As we near the end of Obama’s FOURTH YEAR IN OFFICE, we had an amazing claim from our blamer-in-chief:
KROFT: The national debt has gone up sixty percent in — in the four years that you’ve been in office.
OBAMA: Well, first — first of all, Steve, I think it’s important to understand the context here. When I came into office, I inherited the biggest deficit in our history. And over the last four years, the deficit has gone up, but ninety percent of that is as a consequence of two wars that weren’t paid for, as a consequence of tax cuts that weren’t paid for, a prescription drug plan that was not paid for, and then the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Now we took some emergency actions, but that accounts for about 10 percent of this increase in the deficit, and we have actually seen the federal government grow at a slower pace than at any time since Dwight Eisenhower, in fact, substantially lower than the federal government grew under either Ronald Reagan or George Bush.
In his devastating Washington Post fact check that gave Obama 100% of the pinnochios for the worst possible example of lying, “Kessler says it’s the other way around — that Bush policies account for about 10% of the current annual structural budget deficit, and the rest is evenly split between bad projections from the CBO and Obama’s spending and economic policies.”
Four years. It took the media four freaking years to say, “ENOUGH WITH YOUR DAMNED LYING EXCUSES!!!” FOUR YEARS.
George Bush gave us $4 trillion in debt over eight years and Obama said that was “irresponsible” and even “unpatriotic.” Obama has given America $6 trillion in debt in just four years. And a hell of a lot more than that, if you look at our actual debt which is now well over $222 trillion.
I point out in a comment to a liberal demagogue how Obama tries to blame Bush for the massive spending. Bush left office having produced a budget containing a $400 billion deficit that Democrats decried for the cuts. What Obama then does is spend the first nine months of his presidency spending like a lunatic: he spends $79 billion of taxpayer money on his GM bailout – and of course has taken complete credit as the president who saved GM – while blaming Bush for its entire cost. Obama spends $862 billion – which according to the CBO will ultimately cost American taxpayers $3.27 trillion – on his stimulus. Then in March 2009 Obama spends another $410 billion in his Omnibus bill. Meanwhile, Obama is spending the second half of the $350 billion in TARP funds that he voted for and which funds he demanded. So what Obama dishonestly does is add all that spending up – HIS OWN spending – and attributes it to Bush so that he can claim this horrendous deficit that he “inherited.” And so Obama artificially and deceitfully manufactures this enormous Bush deficit that he’s somehow a victim of – even though ninety percent of the spending in that deficit is HIS.
But that’s just the beginning of Obama’s dishonesty. Look what he does to “the two wars.”
First the Iraq War. Bush WON the Iraq War before Obama took office and signed the status of forces agreement before Obama took office. We had won the war such that Bush was beginning to withdraw surge forces as early as 2007. And yet somehow when US troops finalize their withdrawal according to Bush’s victory and according to Bush’s status of forces agreement, it is Obama who takes full credit. Joe Biden actually had the chutzpah to claim that the Iraq War victory that he and his boss Obama had done everything they could to prevent was going to be “one of Obama’s great achievements.” What Obama then does is equally despicable: he assumes in his numbers that the Iraq War that was already won when he came into office would have gone on forever if Messiah Obama had not won it, looks at the high-point of Bush’s spending during the war and creates another “baseline,” and then announces that in winning the war he has saved America more than $700 billion. That Obama can spend on his policies while simultaneously blaming that spending on Bush.
Now the Afghanistan War. Rather than look up the spending in dollars, I’ll produce the cost of the war under Bush and under Obama in American lives (as of September 28, 2012):
Whether you look at it in dollars or in lives, you’ll find that Obama is responsible for over 70 percent of the cost of the Afghanistan War. Because you see, what Obama did was perform an incredibly cynical political calculation. Obama demonized Iraq as “the bad war” and made Afghanistan – in which Bush was merely performing a holding action – into “the good war” as a way to attack Bush in Iraq. Obama in effect said we shouldn’t be fighting in Iraq where the flat terrain allowed full movement and maneuver of our air, artillery and armored power and an educated population made victory possible; we should be fighting in a mountainous hellhole where we couldn’t utilize our military advantages and where the people were so ignorant they would believe every lie they were told and go on fighting forever instead. That is literally what Obama effectively said. And Obama is saying, “It’s not MY fault that I massively increased the war in Afghanistan; it’s Bush’s fault I did that.” And Obama is claiming credit for the Iraq War that Bush won and blaming Bush for the Afghanistan War that he has virtually lost.
