Posts Tagged ‘Bush’

Worst Mass Shooting In U.S. History A Terrorist Attack. And Consider How Obama Dismantled America To Bring This Hell Here.

June 12, 2016

As we listen to Obama’s absolute drivel as he pathetically tries to explain away how we got into this hell-hole we are now in where we USED to be safe but clearly no longer are, let’s check in with the warning that George Bush offered and see the contrast:

“Failure in Iraq will cause generations to suffer, in my judgment. al-Qaeda will be emboldened. They will say, “Yes, once again, we’ve driven the great soft America out of a part of the region.” It will cause them to be able to recruit more; it will give them safe haven. They are a direct threat to the United States.

And I’m going to keep talking about it. That’s my job as the president, is to tell people the threats we face and what we’re doing about it. They’re dangerous, and I can’t put it any more plainly to the American people, and to them, we will stay on the offense. It’s better to fight them there than here.” — President George W. Bush, May 24, 2007

We WON the Iraq War, as I shall proceed to document; Barack Obama lost it AFTER our soldiers won it and secured it and pulled all our troops out over all of our generals’ warnings of catastrophe if he did so.  And from that point, everything that Bush said would happened proceeded to happen: the SAME thing happened that happened when Bill Clinton gave us Osama bin Laden’s “Americans are paper tigers” speech after Clinton cut-and-ran from Somalia in 1993 that resulted ultimately in the 9/11 attack in 2001.   Terrorists not only received a “safe haven” from Obama; they actually created the caliphate that was Osama bin Laden’s DREAM.  They have not only been able to recruit more, but FAR MORE, more than anyone could have possibly imagined before the Turd-in-Chief took office.

It is a fascinating thing.  Because President Bill Clinton left America both weak – by disassembling our military – and blind – by disassembling our entire intelligence establishment and even erecting the walls that prevented communication between intelligence and law enforcement – the United States was viciously hit with the worst terrorist attack in history on 9/11/2001 in an attack that had been planned for years while Clinton did nothing and struck us less than eight months into Bush’s presidency.  It was because of Bill Clinton’s cowardly policies in Somalia that a would-be-terrorist named Osama bin Laden first began to call America a “paper tiger” and dreamed of attacking the United States.  And as a result of that attack, President Bush rebuilt our military and made it powerful again, rebuilt our intelligence capability and broke down the walls that kept our various intelligence agencies from sharing information, and fought the terrorists over there so they wouldn’t be able to come over here.

And it worked.  Even the war that Democrats treasonously did EVERYTHING to turn into a defeat was won by Bush.  The terrorist enemy in Iraq themselves communicated their defeat in their own transmissions saying, “We are defeated, don’t send any more foreign fighters.”

There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO QUESTION we won the war in Iraq.  Even Obama’s Vice President Joe Biden acknowledged it: “I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”  And Barack Obama himself acknowledged in February 2009 that he had been handed victory rather than defeat: ““This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant.”

But Obama proceeded to ignore EVERY SINGLE ONE OF HIS GENERALS and made a terrible, terrifying, and frankly treasonous mistake that is documented in a 2009 article that proves that everything that Obama has said since about his decision to unilateral cut-and-run from Iraq the abject lie that it always was:

US-IRAQ: Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision
By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON, Feb 2 2009 (IPS) – CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn’t convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Obama’s decision to override Petraeus’s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama’s decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, “Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama.”

Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorising large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise.

Gates and Mullen had discussed the relabeling scheme with Obama as part of the Petraeus-Odierno plan for withdrawal they had presented to him in mid-December, according to a Dec. 18 New York Times story.

Obama decided against making any public reference to his order to the military to draft a detailed 16-month combat troop withdrawal policy, apparently so that he can announce his decision only after consulting with his field commanders and the Pentagon.

The first clear indication of the intention of Petraeus, Odierno and their allies to try to get Obama to amend his decision came on Jan. 29 when the New York Times published an interview with Odierno, ostensibly based on the premise that Obama had indicated that he was “open to alternatives”.

The Times reported that Odierno had “developed a plan that would move slower than Mr. Obama’s campaign timetable” and had suggested in an interview “it might take the rest of the year to determine exactly when United States forces could be drawn down significantly”.

The opening argument by the Petraeus-Odierno faction against Obama’s withdrawal policy was revealed the evening of the Jan. 21 meeting when retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, one of the authors of the Bush troop surge policy and a close political ally and mentor of Gen. Petraeus, appeared on the Lehrer News Hour to comment on Obama’s pledge on Iraq combat troop withdrawal.

Keane, who had certainly been briefed by Petraeus on the outcome of the Oval Office meeting, argued that implementing such a withdrawal of combat troops would “increase the risk rather dramatically over the 16 months”. He asserted that it would jeopardise the “stable political situation in Iraq” and called that risk “not acceptable”.

The assertion that Obama’s withdrawal policy threatens the gains allegedly won by the Bush surge and Petraeus’s strategy in Iraq will apparently be the theme of the campaign that military opponents are now planning.

Keane, the Army Vice-Chief of Staff from 1999 to 2003, has ties to a network of active and retired four-star Army generals, and since Obama’s Jan. 21 order on the 16-month withdrawal plan, some of the retired four-star generals in that network have begun discussing a campaign to blame Obama’s troop withdrawal from Iraq for the ultimate collapse of the political “stability” that they expect to follow U.S. withdrawal, according to a military source familiar with the network’s plans.

The source says the network, which includes senior active duty officers in the Pentagon, will begin making the argument to journalists covering the Pentagon that Obama’s withdrawal policy risks an eventual collapse in Iraq. That would raise the political cost to Obama of sticking to his withdrawal policy. […]

It is impossible for anyone who either has a functioning brain cell or who is NOT demon-possessed to rationally argue that what President George W. Bush predicted on July 12, 2007 would happen if a future fool like Obama got his way is not EXACTLY what happened JUST AS ALL OUR GENERALS ALSO PREDICTED WOULD HAPPEN:

“To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States,” Bush cautioned.

He then ticked off a string of predictions about what would happen if the U.S. left too early.

“It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to Al Qaeda.

“It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale.

“It would mean we allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan.

“It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”

First Obama COMPLETELY and UNILATERALLY ABANDONED Iraq.  It had NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with Obama’s bogus pile of lies about a “status of forces” agreement.  As I just documented above, Bush had a strategy to remain in Iraq and all of his generals understood the various ways that U.S. forces would be able to remain in Iraq.  It is a simple fact of history that Obama wanted out of Iraq and he got us out of Iraq.  And the terrible and tragic consequences of his incredibly foolish and frankly immoral decision have been hell for us ever since.  Because only a truly wicked leader walks away from all that his own soldiers had died fighting for years to secure.

Just as Obama handed the terrorists Iraq back AFTER our soldiers had fought and given their own blood to liberate, Obama also gave away Syria.  Obama’s utter failure as a leader to follow through with his “red line” was a shocking signal of American weakness to both our friends and our enemies alike.  John Kerry admitted that Obama “altered perceptions” of both our friends and our enemies when he declared a red line in Syria and then backed away from his red line and even outright lied about having given it; both Obama’s Secretaries of Defense Robert Gates and Leon Panetta declared it destroyed American credibility; Obama’s Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said the same, adding that Obama micromanaged the Defense Department with arrogant know-nothing idiots and tried to destroy him when he decided he had to do what was right for America.  The president of the foremost foreign policy think tank in the world – the Council on Foreign Relations – said American credibility took a major hit after Obama’s red line fiasco.  As a result of Barack Obama, our enemies have been rabidly emboldened and know for a fact that the United States WILL NOT act in its interests or protect its allies against tyranny and even hostile attacks (think Ukraine, think Egypt); and our historic allies are dismayed, uncertain and looking anywhere other than America for a strong power who will support them.  Every single one of those people is an Obama appointee and even THEY admit that Obama’s foreign policy was beyond foolish.

A terrorist group that essentially did not even EXIST when George W. Bush was president – and if you doubt me show me ONE MAJOR NEWS MEDIA ARTICLE ABOUT ISIS/ISIL prior to Bush’s leaving office because there was nothing to report – has under Barack Obama first flowered and then flourished into the caliphate that it is today.  ISIS was a disgruntled offshoot of al Qaeda, and they were disgruntled because Bush DEFEATED al Qaeda.  And that group that had fewer than fifty disgruntled and defeated terrorists when Bush was president found refuge in Syria and leveraged that territory into the Iraq that Obama abandoned.  And hell on earth was the price to pay for Obama’s wicked foolishness.

Every single thing George W. Bush said if America didn’t stay the course on a war that it didn’t start but had to fight has come to pass.

But here is the most significant prediction and today is the time to remember it.  President Bush said:

 “It’s better to fight them there than here.”

Say what you want; George W. Bush kept America SAFE.  We were massively HIT and then WE HIT BACK HARDER.  And our soldiers went to war and fought heroically quoting their commander-in-chief.

Compare that record to what Barack Obama has compiled since he dismantled our military and dismantled every single aspect of our war against terror and thereby allowed terror to terrorize us at home.

There is absolutely NO QUESTION that this was a terrorist attack: the terrorist murderer was heard by numerous witnesses screaming “Allahu Akbar!” as he executed fifty people and wounded 53 others.  Not that reality matters to Obama and demon-possessed Democrats who support him: the terrorist murderer who murdered thirteen and wounded nineteen in Fort Hood in 2009.  He too screamed “Allahu Akbar!”  But Obama dishonestly and wickedly claimed it was “workplace violence” rather than a terrorist attack.  The same thing happened when another Muslim who gloried in terrorist websites beheaded one woman and tried to behead another, similarly screaming about Allah: workplace violence, Obama dishonestly and wickedly claimed.

