It’s not that difficult to frame this. Let’s start with the Democrat mantra that Bush is responsible for the current disastrous state of the world because of his wars. I mean, yes, Bush won his war, he took down Saddam Hussein and the man was executed for his crimes; he took down the al Qaeda uprising as can be demonstrated in al Qaeda saying in its cables, “We are defeated, don’t send any more foreign fighters,” and Joe Biden’s boast that Iraq would be Obama’s greatest achievement and Obama’s own boast that he was leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq and he could therefore [amazingly stupidly] pull all the American troops out.
Now, it is a fact that Bush WON his war and Obama LOST what America’s warriors had won with their blood and America’s treasure. Obama foolishly, wickedly and catastrophically ignored his own generals’ pleading urging to remain in Iraq.
I can document again and again Obama’s rabid, wicked and morally and intellectuall idiotic refusal to follow his own generals’ and experts’ recommendations in foreign policy. I can document that Obama utterly refused to follow his own generals’ recommendations on the Syria that is now an open hellhole.
But it doesn’t matter to Democrats whose spirit is frankly the spirit of stupidity through pathological dishonesty and hypocrisy.
But for the sake of argument, let’s suppose that Bush somehow DID – by going to war in Iraq – ultimately set in motion a process that resulted in the toppling of several Middle Eastern governments and create a spirit of anti-American hate and rage that is now swallowing the world up in an ogre of violence to such an extent that not even the messianic, divine wisdom of Barack Obama is enough to solve “the results of Bush’s wars.”
With that, here’s my question: why is Bush held responsible for a war that he won being the cause of all the horrible disasters that have erupted under Obama’s watch, but Obama isn’t held responsible for HIS singular war that he managed to win that has – and this according to Democrats more than ANYONE – had terrible consequences for America?
I’m talking about Obama’s war on Republicans.
Obama has been at war with Republicans – and conservatives can only WISH that Obama would EVER have been as vicious and determined and hell-bent on winning against the terrorists, against Islamic State, against Russia, against China, etc. as he has been on warring on his own countrymen – literally since he took office.
I can document for you Obama’s goal: to divide the Republican Party, to break the Republican Party:
The Other Goal in Obama’s Budget: Dividing Republicans
by Mike Dorning
February 2, 2015 — 12:59 PM PST
President Barack Obama’s $4 trillion budget plan lays out a wish list for populist Democrats, but it also does something more subtle: It tries to drive a wedge between Republicans on taxes and spending.
Obama proposes busting defense spending caps with $38 billion in new money, matched with a similar amount in new domestic funding. That could pit Republican defense hawks like Senator John McCain of Arizona against budget hawks like Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, a Tea Party favorite.
Even Obama’s plan for new corporate taxes on overseas profits puts two of the party’s most powerful interests in conflict: U.S. companies with foreign earnings versus the Chamber of Commerce, which has been pushing for a new way to pay for infrastructure projects. Obama’s tax proposal puts $478 billion toward roads, bridges and other projects over six years.
“This is mostly a political document designed to help Democrats in 2016.” — Stan Collender
The U.S. needs “to replace mindless austerity with smart investments that strengthen America,” Obama said Monday after releasing his proposed budget.
Republican leaders such as House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky already have enough trouble keeping their restive caucuses united. If Obama can attract some Republicans in each chamber to his plans to boost spending — which for many lawmakers is popular at home — that could set off even more intraparty fights that have split Republicans in the past.
Top aide: Obama seeks to split Republican Party into warring factions before 2014 midterm election
White House Correspondent
1:42 AM 01/21/2013
President Barack Obama’s top political aide used an Inauguration Day interview to sketch out a provocative political strategy intended to split the Republican Party in time to impact the 2014 midterm elections.
“The barrier to progress here in many respects, whether it is deficits, measures to help economy, immigration, gun safety legislation … is [that] there are factions here in Congress, Republicans in Congress, who are out of the mainstream,” White House advisor David Plouffe said on CNN’s “State of the Union with Candy Crowley.”
“We need more Republicans in Congress to think like Republicans in the country who are seeking compromise, seeking balance,” he claimed.
Plouffe’s statement likely will strengthen the GOP’s consensus that Obama is seeking confrontation prior to 2014, not bipartisan cooperation to spur the stalled U.S. economy. […]
An agressive political strategy in dealing with Republicans has already been endorsed by major media figures including CBS “Face the Nation” host Bob Schieffer and CBS political director John Dickerson.
