Is Golden“:
Many, MANY Marines justifiably have nothing but contempt for Obama.
And it turns out Barack Obama likewise has naked contempt for them and for all of our troops:
Report: Obama Sick And Tired Of Soldiers On Baghdad Visit
January 12th, 2012 (25) Posted By Pat Dollard.
Michael Hastings’ new book, The Operators, jabs at what could be a vulnerable spot for the Obama Administration, the president’s relationship with the troops.
The book describes a visit to Baghdad:
After the talk, out of earshot from the soldiers and diplomats, he starts to complain. He starts to act very un-Obamalike, according to a U.S. embassy official who helped organize the trip in Baghdad.
He’s asked to go out to take a few more pictures with soldiers and embassy staffers. He’s asked to sign copies of his book. “He didn’t want to take pictures with any more soldiers; he was complaining about it,” a State Department official tells me. “Look, I was excited to meet him. I wanted to like him. Let’s just say the scales fell from my eyes after I did. These are people over here who’ve been fighting the war, or working every day for the war effort, and he didn’t want to take fucking pictures with them?”
Pardon that State Department official’s “French”: Obama just rips it right out of the souls of decent people who cannot believe what a verminous weasel he is.
In refusing to hand Obama the blame for his “Abu Ghraib” the way they demonized Bush for his, the mainstream media that serves as the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party underscores the reality that Republicans and the military are justifiably connected to one another – and thus Republicans are responsible for the military – but that Democrats and the military ought not to have anything to do with one another. Such that you cannot blame a Democrat commander-in-chief for how the military ostensibly under his comand behaves.
Barack Obama looks down on the military with abject contempt; and whereas bad conduct ought to reflect upon a Republican CIC, it merely serves to justify the contempt that Democrats feel for the armed forces of the United States of America.
This is nothing new for Democrats. JFK and LBJ were the last two Democrats who were honorable patriots.
President Bill Clinton wrote of his “loathing the military” in his weaselling out of his obligation to serve his country. When you read the letter that Colonol Holmes – who ran the University of Arkansas ROTC Department and who was the recipient of Clinton’s letter – note that this man who was in poor heath due to being a POW of the depraved Imperial Japanese – wrote of his fear of “the imminent danger to our country of a draft-dodger becoming Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States.”
Bill Clinton left George Bush with the massive Dotcom bubble collapse. That collapse that happened on Clinton’s watch wiped out 78% of the Nasdaq portfolio, and in fact vaporized more than 7.1 TRILLION DOLLARS in American wealth. And the ONLY reason we don’t talk about that – aside that too many in the media are just as biased and as stupid as you are, Smith – is that Clinton had also GUTTED the Pentegon and intelligence budget, leaving America both weak (Osama bin Laden called Clinton’s America “a paper tiger”) and blind. Clinton did to the CIA budget what he did to the Nasdaq – just wiped it out – and left us exposed to the 9/11 attack.
Osama bin Laden’s words in 1998 following the Clinton fiasco in Somalia where the US pulled out with its tail between its legs: “Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. … As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press…”
Here’s a little more about how we have Bill Clinton to thank for the massive 9/11 attack to go on top of his massive DotCom bubble collapse:
Author James Risen won the Pulitzer Prize on Tuesday for his much ballyhooed New York Times report last December that revealed President Bush’s previously secret terrorist surveillance program – a revelation he uncovered while researching his book “State of War.”
In the same book, however, Risen makes an equally explosive claim about President Clinton’s relationship with the CIA – which his editors at the Times have so far declined to cover.
Upon taking power in 1993, Risen reports, the Clinton administration “began slashing the intelligence budget in search of a peace dividend, and Bill Clinton showed almost no interest in intelligence matters.”
The agency cutbacks combined with presidential disinterest took their toll almost immediately.
“Over a three-or-four-year period in the early-to-mid 1990s,” reports Risen, “virtually an entire generation of CIA officers – the people who had won the Cold War – quit or retired. One CIA veteran compared the agency to an airline that had lost all of is senior pilots . . . “
After Clinton CIA Director John Deutch cashiered several senior officers over a scandal in Guatamala, the situation got even worse.