You have to realize that Obama would have been desperate to lie to the American people whom he’s lied to so many times before yet again.  Only he can’t lie his way out of this one: Now we’re finding out that this TERRORIST who had SWORN ALLEGIANCE TO ISIS had been on the FBI’s terrorism radar for at least three years.  We’re finding that the terrorist shooter pledged allegiance to Islamic State prior to the attack.  We’re finding out that Islamic State itself is affirming responsibility.  Obama once again utterly failed and his utter failure has resulted in THE worst mass shooting in ALL of American HISTORY.

We’ve come a long way, baby.  We’ve come full circle in the last sixteen years: it began with a massive terrorist attack that transformed George W. Bush into a true wartime president.  And as a true wartime president of the United States, Bush successfully waged that war and won.  And handed peace to a fool named Barack Obama who managed to piss away that peace and not only restore terrorism to what it was on 9/11, BUT ACTUALLY “FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORM” IT AN EVEN WORSE THREAT.  And that according to Obama’s own administration officials.

Obama created a CULTURE of terrorism both within and without the United States.  Go back to 2009 and Obama had already so contaminated the military with his political correctness poison that officers were terrified to confront Major Nidal Hasan with his obvious terrorist leaningsYou couldn’t dare speak about about a Muslim military officer being a terrorist in Obama’s Army.  That is just a factBefore his murderous terrorist rampage, Hassan had given a PowerPoint lecture to stunned fellow military officers – who were terrified into silence.  And after the fact Obama still denied the obvious terrorism even after it was revealed that the terrorist major had been in email contact with al Qaeda, had business cards identifying himself as a “Soldier of Allah,” etc.

Then we get to the more recent San Bernardino terrorist rampage – which incredibly Obama also initially tried to deny was terrorism and proceeded to transform the tragedy into one of gun violence rather than of yet another Obama fail to keep America safe from THE ISLAMIC TERRORISM HE REFUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE EVEN EXISTS.  Again, people saw bizarre, crazy stuff that would make any reasonable person’s suspicion radar go off the charts – especially given the fact that the person doing all the bizarre, crazy stuff is a Muslim – but they were cowed into silence over fear that Obama and his leftist roaches would label them “racist.”

Obama has not only failed in keeping us safe from terrorism, but he is simultaneously doing everything he possibly can to disarm the law-abiding American people so only criminals and terrorists will even be able to get their hands on guns.  He can’t and won’t keep us safe and he won’t allow us to keep OURSELVES safe.

The problem with criminalizing guns or bullets is that from that moment on, criminals are the ONLY people who can have them.  And it is by now beyond obvious in places like Chicago that outlawing guns doesn’t do one damn thing to prevent the OUTLAWS FROM GETTING THEM.  There were 2,986 shootings in gun-controlled Chicago.  And it isn’t just Chicago: homicide rates are SKYROCKETING in all the major cities controlled by institutional Democrat power with all the gun control laws to go with it.  The ONLY thing that Democrats guarantee with their fascist and frankly treasonous attack on the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution is that law-abiding people cannot shoot back when vicious thugs and terrorists shoot at them.  And if Democrats can’t ban guns from America, they can at least create “gun-free zones” where Americans are helpless.  And so since 1950, it is an empirical fact that all but TWO of all the two-hundred mass-shootings in America where more than three people were killed occurred in officially designated Democrat gun-free zones.

And yes, the gay nightclub in Orlando was – you guessed it – a designated gun free zone.  Which means the only people who get to have guns are criminals and terrorists and everybody else can cower and beg not to die until the police finally show up.

We have a right to protect ourselves in this country.  At least until Obama is finished dismantling our Constitution.

Obama has utterly failed to protect America or the American people.  Obama stupidly thought he could unilaterally end the war on terror by refusing to fight back and keeping us distracted as first the world exploded into terrorist violence and then America exploded into terrorist violence.  All Obama can do now is try to demonize and blame the guns that have been part of this country since the founding fathers used them to defeat their British oppressors in 1775.

You want to ban guns?  Good!  First ban every single gram of cocaine, heroine, LSD, and ban every single illegal immigrant in the United States such that absolutely no one or NOTHING can get into this country against our laws.  And then you’d at least have the right to politely suggest gun control.  But until then, shut the hell up because the ONLY people who are denied guns when guns are criminalized are law-abiding people who follow the law.  As long as illegal immigrants have free access to America because our borders are wide open and because Democrats aren’t competent enough to check on these people flooding in to our country, we can KNOW FOR A FACT that millions of guns would continue to pour in.

Further, you listen to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton use this opportunity as a political-cheap shot to demonize guns as if the things had never been invented before Obama took office and neither had hate.  Believe me, fools, we had both a’plenty.  What we didn’t have is a pathological fool who has literally created defeat out of victory, who literally spawned the most vicious and virulent terrorist army in the history of the world with his incompetent neglect, and who has created a climate of incredible rage with his massively divisive brand of politics.

We had lots of guns and we had lots of ideologies; what we didn’t have is OBAMA.  He and his party’s depraved folly is the toxic poison that has exploded the world.

It really is amazing: the terrorist who shot up that nightclub IS A REGISTERED DEMOCRAT and it is somehow apparently Republicans’ fault that a member of Obama’s despicable Democrat Party all-too easily avoided any meaningful investigation by Obama’s incredibly incompetent Democrat Party administration.  The Islamic terrorist with long-suspected terrorist ties was able to get his hands on guns not because guns are evil but because Democrats are incompetent to keep Americans safe.

Because of Democrats and Obama and their utterly insane policies, we are so awash in Muslims as it is that there is absolutely no way right now to track all the jihadists with Islamic State sympathies.  And Obama and Hillary Clinton want to let tens of thousands more of them in to make an impossible situation even MORE impossible!!!

Barack Obama is a liar.  And we have to hold this liar responsible as we hold the liar he’s picked to replace him responsible.

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Cockroach Democrats Go From Supporting Bush’ War On Terror, To Claiming Being Like Bush Is Evil, To Claiming We’re Just Like Bush

December 30, 2015

If you are a Democrat, you are the lowest form of hypocrite there is, there ever has been or there ever will be.

Let me simply point out the fact that the Democrat Party voted to support George Bush’s War on Terror after the 9/11 attack, and then treasonously cut-and-ran on their duty WHILE OUR TROOPS WERE IN THE FIELD FIGHTING FOR THE WAR THEY VOTED FOR.  In fact, now-President Obama and President wanna-be Hillary Clinton BOTH voted to cut off all funding for our troops while they were still in the field fighting on foreign soil while hoping that traitors wouldn’t abandon them at home.  And at this point it is beyond obvious that the only way the United States will actually be able to end this war on terror with victory will be to hunt down every single Democrat  with dogs and burn them all alive.

Allow me to present the list of Democrat Senators who voted for George Bush’s Iraq War Resolution.  I made the list easier to see by pasting in only those Democrats who voted “yes.”  Note that the final tally of 29 Democrats voting yes – which represents very nearly 60% of all Democrats in the U.S. Senate – is cited:

Senate Roll Call: Iraq Resolution

Friday, October 11, 2002

Following is an alphabetical listing by state of how each senator voted on President Bush’s Iraq resolution. A “yes” vote was a vote to grant President Bush the power to attack Iraq unilaterally. A “no” vote was a vote to defeat the measure. Voting “yes” were 29 Democrats and 48 Republicans. Voting “no” were 1 Republican, 21 Democrats, and 1 Independent.

Arkansas Blanche Lincoln (D): Yes
California Dianne Feinstein (D): Yes
Connecticut Christopher Dodd (D): Yes Joseph Lieberman (D): Yes
Delaware Joseph Biden (D): Yes Thomas Carper (D): Yes
Florida Bill Nelson (D): Yes
Georgia Max Cleland (D): Yes Zell Miller (D): Yes
Indiana Evan Bayh (D): Yes
Iowa Tom Harkin (D): Yes
Louisiana John Breaux (D): Yes Mary Landrieu (D): Yes
Massachusetts John Kerry (D): Yes
Missouri Jean Carnahan (D): Yes
Montana Max Baucus (D): Yes
Nebraska Ben Nelson (D): Yes
Nevada Harry Reid (D): Yes
New Jersey Robert Torricelli (D): Yes
New Mexico
New York Hillary Clinton (D): Yes Charles Schumer (D): Yes
North Carolina John Edwards (D): Yes
North Dakota Byron Dorgan (D): Yes
South Carolina Ernest “Fritz” Hollings (D): Yes
South Dakota Thomas Daschle (D): Yes Tim Johnson (D): Yes
Washington Maria Cantwell (D): Yes
West Virginia Jay Rockefeller (D): Yes
Wisconsin Herb Kohl (D): Yes

Notice also that all of the top Democrats of the time voted “yes” including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden and Harry Reid.

But just like Bush?  Not on your life.  Bush stayed the course; Democrats cut and ran like the cut-and-run roaches that they are.  Bush had integrity; Democrats had cynical exploitation.

And let me point out the fact that to the extent that George W. Bush failed in his war on terror, maybe – just maybe – we ought to do something DIFFERENT and not follow in the same basic fallacy that Bush pursued.  I submit that Bush made two fundamental mistakes: 1) he refused to consider the religious motivation of the Islamic jihadists and confront Islam with its profound and possibly pathological problem of religious-inspired violence; and 2) Bush wrongly believed that “democracy” was an intrinsic good and that any people who voted would vote for freedom when the fact of the matter is that bad and ignorant people will vote in a bad and ignorant way.  And I further submit that since Barack Obama’s strategy has now failed about a thousand times worse than Bush’s – realize that Islamic State emerged COMPLETELY out of the failure of Obama to fight the “war on terror” that he steadfastly refused to even acknowledge and we’ve paid DEARLY for his foolish mistake – maybe we need to pursue a completely different policy and recognize Islamic terrorism and the roots that are sustaining it for what it clearly is.

Anyway, here’s the current story framed the way Democrats want you  to see things now:

On Muslims, Democrats Find an Unlikely Ally: George W Bush
By josh lederman, associated press
·WASHINGTON — Dec 25, 2015, 1:00 PM ET

Taunted by Republicans to declare war on “radical Islamic terrorism,” Democrats are turning to an unlikely ally: George W. Bush.