“Go for the Throat! Why if he wants to transform American politics, Obama must declare war on the Republican Party,” declared the headline of a Jan. 18 article penned by Dickerson.
“The president can stir up these [needed] fights by poking the fear among Republicans that the party is becoming defined by its most extreme elements, which will in turn provoke fear among the most faithful conservatives that weak-willed conservatives are bending to the popular mood,” wrote Dickerson, who shapes CBS’ coverage of politics.
January 18, 2013
Obama’s Goal Is to Break the Republican Party
By James G. Wiles
In the pre-9/11 movie “Independence Day,” an embattled American president questions a captured alien. What, the fictional President – in full Rodney King mode – asks, do you invaders want us earthlings to do so that our two peoples can live together in peace? The answer, of course, is famous.
That’s pretty much President Obama’s position to the Republicans – especially the GOP majority in the House of Representatives. In a penetrating analysis today in Washington Free Beacon, Matthew Continetti writes of how “a president known for his passivity and cool…displayed enormous and impressive energy as he moved to break the Republican Party” in the fiscal-cliff negotiations. Breaking the Republican Party is what this President is now all about.
Unfortunately, some conservatives – such as Michael Savage – seem to be helping him.
Leftist commentators in The New Republic sense it too. Paul Begala is openly gloating. A concerned Charles Krauthammer this morning offered his take on how a GOP break-up can be avoided.
The President and the Congressional Democrats are basically engaged in a pincer movement. In the Senate, the goal is to repeal – or, at least, defang – the filibuster rule. If that can be done, the Republican minority will be neutered. The way will then be open to confirm leftist nominees to Cabinet positions and to the Supreme Court which Republicans would otherwise be able to block.
Official: Goal of ‘Fiscal Cliff’ to Break GOP on No Tax Increase Pledgeby
Dr. Susan Berry1 Jan 2013
According to Ed Henry of Fox News, the “fiscal cliff” deal passed by the Senate served its ultimate goal for President Obama. An official close to the negotiations said: “The President fulfilled a major campaign promise,” referring to raising taxes on the rich. The official added that the president “broke the Republicans’ backs on a 20-year pledge” not to raise tax rates.
“It is one of the most consequential policy achievements of the last couple decades,” the official said.
Senate Democrats overwhelmingly supported the deal, largely negotiated by Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
So, yes, Obama very clearly went to war with an agenda to break and divide the Republican Party.
I can show you the articles that categorically state that the Republican Party has been divided and broken – precisely according to Obama’s goal – according to decidedly left-wing analysts:
Rachel Maddow reports on how President Obama’s actions on immigration have so divided the Republican Party in terms of how respond that they’re stuck in gridlock as another expensive shutdown of the federal government is just days away. Duration: 4:31
A Way Around the Divided House Majority
By Charles Weise & Bruce Larson
October 16, 2015
For observers of the U.S. Congress, the inability of Republicans to unite behind a candidate for speaker has been by turn fascinating, exasperating, and frightening. When and if a candidate is finally chosen, Republicans will breathe a sigh of relief, as will many commentators. The real crisis, however, will have just begun.
The Republican Party is hopelessly divided between conservatives who nonetheless recognize their responsibility to participate in governance and radicals intent on disrupting government at every turn to advance their agenda.
And here the Daily Kos Headline says it all:
I notice that the Daily Kos desperately wants more attention on how “hopelessly divided” the Republican Party is, but they have no desire whatsoever to acknowledge WHO “hopelessly divided” the Republicans as part of a deliberate and vindictive campaign. That hater’s name is Barack Hussein Obama. And Democrats have cheered that dividing and that breaking at every turn.
I can show you – again, even from the leftist perspective – articles that categorically state that this division and breaking of the Republican Party has been a terrible thing for America:
Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.
By Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein April 27, 2012
Rep. Allen West, a Florida Republican, was recently captured on video asserting that there are “78 to 81” Democrats in Congress who are members of the Communist Party. Of course, it’s not unusual for some renegade lawmaker from either side of the aisle to say something outrageous. What made West’s comment — right out of the McCarthyite playbook of the 1950s — so striking was the almost complete lack of condemnation from Republican congressional leaders or other major party figures, including the remaining presidential candidates.
It’s not that the GOP leadership agrees with West; it is that such extreme remarks and views are now taken for granted.