Let me move on to the economy.
You have to ask the question, why was George Bush responsible for ninety percent of Obama’s entire presidency as far as the mainstream media was concerned, but Bill Clinton wasn’t responsible for the DotCom bubble collapse that happened on his watch and that Bush inherited??? Why did we never hear 900,000 stories from the media on how Clinton was to blame and in conclusion nobody could reasonably blame Bush for it???
The Market Capitalization of the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Full Cap was $16.7 Trillion as of April 30, 2008. Comparatively, the market cap at the end of Q1 in 2000 was approximately $16 trillion (only slightly smaller). However, between 2000 Q1 and Q1 2003 the index lost a stunning 43% of its valuation. In other words, $7.1 Trillion of wealth was lost. This stunning number includes the completeness of the crash.
Who was still president in the first quarter of the fiscal year 2000 when this disaster began to blow up? It was the guy who was still president on January 20, 2001 when George Bush assumed – and dare I say “inherited” – the office of the president.
Here’s another number to think about: 78%. Because “The Nasdaq Composite lost 78% of its value as it fell from 5046.86 to 1114.11” as it collapsed between March 11, 2000 to October 9, 2002.
Obviously, there was a problem. The first shots through this bubble came from the companies themselves: many reported huge losses and some folded outright within months of their offering. Siliconaires were moving out of $4 million estates and back to the room above their parents’ garage. In the year 1999, there were 457 IPOs, most of which were internet and technology related. Of those 457 IPOs, 117 doubled in price on the first day of trading. In 2001 the number of IPOs dwindled to 76, and none of them doubled on the first day of trading.
I want to know why Bush is still responsible for Obama’s entire economic mess four years later when Bill Clinton was never held responsible for so much as one second of Bush’s mess. I want to understand why Democrats are lying, dishonest, hypocrite slime whose only talent is bankrupting America and then demagoguing Republicans for what they did.
You find out that the Dotcom bubble began to grow huge in 1995 and virtually all of Clinton’s economic “success” that didn’t have to do with the policies of the Republican House and the Republican Senate that swept into power in 1995 as a result of the historic 1994 asskicking as a result of Clinton’s and the Democrat Party’s abject failure had to do with the inflation of that damn bubble. Clinton fanned the flames of that Dotcom bubble because he knew that it would explode on the next president’s watch and that Democrats were far too personally and pathologically dishonest to ever blame HIM for it.
And yet Bill Clinton saunters before the 2012 Democrat National Convention and gives a speech saying “You can’t blame Obama for this disaster of an economy. Why, even I couldn’t have fixed it.” And the liberal media listen to their former messiah absolve their current messiah and ignore the fact that Bill Clinton is a serial liar who was DISBARRED by the Supreme Court for LYING as well as a serial womanizing sexual predator who sexually abused five women and they said, “Well, that settles it. NO one can blame ‘the One’ now; the former ‘One’ has spoken.” And the “War on Women” party cheers.
Let’s see: Juanita Broaddrick credibly accused Bill Clinton of raping her. There’s no question Bill Clinton had a sexual affair with Gennifer Flowers – and lied about it. Bill Clinton paid Paula Jones $850,000 to settle her sexual harassment case against him. Kathleen Willey was a loyal Democrat and supporter of Bill Clinton until he grabbed her hand and placed it on his genitalia. And then we all know about how he lied about his sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky, even calling her a “stalker,” until it was revealed that she had a dress with his semen on it.
Yeah, I’d trust Bill Clinton. Every bit as much as Monica Lewinsky’s father would trust Bill Clinton with Monica’s younger sister.
As a result of his “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky” bullcrap, Bill Clinton was DISBARRED FROM PRACTICING LAW.