President Barack Obama, under pressure to be more aggressive on terrorism, regularly cites his predecessor’s refusal to demonize Muslims or play into the notion of a clash between Islam and the West. It’s a striking endorsement from a president whose political rise was predicated on opposition to the Iraq war and Bush’s hawkish approach in the Middle East.

As Hillary Clinton put it, “George W. Bush was right.”

Don’t you DARE try to grab hold of Bush’s coattails now, you miserable ROACHES.

I just want to keep pointing out what I’ve been saying for the official record. Go back in time to early 2011 – when Obama was claiming he had healed the planet – and you’ll find me having said this.  Note in particular the bold-face and italicized paragraph:

Basically, the Judeo-Christian worldview – “Christendom,” if you like – has been treated like a salad bar in the Western Civilization that had been forged by Christianity, and secular humanists can pick out the parts that they like and throw away the rest.  But it’s not a salad bar; Judeo-Christianity as both a religion and a worldview is far more like the foundations of a great building.  And what these secular humanists have been doing is pulling out the foundational pillars one block at a time until there is nothing left to sustain the surrounding structure.

Which is precisely why the West – which used to be called “Christendom” – is now on the verge of complete collapse on virtually every level.

I see the war on terror, and from the start I have seen the glaring flaw in our strategy (yes, even when George Bush was waging it).  Basically, we have confronted totalitarian Islam on the military, political and economic fronts.  But we have utterly ignored the religious front – which is precisely the major front by which totalitiarian Islam has been attacking us.  Like it or not, 9/11 was a religious act.  And there has been no major movement whatsoever – either by the Western powers or by the movements within Islam itself – to confront the religious grounds of the totalitarian Islamists.

And the reason is because we have nothing to confront them with.  Secular humanists/atheists have undermined public religious expression at every turn, while cultural relativists have contextualized religion in such a way to strip it of any spiritual power whatsoever.  Now when we truly need true spiritual power to confront the demonic power motivating radical Islam, basically all we’ve got is allegorical dirt clods.

In the sphere of Islam, jihadists have the superior Qu’ranic argument that it is THEY who are carrying out Muhammad’s vision for Islam, not the liberal Westernized contextualizers who want to make very clear claims of Muhammad into metaphors and allegories representing something else.  Muhammad was a man of genuine violence; he had been in some thirty military campaigns in his life; he had committed numerous genocidal campaigns against “infidels”; and he had another thirty military campaigns planned at the time of his death, including the conquest of Western Europe as the means to spread Islam (“submission”) and the call of Allahu Akbar (a comparative which means “Allah is greater”).  If Muhammad is in any way, shape or form a representative paradigm of what it means to be “Muslim,” then the jihadists are right.

And liberalism – whether it be religious/theological or political/cultural liberalism – has exactly what to answer that?  Other than mocking or trivializing it?

Did political liberals – like the liberal rabbis from the LA Times article above – truly believe that we overcome the threat of terrorism by simply changing the name to “overseas contingency operation” from “war on terror”?

As bad as the religion of Allah may be for a free society, it has a great deal of force when the competition is cultural nothingness, the decaying leftovers of “salad bar pseudo-Judeo-Christianity.”

Notice I point out I’d argued this many times before, but I just don’t have the time to go back and search for my earliest argument for the fact that ignoring the very clearly Islamic tie to terrorism is and has been a giant mistake and that we cannot win if we don’t understand why our enemy keeps wanting to see us spitting blood as they jubilantly cut our heads off.

And Bush was also fundamentally wrong in his insistence that bringing “democracy” to the Middle East would make that region a better place given the simple fact that bad people will vote in a bad way.  I’ll simply put it in the words of founding father James Madison who said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”  And I’ll further point out that while Islam might be “religious” it is NOT “moral” by any Judeo-Christian standard that values human dignity and freedom.  It is no accident that while democracy emerged out of Judeo-Christianity and every single “Christian” nation has become a democracy, not one single Islamic country has EVER become a democracy in the 1,500 year history of Islam.  Asking Muslims to create a democratic republic is like asking elephants to build a space ship.  Neither is going to happen without a massive transformation in either the elephant or the Muslim.

So I just want to point out for the factual record that I don’t CARE what Bush said.  BUSH WAS WRONG.  I said it YEARS ago back when it mattered.  I said it before Obama’s horrible, godawful foreign policy that made Bush’s look like the greatest thing since sliced bread had the wheels completely fall off and we started watching in horror as Obama has since kept trying to drag the wheel-less cart by sheer undying moral idiocy rather than simply admit he was wrong.

Here are a number of article titles I came across while I was searching for the above quote that highlight rather key differences between Bush and Obama and conservatives and liberals:

On the article from the liberal “journalist” who wishes a terrorist had been a conservative tea party member, let’s just realize how COMMON that vile attitude is among liberals.  Samual L. Jackson, actor, liberal and demonic turd, just got through telling the world that when he heard about the San Bernardino terror attack, his very first thought was “how much I really wanted that to just be another, you know, crazy white dude, and not really some Muslims.”  Because like ALL Democrats he is a pathological RACIST BIGOT who hates Americans and therefore lives in an alternate reality where it is the American white people he so despises who are guilty of all the sins in the world.  He goes on to label the sort of people who just murdered 14 human beings as ” the new young black men.”

No, don’t be comparing Obama to Bush or Democrat-fool foreign policy to Republicans.  Just DON’T.  You damn hypocrite liars.  You damn and damnable liberals are SO wrapped up and enmeshed in the Muslim Monsters who are trying to murder us it makes me sick.  You both want the same damn thing: the State worshipped as God and the people trampled upon as they are compelled to do your bidding by force.

Also keep in mind that President George W. Bush PREDICTED the meltdown in Iraq if a future fool were to try to undo what Bush had at great cost managed to finally do:

“I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.” — President Bush, 2007

Which is EXACTLY what happened because our Fool-in-Chief began his fool presidency doing the following:

US-IRAQ: Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision
By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON, Feb 2 2009 (IPS) – CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn’t convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Obama’s decision to override Petraeus’s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama’s decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, “Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama.”

So don’t EVER let ANY Democrat cite Obama now.

Bush didn’t do that.  Bush warned AGAINST doing that.  It was OBAMA who foolishly abandoned Iraq against every single one of his generals’ recommendations and them demonically and deceitfully tried to blame it on Bush and on a status of forces agreement that had NOTHING to do with Obama’s stupid decision-making.

Bush WON the war in Iraq: Vice President Joe Biden claimed that fact, saying:

“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government,” said Biden.

Bush WON the war in Iraq.  Barack Obama claimed that fact, claiming in 2009 “an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant.”

Bush WON the war in Iraq.  Even Bush’s terrorist enemies acknowledged it by saying in their radio transmissions that were intercepted, “We are defeated, don’t send any more foreign fighters.”

Bush WON the war in Iraq.  OBAMA LOST IT BECAUSE OBAMA IS A WICKED FOOL.

Terrorism has EXPLODED under Obama by EVERY metric you want to use.  Deaths from terrorism have already QUADRUPLED under Obama; and the wicked fool’s still got over a year left that we can already see are going to be so much worse it’s not even REAL.  Realize that in the first five years of Obama’s failed rule, terrorism exploded 150 percent.   But that’s NOTHING because terrorism under Obama exploded by ANOTHER 81 percent just last year alone.  How do you think 2015 is going to look, you Democrat FOOL???

Because Barack Obama is the most demon-possessed FOOL who has EVER LIVED, we are now seeing the worst refugee crisis in the entire recorded history of planet earth.

No, Barack Obama is NOTHING like George Bush.

And the Democrat Party is the party of Satan himself.  And Satan is laughing and laughing and maniacally laughing as evil EXPLODES because he owns the soul of every single Democrat.  And that is why these sodomy-worshiping baby butchering Marxists are one day going to share Satan’s ultimate eternal destiny.

So just to recap, Democrats who demonically, treacherously and in fact treasonously betrayed and back-stabled their commander-in-chief and the troops they had voted to authorized to fight under him before they abandoned their duty are cowards and liars of the very lowest sort to now try to argue that they are the ones who are the true bearers of Bush’s mantle.

 

America’s Disgrace-in-Chief Reveals His Naked Contempt For The Military He Just Sent To War

September 24, 2014

I don’t have words for such an act of disgrace:

Obama latte salute2.

I can only compare it to the same guy just a few weeks ago when he gave a speech about how heinous and evil Islamic State is after they had just beheaded an American on video for all to see. And then went golfing 8 minutes later and was seen yukking it up on the golf course.

It is widely agreed that it was those beheadings that ultimately forced Obama’s hand to stop ignoring the Middle East he had allowed to become a fiasco by doing NOTHING – and by making one false assurance after another that he had terrorists on the run – that forced America back into the war Obama took so much damn credit for getting us out of.

If you’re going to order men to war, you treacherous coward, the LEAST you can do is value your military more than your damn latte and pretend to show them the dignity and respect they deserve.

Update 9/25: As usual, the psychotic left that so rabidly despises George Bush is pointing to none other than George Bush to justify the behavior of their messiah Obama.  I mean, dude, if you think Hitler is a bad guy, DON’T POINT TO HITLER TO JUSTIFY THE BEHAVIOR OF YOUR HERO, OKAY?

I could jump on the horns of the dilemma and say that they both ought to be impeached, but it turns out that there are a few things that make these two salute situations very different.

The first is that Obama is carrying a latte cup while Bush is carrying his dog who is essentially a family member.  Which would you say is easier to toss into the trash on your way out of the plane?

NBC in its propaganda effort to protect their messiah Obama cited a picture of George Bush trying to salute with Barney in his arms says Bush.  They say that Bush should have put Barney on a leash.  Well, have you ever tried to walk a short-legged dog off the steps of an airplane ramp?  Unlike the coffee cup that could have and should have been trashed, SOMEBODY had to carry Barney off that plane.  And Bush did it himself rather than insult a Secret Service agent and have him carry the dog.