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
It doesn’t matter that Allen West was in fact ENTIRELY CORRECT when he made his factually true accusation. Nor does it matter that leftist’s are literally now arguing that “Barack Obama broke the Republican Party, and it’s the Republicans’ fault that Obama broke them.”
I have seen numerous comparisons – and from the very highest levels – comparing Republicans to terrorists. From the very party that refuses to call TERRORISTS terrorists. But I want you to consider the Democrats’ charge from their own viewpoint: their argument is that it was Bush’s fault that the terrorists became terrorists, because Bush radicalized them with his war.
Which is precisely what the hell Obama intentionally set out to do to the Republicans.
And he succeeded.
Now, that wasn’t what Obama promised the American people to do if we elected him. He is a LIAR who SWORE he would do the precise OPPOSITE. Go back to 2008 and read this and then explain to me how to reconcile that with the above where Obama is intentionally dividing and breaking what he SWORE he would unite and heal:
WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.
To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”
But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Mr. Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?
Obama NEVER even TRIED to fulfill that promise. Right from the start he demonized Republicans and their ideas. Immediately after being elected, he was already beginning his campaign to marginalize and demonize the people he had falsely and deceitfully promised he would reach out to:
“Don’t come to the table with the same tired arguments and worn ideas that helped to create this crisis.” — Barack Obama, February 5, 2009
Obama falsely and dishonestly talked about his heroic efforts to reach out to Republicans, but in actual fact the man not only never bothered to even TRY, but IT TURNS OUT HE DIDN’T HAVE THE REPUBLICAN LEADERS’ DAMN PHONE NUMBER WHEN HE BECAME THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE:
The failure of Obama to connect with Boehner was vaguely reminiscent of another phone call late in the evening of Election Day 2010, after it became clear that the Republicans would take control of the House, making Boehner Speaker of the House.
Nobody in the Obama orbit could even find the soon-to-be-speaker’s phone number, Woodward reports. A Democratic Party aide finally secured it through a friend so the president could offer congratulations.
You explain to me how Obama heroically tried for two years to reach out to Republicans when he didn’t even have the freaking phone number of the leader of the Republican Party for that entire damn two year period when Obama was saying, “Elections have consequences, and I won.”
But facts don’t matter to Democrats. They simply invent false narratives to masquerade for the TRUTH that they never bothered to reach out to Republicans because they hated their guts more than they ever hated any enemy or any terrorist.
Obama arrogantly and imperiously said that since he won, he had the right to shut Republicans out in 2008. But when Republicans won the House in 2010 and then kept the House and won the Senate in 2014, Obama hypocritically and dishonestly claimed that elections most certainly should NOT have consequences and has governed by fascist Führer Directives ever since in a clear hyper-partisan maneuver to further break and divide the Republicans and divide the American people in a plan to win 50%-plus-one-vote and throw burning hell in the angry faces of the rest of the American people and their representatives. Obama has done things he repeatedly said that he had not and did not have the constitutional right to do. He has flat-out lied and flat-out broken his word to the American people.
But it’s the other side’s fault that they didn’t come crawling to him and worship him and do his bidding exactly as he dictated it to them.
Barack Obama is a pathologically wicked man and America is a hopelessly divided and embittered nation because of the cancer of his presidency.
There is a rabid, undying hatred by Democrats for their fellow American citizens that they would NEVER have for America’s actual enemies. The same people who opposed fighting our worst enemies who were at war with us and murdered thousands of Americans have loved every minute of a savage war waged against Republicans.
So other than my contention that the spirit of liberalism is abject moral hypocrisy and to be a Democrat is essentially to be a cockroach, why haven’t Democrats vehemently condemned Obama’s toxic war with the Republican Party that has left this nation poisoned and divided in a way that we have never seen since the Civil War?
I am personally fine at this point with Republicans shutting down the government, shutting down EVERYTHING, until America literally completely collapses and the survivors live out the horror of one of those zombie movies. Because it would be an all-too-fitting conclusion of Barack Obama’s vicious war against the Republican Party.
And it would serve this nation right for refusing to hold him personally responsible for the results of his damn war.
Why hasn’t the same media that has dishonestly tried to blame Bush for the failures of Obama in terms of “the results of Bush’s wars” – (that Bush won and Obama treasonously and stupidly lost by ignoring his own experts’ and his own generals’ advice) – not held Obama responsible for the terrible result of HIS war on Republicans?