Lawyers constitute the fourth most distrusted profession in America. And Bill Clinton was too dishonest to remain part of it. That should only add to the weight that the slickest politician of all time – he was nicknamed “Slick Willie” as governor of Arkansas for damn good reason – is the king of the second most distrusted profession in America as a politician.
And so, yeah, if I were in the market for a used car, and Bill Clinton came out as the salesman, I would go find myself another used car salesman.
And I actually failed to mention Paula Jones, who successfully SUED Bill Clinton for his sexual harassment.
Yeah, let’s trust Slick Willy. Because we are as evil as we are stupid on the days that we aren’t as stupid as we are evil.
But I’m just getting started.
Why is it that George Bush is still held responsible for the Obama’s presidency four years later when the same people who hold George Bush responsible wouldn’t hold Bill Clinton responsible for a disaster that happened seven months and 22 days into Bush’s presidency (still during Clinton’s fiscal year, for what it’s worth). Because we had a terrible terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, just seven months into Bush’s presidency, and it was a) Bush’s fault and b) we shouldn’t be wasting time passing blame, anyway, if you began asking too many questions about just why the hell it was Bush’s fault.
It wasn’t George Bush who decimated the CIA; it was Bill Clinton:
Thursday, April 20, 2006 1:13 a.m. EDT
Pulitzer Winner: Bill Clinton Decimated the CIA
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.”
The Clinton era of risk aversion also hobbled CIA efforts to get Osama bin Laden. In early 1998, Risen says, the agency was prepared to launch a special operation to kidnap the al Qaeda chief in Afghanistan.
“To be sure the operation was high risk, and there was a strong possibility that it would be so messy that bin Laden would be killed rather than captured. [CIA Director George] Tenet and the CIA’s lawyers worried deeply about that issue; they believed the covert action finding on al Qaeda that President Clinton had signed authorized only bin Laden’s capture, not his death.”
Frustrated by restrictions that made dealing with the big challenges too difficult, the agency turned its energy to lesser problems.
Reports Risen: “Thanks to Vice President Al Gore, for example, the CIA briefly made the global environment one of is priorities.”
What Clinton did to the CIA he did to the Pentagon and the military. He gave them less and less and less money while simultaneously tasking them with more and more and more costly missions.
Add to that the infamous Blackhawk Down fiasco in which Clinton expanded the humanitarian mission to Somalia began under George H.W. Bush into a military action without bothering to provide the US forces the heavy armor they needed.
It was after that disaster that an emboldened Osama bin Laden said:
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 after the Gulf War in which it destroyed the infrastructure and the milk and dairy industry that was vital for the infants and the children and the civilians and blew up dams which were necessary for the crops people grew to feed their families. Proud of this destruction, America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim. …
And bin Laden said that America was a weak paper tiger and we’d crawl out dragging our dead because that’s exactly what Bill Clinton had done in Somalia in 1993.
On 9/11/2001, the United States was both weak and blind. And to quote Obama’s “reverend,” “our chickens came home to roost” for our weakness and blindness as we were hit with the worst attack on American soil in our history.
Just why the hell is it that the same damn hypocrite left that says, “One year of failure, two years of failure, three years of failure, four years of failure, hell, EIGHT years of failure, it doesn’t matter – IT’S BUSH’S FAULT!” never ONCE blame Bill Clinton for either the Dotcom implosion that vaporized $7.1 trillion and sank America into recession? Why didn’t these liberals say, “What happened during the Bush presidency was ENTIRELY Bill Clinton’s fault and Bush was forced to clean up Clinton’s mess and America is paying the price for Clinton’s sins.”??? Nobody in the media said that, in spite of the facts. And now, very nearly everybody in the media is saying exactly that regarding George Bush being entirely to blame for Obama’s mess even after Obama has presided over his mess for four miserable years.
Why?!?!? Other than the fact that if you are a liberal, you are therefore ipso facto and ergo sum a pathologically dishonest human being whose soul swims in lies?
You have to go back to the 1930s and the propaganda of Goebbels in Germany and TASS in Russia to find this level of media manipulation and deceit. And we’re heading in the same direction: because we are being railroaded into making increasingly stupid and immoral decisions based on the constant stream of fabrications and dishonest narratives we’re being told.