The second thing is that – despite the fact that Bush was carrying the larger and more awkward bundle of Barney versus Obama who only had a damn coffee cup in his hand, Bush STILL managed to salute with an empty right hand as the photo shows.  Which is to say that Bush came CONSIDERABLY closer to rendering a proper salute than Obama even though Bush had a much more substantial burden to carry than Obama had with his stupid coffee cup.

But it’s the third thing that makes the cake: when was the Bush photo taken?  It was taken on June 26, 2001.  Which is to say it was taken only five months into the Bush presidency and it was taken four months before America was attacked and President Bush found himself a president at WAR.  What was awkward, if not cute, prior to 9/11/2001 when America was attacked and Bush ordered the men who saluted him into war is rightly a national disgrace now.

This is similar to another of Obama’s grievous displays of his contempt for America.  George Bush loved playing golf.  But when the left attacked him for golfing while he was sending our sons and daughters into war, what did Bush do?  He had the character to stop golfing and never played another round during his presidency.  He sacrificed something he genuinely loved for the good of his nation.

Let’s look at that comparison, too.  Obama – as I already pointed out above – was on the golf course smiling and laughing only EIGHT MINUTES after describing the horror of beheaded journalist James Foley.  He was back on the course AGAIN within less than a day in spite of the deserved criticism for the round he had just played.  Then he later blamed the media for his “bad optics” as a man who pathologically refuses to accept responsibility for ANYTHING.  Obama is a man completely devoid of decency or integrity.  Since becoming president, in spite of the fact that he has been a president at war just like Bush was, Obama has played nearly 200 rounds of golf.  Compare that to professional golfer Tiger Woods, who has played 269 rounds of golf during the same period.  Obama’s behavior is not only a sick joke; it’s a national disgrace of a president who WILL NOT DO HIS JOB AND DO WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THE COUNTRY.

Obama had just ordered America back into war.  I mean, he had JUST ordered America back into war when he delivered this shame of a salute.

You tell me that the left wing media wouldn’t have gone bat-poop ballistic if Bush had given that disgrace of a salute with that damn coffee cup in his saluting hand if Bush had done that the day our military was fighting in Afghanistan after 9/11.

Could some propaganda hack show a picture of Bush golfing and then claim that Obama wasn’t doing anything Bush hadn’t done?  Yeah.  Their are plenty of “journalists” dishonest enough to do that.  Would those Goebbels hacks point out the differences that make Bush so much better than Obama it’s not even silly?  Absolutely not.

Report Shows Obama Failed – And Failed From DAY ONE – In Afghanistan

April 19, 2014

Raise your hand if you EVER believed Obama’s incredibly stupid and naïve “strategy” in Afghanistan would work before he cut and ran on his “timetable for surrender.”

Please note: people like me were declaring Obama’s strategy in Afghanistan would fail from the first moment he declared, “If we declare exactly when we’re going to crawl out with our tails between our legs, and then leave Afghanistan to the terrorists, we’ll win.”  And people like me were right, and as usual people like Obama are a) evil because they wasted all of our blood and everything we invested and b) stupid beyond human belief.

Obama already HAS largely pissed Iraq away and wasted our victory there by refusing to stay.  Cutting and running equals LOSING.  I still remember the day that Obama demonized and slandered John McCain for declaring that we ought to remain in Iraq for a hundred years, if necessary, to peacefully secure what we won the same way we remained in Germany and the same way we remained in Japan and the same way we remained in South Korea to keep what we had won safe and free.  What McCain was very clearly saying – CORRECTLY – was that America needed to maintain a low key presence and a commitment to these countries in order to keep the terrorists who had taken over Afghanistan to attack us on 9/11 and to keep the terrorists who wanted to do the same thing with Iraq out and American influence in.

Obama said absolutely not, that his policy of declaring to the enemy exactly when we were going to withdraw and then leaving would succeed.  On Obama’s failed view, “cutting and running” would force Afghanistan and Iraq to get their acts together and fight the terrorists themselves.

But that was never going to work, and frankly the stakes were too high for America to ever stupidly believe that it had any chance of working.

And now here we are:

EXCLUSIVE: Confidential U.S. assessments show Afghanistan not ready to govern on own
State Department tries to hide risks of corruption
By Guy Taylor – The Washington Times
Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Confidential U.S. assessments, which the State Department tried to hide from the public, show nearly all Afghan Cabinet ministries are woefully ill-prepared to govern after the U.S. withdraws its troops, often describing the gaps in knowledge, capability and safeguards as “critical” and describing an infrastructure in danger of collapsing if left to its own accord.

The State Department USAID reports, obtained by The Washington Times, paint a sobering portrait about the impact of the billions of dollars the U.S. has spent on nation-building over the past decade.


SEE ALSO: See the scathing documents detailing $600 billion squandered in Afghanistan


Treated as a whole, the reports suggest that the U.S. spending has yet to create a sustainable civilian government in Afghanistan and, in some cases, has been diverted to corrupt politicians or extremists looking to destabilize the country.

USAID officials told The Times on Tuesday that the risks of corruption and waste associated with trying to develop a government in Afghanistan have long been known and that U.S. taxpayers must be patient before they see further returns on their aid investments.

Americans need to appreciate that the Afghan government ministries hardly existed a dozen years ago, said the officials, who argued that the government has progressed dramatically over the years — giving all the more reason for Washington now to ensure that the gains are not lost and U.S. national security hurt during the years ahead.

Further, USAID spokesman Matt Herrick told The Times that “we strongly reject all claims that we have improperly withheld information.”

USAID takes very seriously its obligation to share information about its operations with Congress, auditors and the public,” Mr. Herrick said.

But questions remain about precisely why the secret assessments, which were conducted by USAID officials in 2012 and 2013 and are known in foreign aid circles as “Stage II Risk Assessment Reports,” are just coming to light.


SEE ALSO: U.S. fears Afghan services may be cut as corruption sharply reduces customs taxes


The documents focus specifically on seven Afghan government ministries overseeing the nation’s finance, mining, electric utilities, communications, education, health and agriculture.

USAID concluded outright that six of those ministries simply cannot be trusted to manage aid from U.S. taxpayers without a dangerous risk that the money will fall victim to fraud, waste, abuse or outright theft.

Only in one of the seven cases — the Afghan Ministry of Finance in March 2013 — did auditors conclude that the ministry’s systems were “adequate to properly manage and account for” money being channeled in from Washington.

But even with that conclusion, USAID auditors identified 26 risks for fraud and waste at the finance ministry. Three of the risks were deemed to be “high” and the rest were rated “critical,” including the overarching danger of the Finance Ministry simply “not being able to fulfill its mandate and carry out its operation.”

The reports, which also contain specific recommendations for each ministry to root out mismanagement, are being made public against a backdrop of mounting debate in Washington over America’s nation-building project in Afghanistan over the past 12 years.

The Times obtained the assessments under a Freedom of Information Act request filed with the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, the chief U.S. watchdog over the State Department’s nation-building efforts.

The State Department provided the documents earlier to private groups and congressional lawmakers, but in redacted, edited and compressed formats, leading to complaints that the department hid essential information about the poor state of Afghanistan’s governing ability. The Times’ copies were mostly free of edits, laying bare the stark assessments USAID gave about each Afghan ministry.

‘Should not be released’

At the center of that debate sits serious questions about the impact — or lack thereof — of the more than $100 billion that Congress says has been channeled toward Afghanistan reconstruction.

Although the amount is far less than the $600 billion estimated to have been spent on U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, it represents the core of America’s attempt to build a government that would not crumble quickly should President Obama come through on his promise to pull all U.S. forces out of the nation by the end of this year.

USAID alone has channeled $20 billion toward the effort, according to SIGAR officials.

SIGAR and USAID have fought bitterly in public in recent weeks over whether the U.S. exerted enough safeguards over its spending and whether the State Department has tried to hide the blemishes inside each Afghan ministry.

The Stage II Risk Assessment Reports, along with a series of other Afghan ministry audits that USAID contracted out to the high-level Washington accounting firms KPMG and Ernst & Young, have sat at the center of the dispute.

SIGAR used the assessments as the basis for its scathing report in January highlighting rampant claims of fraud and abuse across the ministries. But what came next was even more eye-opening: The watchdog group wrote a letter to USAID accusing the agency of seeking at “virtually every turn” to block the information from becoming public.

“When SIGAR first requested copies of the ministry assessments at issue here, USAID stamped them ‘Sensitive But Unclassified’ (SBU), with a legend on the front covers stating that they should not be released ‘outside the Executive Branch,’ i.e., should not be released to Congress or the public,” SIGAR General Counsel John G. Arlington wrote in a March 26 letter to USAID’s legal branch.

The letter triggered speculation inside government circles in Washington that USAID might be guarding the material because of a reference that the ministry assessments had made to terrorism.

A version of the assessment, which was conducted by KPMG, appeared this month on the website of the Project on Government Oversight and highlighted how the Afghan Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development had never developed a mechanism “for screening of beneficiaries for their possible links with terrorist organizations before signing contracts or providing funds to the suppliers.”

Lack of accountability

That particular assessment, along with others that USAID contracted KPMG and Ernst & Young to conduct, were not included in the FOIA response that SIGAR provided Tuesday to The Times.

In the response, SIGAR provided The Times with more than 100 pages of the assessments that USAID officials conducted to gauge the capabilities of Afghan ministries.

The documents paint a sobering picture. In one, USAID auditors assessed a shocking lack of management over the financial dealings at the ministry overseeing all mining activities in Afghanistan.

“There is no financial management and accounting system in place to record transactions for both operational and development budget,” states the September 2012 assessment of the Afghan Ministry of Mines.

“There is no evidence of reconciliation of monthly payroll records,” auditors wrote. “In fact, staff are receiving bonuses in cash which are not declared on their bank transfer.”