“Morale [at the CIA] plunged to new lows, and the agency became paralyzed by an aversion to high-risk espionage operations for fear they would lead to political flaps. Less willing to take big risks, the CIA was less able to recruit spies in dangerous places such as Iraq.”
And there’s the blindness that led to the 9/11 attack, combined with the fact that Clinton demonstrated to Osama bin Laden with the “Blackhawk Down” fiasco in Somalia that the U.S. was just “a paper tiger,” and ripe for a massive attack. That attack was planned, funded – and all the terrrorist assets were in the USA and even trained to fly in American pilot schools- during the Clinton misrule.
During the Bosnian War that followed, Bill Clinton displayed that “loathing the military” by so gutting it that flight crews had to cannibalize other jets and helicopters for parts just to continue flight operations. It was deplorable.
The next Democrat to follow Bill Clinton was John Kerry. There was this famous act of treason in 1971 when Kerry falsely demonized his “fellow” troops:
MATTERA: Do you think this crop of anti-war activists, do you there’ll be any frauds like Al Hubbard?
KERRY: I have no idea. I hope not.
MATTERA: Do you think that they will make slanderous accusations–accusing the troops of raping women, pillaging villaging, just like you did to the Fulbright committee?
KERRY: Uh, I didn’t make those.
MATTERA: You didn’t?
Audio clip, John Kerry, 4/22/71: [They told the stories at times] they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
Kerry claims Winter Soldier Investigations were substantiated by further investigation.
MATTERA: Did you ever verify those?
KERRY (crosstalk): I’ve been misquoted about that hundreds of times.
MATTERA: So you never substantiated those charges before you–
KERRY: I proposed–I gave them to the committee because I felt that they ought to be investigated and that’s exactly what I said. These are the–many of those charges, incidentally, were subsequently verified by different entities.
Slate: No criminal charges were filed as a result of any of the [Army’s Criminal Investigative Division] investigations into Winter Soldier.
Look at the letter that some 250 of John Kerry’s fellow Swift Boat veterans signed against him (to contrast with about a dozen Swift Boat veterans who support him). Their real outrage wasn’t over Kerry’s supposed “valor,” but rather against what he did when he came home. John Kerry willingly and publicly said of his own free will things that men like John McCain wouldn’t say even in the face of torture. And when John Kerry tried to defend his anti-American and anti-American-soldier statements by pointing to his record, the Swift Boat veterans demonstrated that he had misrepresented his record in provable ways beyond his infamous “Christmas in Cambodia” whopper.
Maybe John Kerry deserved all his decorations, and maybe he didn’t, but one thing is for sure: he did lie about several aspects of his record. And he was forced to publicly retract some of his most vitriolic statements as “the words of an angry young man.”
John Kerry had a paltry few men to testify about how honorable he was, versus a whopping load load of veterans who said he was unfit for command. Kerry literally resorted to trying to claim that men who were actually against him were for him.
A dozen of John Kerry’s Swiftboat “band of brothers” were for him versus two hundred and fifty who told the truth about him. Here’s a representative sample of the type of character of those dozen “good” men:
John Kerry is a vile human being and a traitor to his country and to the United States military.
And then there is Barack Obama.
The Democrat Party continued to prove it is the party of treason in America with its deceitful opposition to the Iraq War (which 60% of Senate Democrats voted for, only to repudiate and claim Bush deceived them); its opposition to the Patriot Act; its opposition to Domestic Surveillance on calls from international terrorists; its opposition to Gitmo, even though it is the only reasonable place to hold these people that no country wants; its demand for full legal representation in civilian courts for terrorists; its opposition to even the reasonable use of profiling to weed out terrorists. I could go on. The facts since proved what treasonous piles of slime the Democrats were in opposing these things given how even Obama had to act when a Democrat actually had to GOVERN rather than simply treacherously backstab. It boils down to the fact that the left despise anything that help us win the war on terror or protect us from terrorism.
Like John Kerry, the Democrats were for the war before they were against it. Here is a display of the hall of shame that is the most prominent Democrats say-one-thing-then-lie-about-it betrayal of George Bush and of the nation at war he served as Commander-in-Chief:
… Just in case you wonder why I am so angry with Democrats and so angry with their propaganda wing a.k.a. the mainstream media.