What’s worse, USAID concluded, is that the “same staff is recording and reconciling transactions.”

An examination of Afghanistan’s main power and electricity generating utility, Da Afghanistan Breshna Sherkat — known as DABS — paints an equally bleak picture. The assessment, dated October 2012, found “significant weaknesses in DABS’ financial management and accounting system.”

“These weaknesses create opportunities for fraud, including off-balance sheet financing,” USAID auditors wrote. “Evidently DABS does not have sufficient financial management capacity to manage donors’ funds, without strong mitigation measures and/or substantial involvement from donors.”

Six of 12 risks that auditors identified for fraud and waste at DABS were assessed as “critical.” Six others, including the risk of DABS’ management “not being committed to sound organizational structure and competence,” were rated as “high.”

Documents prove oversight

Each of the assessments contains a section outlining the Obama administration’s 2010 policy to channel “at least 50 percent” of all U.S. government development aid to Afghanistan directly into the budget of the Afghan government.

Under the policy, USAID officials wrote, the agency is committed to evaluating the government capability of whatever nation is receiving aid — in this case Afghanistan. The point, the officials wrote, is to “understand the fiduciary risk environment in targeted countries” in order to decide whether a given nation’s agencies can be trusted with U.S. taxpayer money.

“If the assessment reveals clear evidence of vulnerabilities to corruption, and the partner country government fails to respond, the use of partner country systems must not be authorized,” USAID officials wrote.

Although the assessments go on to highlight such vulnerabilities across the Afghan ministries, USAID agreed as of August to channel roughly $695 million in “direct assistance” to those ministries.

USAID officials defended their actions Tuesday by pointing out that the agency has disbursed only about $200 million, specifically because of concerns about widespread fraud and corruption.

Mr. Herrick said suggestions that USAID has tried to hide the risk of such problems only “distract from the larger story that is often overlooked here — that USAID is protecting U.S. taxpayer money while providing critical development assistance and putting in place strict safeguards and oversight measures.”

“These documents, the Stage II assessments, very clearly demonstrate those oversight measures,” he said.

Another USAID official told The Times that Congress and U.S. government auditors have access to USAID documents in unredacted form either in their offices or at USAID.

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, asserted that it “is a common practice to redact information from the general public about vulnerabilities and other information that could be exploited by unscrupulous actors if exposed.”

Other officials said the USAID goes to lengths to work with Afghan officials in an attempt to help them develop the capability to effectively manage their ministries on their own, rather than simply throw money at the situation. As a result, one official said, the process takes significant time and care.

Ghost employees

Officials writing the documents pulled few punches. The one conducted on the Ministry of Mines, for instance, described a landscape ripe for corruption. Operational problems, USAID auditors wrote, have created a “critical” risk of “kickbacks and bribery.”

Similarly strong language was used in a “Conclusion & Results” section of an October 2012 assessment of the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock, commonly referred to as “MAIL.”

“MAIL’s financial management/accounting system is not adequate to properly manage and account for donors’ funds,” auditors wrote. “MAIL does not have the financial management capacity to manage proposed activities.”

USAID auditors also pointed to damaging personnel problems within the Ministry of Public Health, whose “payroll database is vulnerable to unauthorized access and modification.”

The ministry “runs the risk of paying ghost employees and making improper payments to employees,” the assessment states.

A “lack of transparency” within the ministry’s procurement and purchasing system “creates an opportune environment for fraud, waste and abuse,” USAID auditors wrote, adding that ministry was in violation of existing Afghan government procurement laws, operating with “no effective control over public expenditures.”

Thirteen of 14 risks USAID identified in the assessment were rated as “critical,” including the risks that the ministry’s officials are diverting “government resources for unintended purposes” and manipulating accounting information to “hide illegal actions.”

While a January 2013 assessment of the Ministry of Education painted a relatively optimistic view of the ministry’s future, auditors cited a “high” risk of government resources being diverted to “unintended purposes.”

USAID auditors also found a host of accountability issues associated with the manner in which not just money — but actual cash — flows through the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology to the ministry’s employees.

“The Ministry permits salary advances in the form of cash to staff, however, there are no internal controls to monitor and track the cash advances and [a] separate ledger to record the cash advances is not maintained,” auditors wrote in a January 2013 assessment.

We have needed all along to stay small in Afghanistan, and to just keep using our elite forces and our air and artillery power to just keep finding out where the Taliban were and taking them out.  As Bush had successfully done.

Obama’s counterinsurgency strategy was NEVER going to work.  Because we were NEVER going to be able to win the hearts and minds of such a primitive tribal people who are so easily deceived (all too much like the American people, sadly).

What we needed to do was what Bush did: drive the Taliban out and just proceed to keep them on their heels by killing them with raids when they tried to gather and terrorize the people in their villages.

Bush lost 630 Americans in Afghanistan during his eight years.  Now, you can demonize Bush as having lost to many, as Barack Obama did.  But now you’ve got to answer for the fact that Barack Obama has lost 1,687 American lives so far in Afghanistan.  And he is about to lose the whole enchilada because his strategy was wildly wrong.  And he’s ALREADY lost the Iraq War that George Bush won by refusing to stay and keep what we fought for.

Obama has thrown away three times as many American lives as Bush AFTER DEMONIZING Bush.  Only to fail those men and fail America.

Liberals won’t answer for those facts, of course, because to be a Democrat is to be a rabidly dishonest hypocrite.

But every thinking person ought to hold Obama accountable for his bovine feces rhetoric and his bovine feces results.

Obama’s failure in Afghanistan has been predicted over and over and over again right from the very start by people like me.  Because we understood the true evil that is Barack Obama and his God Damn America policies:

Afghanistan and Iran: Weakling President Obama Confronted By ‘Strong’ Candidate Obama

September 28, 2009

Obama’s Afghanistan Mess Proves Why Making Iraq Central Front Good Idea

October 15, 2009

Biden Reveals Obama Administration Treating Afghanistan As Political Problem

October 19, 2009

Some ‘Change’: Closest Ally Britain Says Obama Undermining War In Afghanistan

November 24, 2009

Obama’s Message To Taliban Re: Afghanistan: ‘Just Keep Fighting And Wait Us Out And It’ll Be All Yours’

December 2, 2009

Speigel Regards Obama And His Afghanistan Policy With Naked Contempt

December 2, 2009

How’s Obama Doing In Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq? Not So Good

April 7, 2010

Obama Reducing Afghanistan Into ‘Echoes Of Vietnam’

April 7, 2010

Napalitano Travels To Afghanistan To Make Its Border As Secure As America’s

January 3, 2011

Great General Leaving Afghanistan So Fool President Can Be The Weakling His Leftist Base Demands

February 16, 2011

Obama – Who Demonized Iraq And Afghanistan During Bush Administration – Now Warns Against Sending ‘Mixed Messages’ In His ‘Kinetic Action’ In Libya

June 16, 2011

Obama REPEATEDLY IGNORED GENERALS As He Pursued His Political Policy Of First Surge Then Cut-And-Run In Afghanistan

June 29, 2011

Obama’s Utterly Failed Policy With Syria, Egypt, Iran, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan And The Entire Middle East Is A Clear And Present Danger

February 9, 2012

I think those older articles establish my bona fides that I TOLD YOU SO.

And one of the things I pointed out in one of the earliest articles was why Obama was such a stupid and reckless fool to make the war on terror all about Afghanistan to begin with.  The bottom line is that Iraq was PERFECT for American policy.  It had an educated people who were capable of listening to reason; and it had flat terrain where our air and armor power could easily dominate and guarantee victory.  Obama was stupid to drag us deeply into Afghanistan – which Bush refused to do no matter how much John Kerry and then Barack Obama and other Democrats demonized him for it – because unlike those fools Bush listened to his generals and understood the folly.  That is why he kept the Afghanistan theater in low key and instead opened the theater in Iraq where we had a dictator’s ass to kick in the heart of the Arab World.

Obama’s campaign was based on demonization from the very outset.  He had made Iraq “the bad war” and – because it was deemed politically foolish to make Democrats completely anti-war – they offered Afghanistan as “the good war.”

Only Democrats are rabid liars and fools and Afghanistan was NEVER a good ANYTHING.

We have struggled massively to educate stone-age people who live in a country that is dominated by mountains and caves that defy all of our military advantages.

It was a death trap right from the start.

The rest of the world knew this: which is why Afghanistan had already been called “The Graveyard of Empires” LONG before another fool like Obama came along to experience the lessons of history anew.

Just keep voting for Democrats, America.  Because you’ve clearly demonstrated that you want to go the way of the Dodo bird.

EASILY Refuting The Asinine Liberal Argument That Bush Is More Fascist Than Obama Because Bush Issued More Executive Orders

February 19, 2014

Okay, this shouldn’t take long.

Republicans are outraged at the number of times Obama has simply either completely abrogated law or simply illegally wrote a law by himself when that power is invested solely in Congress.

Democrats use this “moral” logic:

The New York Magazine listed all presidents serving during the past 115 years, ranking them by use of executive orders. The president issuing the most executive orders in that period of 115 years was FDR who issued more than 3,000. The ranking proceeds down from there to Hoover [R], Wilson [D], Harding [R], Coolidge [R], Taft [R], Teddy Roosevelt [R], Truman [D], Carter [D], Kennedy [D], Ford [R], Johnson [D], Nixon [R], Eisenhower [R], Reagan [R], Clinton [D], George Herbert Walker Bush [41] [R], McKinley [R], George W. Bush [43] [R] and, drum roll please, the president with the fewest executive orders in the past 115 years was President Obama [D] with 167.

If the Republicans’ argument were that “executive orders” are inherently evil and every executive order is as wicked as any other, then that argument would be valid rather than laughably stupid.  But that ISN’T their argument.  A president has the right to issue executive orders; he just doesn’t have a right to change the law.

Watch me now proceed to blow up the Democrat reasoning in about two seconds:

Fascist right-wing Nazi President Mikey will issue only TWO executive orders during his presidency for life:

1. All power is hereby rendered to the executive.

2. The Democrat Party is hereby a terrorist and criminal organization and all of its members and all of the people who have supported it shall hereby be hunted down with dogs and burned alive.

And here’s the beauty of this: President Mikey responds to the Democrats’ charge of fascism by pointing out that Barack Obama was actually 98.8 percent more fascist because he issued 167 orders to President Mikey’s two.

It’s amazing, isn’t it.  I have just seized total dictatorial power and literally executed all of my political opposition, but according to Democrats’ current “reasoning,” I can’t be a fascist because Obama issued more executive orders than I did.

I hope I don’t have to explain more about how that is an utterly dumbass argument and that anybody and everybody who would or who has used it is a mindless ideologue zombie.

Just how morally idiotic ARE Democrats?  It is a mystery that only God knows.  I know only that no human being created in the image of God could be such a fool, and that the Democrats’ moral insanity is the result of their pissing on the image of God and declaring themselves the mindless “progress” of random evolution as they put their faith in the notion that they somehow kept mutating into smarter and smarter creatures.

But HERE is the problem with MANY of the executive orders that Obama has written: he has not only materially changed (read “fundamentally transformed”) laws that were passed by Congress, that he signed, and that as according to his role as president becomes his job to “faithfully execute” rather than abrogate or change, he has actually flat-out created new crimes that had never existed before.

Obama: It’s nonsensical for me to enforce the law as it is written
By: DrJohn

king obama

image courtesy of Maggie’s Notebook

Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute testified before Congress yesterday about the dangerous territory into which the country is headed. Obama took an oath to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” and Cannon spells out in clear detail how badly Obama is flouting his oath and the Constitution.

The law is a reciprocal pact between the government and the governed. Public order requires government to remain faithful to the law as much as it requires the citizenry to do so. If the actions of government officials lead citizens to conclude that those officials are no longer meaningfully bound by the law, then citizens will rightly conclude that neither are they.

Since he signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) into law on March 23, 2010, President Barack Obama has failed to execute that law faithfully.

The president has unilaterally taken taxpayer dollars made available by the PPACA and diverted them from their congressionally authorized purposes toward purposes for which no Congress has ever appropriated funds.

He has unilaterally and repeatedly rewritten the statute to dispense taxpayer dollars that no federal law authorizes him to spend and that the PPACA expressly forbids him to spend.

He has unilaterally issued blanket waivers to requirements that the PPACA does not authorize him to waive.

At the same time he has declined to collect taxes the PPACA orders him to collect, he has unilaterally rewritten the statute to impose billions of dollars in taxes that the PPACA expressly forbids him to impose, and to incur billions of dollars in debt that the statute expressly forbids him to incur.

He has unilaterally rewritten the PPACA to allow health insurance products that the statute expressly forbids. He has encouraged consumers, insurers, and state officials to violate a federal law he enacted.

And he has taken these steps for the purpose of forestalling democratic action by the people’s elected representatives in Congress.

President Obama’s unfaithfulness to the PPACA is so wanton, it is no longer accurate to say the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is “the law of the land.” Today, with respect to health care, the law of the land is whatever one man says it is – or whatever this divided Congress will let that one man get away with saying. What this one man says may flatly contradict federal statute. It may suddenly confer benefits on favored groups, or tax disfavored groups without representation. It may undermine the careful and costly planning done by millions of individuals and businesses. It may change from day to day. This method of lawmaking has more in common with monarchy than democracy or a constitutional republic.

Obama has run roughshod over the PPACA law. Cannon points out the worst abuse:

The president’s most egregious violation of his duty to execute faithfully the PPACA is his attempt – under the rubric of that law – to tax, borrow, and spend billions of dollars that statute expressly prohibits him to spend.

The relevant provisions of the Act are complex, but the law is abundantly clear. The PPACA authorizes the creation of state-specific health insurance “exchanges” that regulate health insurance within each state. It asserts that “Each State shall . . . establish” an Exchange. It directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish an Exchange in states that do not. It offers health insurance subsidies to certain taxpayers who enroll in a qualified health plan “through an Exchange established by the State under Section 1311.” Finally, the PPACA exempts employers from its “free-rider penalty,” and exempts millions of individual taxpayers from its individual-mandate penalties, if their states opt not to establish an Exchange. The language of the statute is clear, consistent, and unambiguous.

Nevertheless, shortly after legal scholars brought this feature of the law to the public’s attention in 2011, the Internal Revenue Service proposed a rule that would issue those subsidies – and impose the resulting taxes – through federal Exchanges as well as state-established Exchanges. Congressional Budget Office estimates indicate that issuing subsidies in the 34 states that have refused to establish Exchanges would cost taxpayers roughly $700 billion in the first 10 years. The president is literally threatening to tax, borrow, and spend hundreds of billions of dollars, without congressional authorization, and indeed in violation of the express language of his own health care law.

The IRS proposed this rule with no apparent regard for the clear language of the statute. Despite public criticism and objections during the notice-and-comment period, the agency finalized its proposed rule in May 2012 yet cited neither any provision of the PPACA nor any element of the legislative history in support of its “interpretation” of the law.

You will want to read the entire testimony. Cannon concludes with a strong warning:

The concerns I share with you today are not borne of partisanship. Though I have worked for Republicans, I am not a Republican, for reasons that Democrats on this committee can readily appreciate. I am acutely aware of the last Republican president’s failures to execute the laws faithfully. In 2008, though I did not support him, I preferred the Democratic presidential candidate to the Republican candidate in part because he promised to curb such abuses by the executive. I have praised President Obama for doing more than even many libertarians to celebrate the gains in equality and freedom our nation has secured for women, for African-Americans, for gays, and for lesbians.

This president’s failure – or any president’s failure – to honor his constitutional duty to execute the laws faithfully is not a partisan issue. The fact that presidents from both parties violate this duty is cause not for solace. It is cause for even greater alarm, because it guarantees that presidents from both parties will replicate and even surpass the abuses of their predecessors as payback for past injustices. The result is that democracy and freedom will suffer no matter who occupies the Oval Office.

The Obama regime is arguing that it is nonsensical to read literally the law as it is written.

That’s utterly absurd.

What do laws mean if they can be rewritten at will by the President? Why must we obey laws if the President does not? Since when are we to obey what democrats say they intended rather than what is codified in a law they wrote?

Why could Obama not suspend the 2nd Amendment if he wakes up one day and decides on it? What if Obama wakes up one day and claims the First Amendment means he can shut down the press because that’s how he interprets it?

Who’s going to stop him?

Obama does think he is king and this country is edging closer and closer to that becoming a reality.

Here is an example of a “nonsensical” understanding of the law according to Obama:

The Obama administration last week delayed for a second time the part of the Affordable Care Act that requires large employers to provide health coverage or pay fines.

The “employer mandate” was supposed to take effect in January. But now, mid-size firms of 50 to 99 employees do not have to comply until 2016, and the requirements will be phased in for employers of 100 or more full-time workers.

Mr. Lee, Utah Republican, told Fox News Sunday that if Mr. Obama can change the law through rules from the Treasury, “then there’s almost no limit to his authority.”

Fox host Chris Wallace said the text of the law is quite clear, stating the mandate “shall apply to months beginning after Dec. 31, 2013.”

Of course, yes, the damn law was written to take effect on January 1, 2014.  But Obama CHANGED the law that he swore as part of his oath of office to “faithfully execute.”

Obama decided that “execute” means “kill.”  And of course it’s “nonsensical” for him to interpret “execute” as “to faithfully carry out.”  Because he is MURDERING the law.  He has now changed his OWN ObamaCare law 29 times – and these being MAJOR changes that Congress DID NOT PASS.

We know that Barack Obama is the very worst possible kind of dishonest hypocrite without shame, integrity, honor, decency or virtue of any kind.  And we know that even the top liberal legal scholars are now calling him an outright fascist who has fundamentally transformed our democracy into something that will necessarily degenerate into totalitarianism in the days just before the beast comes.

What is going on in Ukraine – as the people rise up against a dictatorial president who is trying to force them to become less like a democracy and more like a Russian fascist dictatorship – ought to be happening here.

Because what Barack Obama is doing is truly evil.  And the crisis is that the Democrat Party that has become truly evil and the Democrat voters who are truly evil hypocritically protect him when they would be screaming in the streets if Bush had done anything even remotely close to what Obama has done.

Liberal Fascist Hypocrite Joan Walsh Says It’s ‘Racist’ To Go After Obama’s Family – After Viciously Slandering Bush’s Family In 2001.

March 27, 2013

Joan Walsh is a typical liberal hypocrite.  She literally says it’s racist to do what she herself did.  Only of course it wasn’t racist when she did it.

Here’s her article attacking George W. Bush as a father and then attacking his daughters back in 2001 (note that the picture of Bush’s daughter below was a prominent part of the Salon.com piece) back when it was wonderful to demonize the president:

Thursday, May 31, 2001 01:00 AM PDT
The first family’s alcohol troubles
President Bush downplayed his own drinking problem and hid a DUI. Now his daughters are making news for underage drinking. Is there a connection?
By Joan Walsh

I don’t envy Jenna and Barbara Bush, going off to college under the watchful eye of the Secret Service and the international media. But the sudden flurry of headlines about the first twins’ alcohol-related mishaps raises new questions about the way their father handled his own “young and irresponsible” past.

I always thought it was a bad decision for Bush, as a politician, to refuse to acknowledge his wild youth — which, by his own account, lasted until he was 40. But now it seems it was a bad choice for Bush as a father. After his 1976 drunken-driving arrest was revealed last year, Bush said he didn’t admit it when he decided to run for president because he didn’t want his daughters to know about it. That was a mistake, and the twins’ recent run of bad behavior seems designed to let him know that.

There’s no evidence either twin has a drinking problem, but the string of news items involving their partying and scrapes with the law in the last few months can’t be ignored. First came the tale of Secret Service agents ferrying home Jenna’s boyfriend after he was arrested for public drunkenness. Then there were randy National Enquirer photos of Jenna, a University of Texas freshman, and a beer-drinking pal, and a story about her alleged marijuana use. Yale freshman Barbara, supposedly the studious twin, had a false I.D. confiscated at a New Haven, Conn., bar. In April, the Enquirer featured a lurid tale of Barbara’s drunken spring-break binge in Mexico, and by the end of the month all major newspapers were carrying a story about Jenna being cited by police at an Austin bar for underage drinking, while Secret Service agents waited outside.

Now, barely a week after a court appearance to deal with that alcohol citation, Jenna has been caught again using a false I.D. to buy alcohol at an Austin restaurant, with sister Barbara at her side.

Of course, many of us would have provided lively tabloid fodder in college if we’d been subjected to the scrutiny Barbara and Jenna Bush must endure. And their college drinking doesn’t mean they’ll turn into alcoholics as adults. Most teenage party girls become responsible citizens, eventually. Still, their recklessness in the first months of their father’s presidency suggests their parents screwed up by downplaying and even denying President Bush’s own drinking problem.

Bush’s he-man decision to quit drinking cold turkey is the stuff of legend. The morning after a boozy 40th birthday party in 1986, he woke up at Colorado’s tony Broadmoor Resort and decided, on his own, to get sober. Alcohol had begun to “compete for my affections,” Bush said later. Certainly he didn’t need Alcoholics Anonymous, he told the Washington Post: “I don’t think I was clinically an alcoholic; I didn’t have the genuine addiction. I don’t know why I drank. I liked to drink, I guess.”

But his close friends tell a slightly different story: “Once he got started, he couldn’t, didn’t shut it off,” Bush’s buddy Don Evans, now commerce secretary, told the Washington Post last year. “He didn’t have the discipline.” That sounds a lot like an addiction, though only Bush himself knows for sure.

He refused to discuss details of his drinking or rumored drug use throughout his political campaigns, relying on the stock excuse, “When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible.” His parents have also repeatedly denied he had a drinking problem, even after several family crises involving his drinking came to light: an ugly Christmas confrontation with his father in 1972, after Bush drove drunk with his brother Marvin, crashed into a neighbor’s garbage cans and offered to fight “mano a mano” with his father; and the 1976 DUI incident near the family compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, with his then-teenage sister Dorothy in the car.

We know Bush’s problem drinking, including the DUI, was a family secret. The night a reporter broke the DUI story, Laura Bush called both daughters, in Austin and New Haven, to break the news to them. “I made the decision that as a dad I didn’t want my girls doing the kinds of things I did, and I told them not to drink and drive,” Bush told reporters. But he didn’t tell them about his own arrest.

The secrecy, of course, was a mistake. Anyone who works with alcoholics and their families knows honesty is crucial: The drinking parent needs to come clean about his or her problems, and kids need to understand the family dynamics that were established around the drinking. And as teenagers, they need to know that alcoholism is a disease — whether because of psychology or physiology or some combination of the two — that is remarkably hereditary, and think about their own drinking in that context.

“We know for a fact that [Jenna’s] father had a long history of alcohol use and abuse,” Lynn Ponton, a psychiatrist who studies teenage risk-taking, told Salon. “And this is an opportunity for the Bushes … to talk honestly with their children about risk-taking and really provide guidance and increase communication. And I would wonder what type of communication is actually taking place.”

I wonder, too. I’d bet there hasn’t been enough communication in the WASP-y Texas Bush family, and it looks as if the first twins are acting out as a result. Even with a Secret Service detail, there are ways for young women to party, if they’re discreet. Clearly, the first twins aren’t. Their blatant risk-taking and public partying (the Secret Service waits outside the bars where they drink illegally?) seem designed to force a family reckoning that their father’s drinking never triggered.

I’m reluctant to play family therapist for a family I’ve never met, but I’d say that Bush may have gotten past voters with evasiveness about his drinking problem, but he hasn’t satisfied his daughters. And if he sticks to the sanitized, up-from-Broadmoor version of the story, he may someday find he won the White House at the cost of an honest relationship with his daughters.

An earlier version of this story appeared in Bushed! last month.

That was then.  As liberal fascism always declares, it can’t be fascist when we do it.  So liberal roach-thug Walsh apparently gets pissed off about what is actually a pretty straightforward piece at Breitbart and writes this stinking pile of crap that these days passes as “journalism” (note the considerably more flattering picture of Obama’s daughters in which they look considerably less drunk than their choice for Jenna’s pic above).

For the record, I read over the Breitbart piece.  Somehow I missed the parts that Walsh alleges are there about a) the color of Obama’s skin; b) the unfitness of Obama as a parent; or c) the disgracefulness of the president’s daughters.  Please note, however, how Walsh just flat-out poured hate on George W. Bush as a father and slammed his daughters even after acknowledging that she had any actual factual basis for doing so:

Tuesday, Mar 26, 2013 09:51 AM PDT
How not to seem like a racist
A tip for right-wingers angry about charges of racial bias: Try treating the Obama daughters with decency
By Joan Walsh

How not to seem like a racistEnlargeSasha and Malia Obama(Credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque)

Writing my piece on Andrew Breitbart and Tucker Carlson, I missed a huge example of overlap between their two sham-empires: the reporter who broke the Caller’s now-disgraced “scoop” about Sen. Robert Menendez patronizing prostitutes, Matthew Boyle, now works for Breitbart.com. And on Monday he penned the ridiculous story revealing the location of Malia and Sasha’s spring break vacation (which is now at the top of the Drudge Report).

On Twitter Monday and Tuesday, Breitbart fans attacked my focus on their hero’s bizarre racially driven crusades. They continue to insist that they’re being unfairly tarred with the charge of racism, when they’re the real “post-racialists” who just don’t like Barack Obama because he’s a liberal. I have some advice for right-wingers who don’t want it to seem like their anti-Obama animus is racial: Try treating his daughters with respect.

You’ll remember back in December, the NRA went after Sasha and Malia with an ad insisting that the fact that they have armed protection, when the administration was supposedly blocking armed security at America’s schools (actually, it wasn’t), was the height of hypocrisy – ignoring the many threats to their safety faced by the children of presidents and the tradition of Secret Service protection, for all of them.

The Weekly Standard’s Daniel Halper went even crazier, with a piece alleging that the girls’ school, Sidwell Friends, a Quaker school, had armed guards, too. Anyone familiar with the Quaker tradition of nonviolence found that claim strange, and of course, like most claims about the Obama family that come from the right, it turned out not to be true.

Unfortunately for the untalented Mr. Boyle, journalists have a consensus about not revealing the location of the presidents’ children’s vacations. Reporters don’t write about minor first children except when they’re attending “official or semi-official events.” It’s considered a security risk. As the Washington Post’s Paul Farhi reported last year:

The ban on such coverage has existed through many administrations by informal agreement with the White House Correspondents’ Association, which represents the interests of journalists who cover the president.

“There’s a general feeling among the press corps that it wants to be respectful” of the president’s children, said Caren Bohan, the White House reporter for Reuters who is president of the WHCA.

When Agence-France Presse wrote about Malia’s trip to Mexico last year, a few U.S. outlets picked it up, and the administration tried to get the details removed. Then an earthquake in Mexico made the first daughter’s vacation newsworthy, and other sites, justifiably, reported it.

A year later, along comes the brave Matthew Boyle, fresh off his Menendez humiliation, to tell Breitbart readers about the Obama girls’ vacation. The news hook seems to be that it’s a waste of money.

“It is unclear how long the first daughters will be staying in the Bahamas, or what the cost will be to taxpayers,” Boyle harrumphs. “Earlier this month, the White House canceled public tours as a result of the recent budget sequester, citing Secret Service staffing costs.”

Esquire’s Charlie Pierce put it better than I can:

What possible interest does this serve, except to titillate the dark and envious nether parts of Boyle’s 22 readers? (No link, because fk that pudgy little monster.) There is no possible news value to this. Sooner or later, the frolicks of what my pal [Eric] Boehlert calls the “rightwing entertainment complex” are going to get someone killed.

The theme of most right-wing stories on Sasha, Malia and Michelle Obama’s vacations and leisure-time activities seems to be that they’re entitled princesses, when they do exactly the same kinds of things other presidents’ families have done throughout history. There’s only one difference I can see.

Drudge is also hyping the president’s vacation with the blaring headline “A vacation a month.” That’s another racially tinged trope on the right, that our first black president seems to be a little, well, lazy, because he can’t stop taking vacations. Of course, Obama is on track to take about a fifth of the vacation days George W. Bush did over his two terms. Obama took 131 vacation days in his first term – which would amount to 262 if he kept that pace in his second term. Bush took a staggering 1,060 vacation days over eight years, by far the most vacation in history (he also took the longest single presidential vacation in the modern era, a full five weeks.) Can someone explain why Obama is supposedly the vacation-hog?

Oh, and the comments on Boyle’s Breitbart.com story are pretty awesome, too. Here’s a good one:

They will indeed grow up to be monsters. Very, very, angry and vengeful monsters. Just like momma… Especially after they are forced to visit their obamination of a father in a federal penitentiary following his impeachment and conviction for Treason… Although I’d far prefer they visit his plot occasionally following his hanging for treason.

Boyle is perfect for his new employer (although he was a pretty good fit for the Daily Caller, too). In a post explaining why he jumped ship (which didn’t mention the higher salary he got), he bragged about “enlisting in Andrew Breitbart’s army … I’m shipping out today. It’s time to go to war.”

A war on the president’s daughters? Boyle ought to talk to some veterans of actual war. What a putz.

Paul Farhi’s story on the media’s traditional treatment of first children quoted Democratic pollster Celinda Lake on the political appeal of Obama’s family: “The value of the family is enormous. The more you know this family and the more you think of Barack Obama in these terms, the harder it is to vilify him.”

That’s true for the vast majority of Americans. But not the haters and racists who belong to Breitbart’s “army.”

The galling, appalling hypocrisy of liberals and liberalism is disgusting beyond belief.

Hey, maybe if Barbara and Jenna Bush had jetset all over the world on other people’s money the way Obama’s daughters have, they wouldn’t have, they wouldn’t have ever had any issues with alcohol.  That and the fact that the Bush daughters were in their college years rather than their grade school years like Sasha and Malia.

I have documented in the past that being “white” is no more a defense against “racism toward whites” than liberals accord to black conservatives for being immune to racism because they’re black.  Do I seriously need to post articles of liberals going after conservtive blacks in a racist manner?  Condoleeza Rice, Justice Clarence Thomas, Allen West, Michael Steele, Stacey Dash, Dr. Benjamin Carson, pretty much ANY black person who has ever expressed conservative views in his or her life, is labelled “Uncle Tom,” Oreo Cookie and far, far worse.  So blacks can’t be “racist” because of the color of their skin on liberal theory unless they’re conservative blacks – in which case they are the quintessential ESSENCE of racist bigotry regardless of the color of their skin on the view of these self-refuting turds.  And then these hypocrites declare themselves inpeccable – i.e. incapable of sin – while they define their opponents as ONLY capable of nothing BUT sin.

Facts get in the way, of course.

Karl Marx was a self-hating Jew who actively despised Jews in his writings.

If you can be a self-hating black, as liberals assert conservative blacks are by definition and if you can be a self-hating Jew, as Karl Marx clearly was, then just how the hell is it impossible to be a self-hating white???

Thus, by liberals’ vicious attacks against black conservatives as being self-hating blacks, and literally by her own diatribe, Joan Walsh is a far-leftist intolerant racist bigot.  She is a self-hating racist race traitor according to her own demonic views.  In addition to being a truly crappy excuse of a human being.

This is what pisses me off about the left above all else: they constantly drool out the most vicious and self-righteous slanders while demonizing everyone on the other side for doing the tiniest FRACTION of what they hypocritically do.  Unless you actually want to defend her attack against Bush relative to the innocuous piece that she poured her hate on in Breitbart.

It’s time to go, Walsh, you Nazi.  That that your fellow jackbooted stormtroopers right out of the Joseph Goebbels Ministry of Propaganda mold will ever make you leave.  Becuase they’re all as hypocritical and as fascist as YOU are: they’re just not as STUPID as you are in your glaring obviousness as a biased ideologue useful idiot.

Note: AJ Delgado took on the hypocrite Joan Walsh first.

Being A Democrat Means Never Holding Barack Obama Responsible for Anything After Coming Unglued Over Bush For Everything

February 12, 2013

This is just too funny.  Buzzfeed should give Benny Johnson a raise or a company car or something:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done Them
Obama’s national security policy has continued some of the most controversial moves of the Bush administration. Silence from much of the left.
posted on February 11, 2013 at 1:44pm EST
Benny Johnson, BuzzFeed Staff

Democrats were overjoyed when George W. Bush left office in January of 2009.

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

Obama had promised to end Bush’s hawkish foreign policy and the “war on terror’s” detention and interrogation regime.Obama had promised to end Bush's hawkish foreign policy and the "war on terror's" detention and interrogation regime. View this image ›

But in the beginning of his fifth year as president, Obama’s record has been surprisingly similar to his predecessor’s in those areas.
But in the beginning of his fifth year as president, Obama's record has been surprisingly similar to his predecessor's in those areas.

1. Democrats fought George W. Bush’s troop surge in Iraq in 2006.

Democrats fought George W. Bush’s troop surge in Iraq in 2006.View this image ›

Obama copied it in Afghanistan in 2009.

Obama copied it in Afghanistan in 2009.View this image ›

You would think Democrats would react the same way they did to Bush’s surge policy:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

But they were really more like:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

2. American deaths in Afghanistan have skyrocketed since Obama took office.

American deaths in Afghanistan have skyrocketed since Obama took office. View this image ›

Actually, the death tolls in Afghanistan under each administration look like this:

Actually, the death tolls in Afghanistan under each administration look like this: View this image ›

So you would think Democrats would react like this:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

But they are much more like this.

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

3. President Obama’s drones and special operators are working down “kill lists” of suspected terrorists.

President Obama's drones and special operators are working down "kill lists" of suspected terrorists. View this image ›

Obama even put Anwar al-Awlaki — an American citizen — on such a list.

Obama even put Anwar al-Awlaki — an American citizen — on such a list. View this image ›

Al-Awlaki [an American citizen] was killed under secret authorization from the justice department in 2011.

If Bush did this, the Democrats would be all like:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

But now they are more like:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done Them

4. Drone attacks have risen sharply under Obama.

Drone attacks have risen sharply under Obama.

Last year, a teenage American citizen, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, was taken out in a drone strike without a trial.

Last year, a teenage American citizen, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, was taken out in a drone strike without a trial.View this image ›

If Bush did this, Democrats would literally hyperventilate.

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done Them

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done Them

In Pakistan alone, the administration has launched more than 300 drone strikes. View this image ›

Pakistani civilian casualties due to these strikes are as high as 800 according to international estimates.

So the Democrats should be like:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

But they are a lot more like:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

6. Obama promised to end the Bush-era torture interrogation practices.

Obama promised to end the Bush-era torture interrogation practices.  View this image ›

Image by Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

But last year the U.N. released three damning reports detailing torture in Afghan facilities under Obama’s security watch.

But last year the U.N. released three damning reports detailing torture in Afghan facilities under Obama's security watch.

Image by Andrew Burton / Reuters

When Bush did this, Democrats were like:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

Now:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

7. Obama was unable to deliver on his pledge to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, which Bush had also said he would close.

Obama was unable to deliver on his pledge to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, which Bush had also said he would close.

Image by John Moore / Getty Images

When Bush did this, Democrats were all like:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done Them

And…

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done Them<

8. And…

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done Them

But now they are much more like:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done Them

“We may not be so different, you and I.”

"We may not be so different, you and I."View this image ›

Image by Courtesy of the Bush Center, Houston Texas.

We could add in stuff like the debt, the deficit and the debt ceiling.  But who’s counting?  Not the mainstream media, that’s for sure.

It is amazing how hypocritical the Democrat Party and the liberals who form their core truly are.  They are bad people and bad people always prefer lies just as they are always hypocrites.  You cannot have an honest argument with people who say one thing,do another – and then say something completely different without ever having acknoweledged how dishonest they were from the beginning.

In order to have a fair and honest debate, you simply have to have both sides have integrity.  We don’t have that as long as we have liberals with any power.

Gasoline Most Expensive In History Of America Under Obama. That’s ANOTHER Tax On The Working Man Obama Has You Paying.

January 3, 2013

Given that Obama – who demonized George Bush for accumulating less than $5 trillion in debt over eight years – somehow managed to rack up more than $6 trillion in only four years, it is frankly amazing that you actually have liberals out there who are demon-possessed enough to argue that Bush really spent more.  And this demon-possession of liberals is so pervasive that it extends even to gasoline.  Yes, that’s right: no matter how ridiculously obvious the truth is, liberals despise truth and demand that they be entitled to replace the truth with lies.  So in spite of the fact that U.S. gasoline prices set a record last year to shatter George Bush’s 2008 record, and in spite of the fact that Obama in 2012 shattered his own 2011 record for highest gasoline prices ever, liberals continue to live in their own stupid little world while the actual world around them goes to hell.

Take a look at this:

California’s 2012 average gas price was $4.028 a gallon
The 2012 average for a gallon of regular gasoline in California shatters the previous record — set in 2011 — by 21 cents.
By Ronald D. White, Los Angeles Times
January 1, 2013

Californians had a bad year at the pump in 2012, averaging a record $4.028 for a gallon of regular gasoline, according to AAA.

That shattered the previous record, set in 2011, by 21.3 cents a gallon. The jump was so big that it surprised even people who review fuel prices on a daily basis.

“I can remember when the California average for the year in 2008 was $3.525 and we thought we would never see it go that high again,” said Marie Montgomery, spokeswoman for the Automobile Club of Southern California.

She noted that $4.028 “over a full year is a lot of money out of our pockets that we can’t spend on other things.”

California’s gas prices in 2012 also helped kick the national average for a gallon of regular up to a record $3.603, which broke the previous record, set in 2011, of $3.510, AAA said.

The increase in California fuel prices in recent years is startling. In 2008, the year oil prices shot above $147 a barrel, the state averaged a then-record $3.525 for a gallon of regular gasoline, according to AAA.

The California average fell to $2.687 a gallon in 2009, then climbed back above the $3 threshold to $3.100 in 2010. In 2011, the state’s average for the year jumped to $3.815 a gallon.

Since 2009, the average price that Californians pay for a gallon of regular gasoline has jumped nearly 50%.

California has some fuel factors that are unique. It’s an isolated market that does not have access to cheap crude flowing from the oil boom in states such as North Dakota, Texas and Oklahoma.

Its only regular source of domestic crude from outside the state is Alaska’s dwindling North Slope oil fields. That means California has to import more and more foreign oil, which is substantially more expensive than U.S. crude.

California’s clean-air rules also mandate a special formula of gasoline that is more expensive to make and is produced by few refineries outside the state.

Analysts have cited many reasons for the 2012 prices, including one of the worst years ever for refinery outages in California. A fire in August, for example, knocked out part of Chevron’s Richmond facility, one of the state’s biggest refineries.

In October, a power failure at an Exxon Mobil refinery helped send California’s average price up to a record $4.671 for a gallon of regular.

But a lot of people aren’t buying those explanations. Consumer groups and California’s U.S. senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, have called on the state attorney general and the Justice Department to investigate California’s volatile fuel prices.

California refineries were also exporting fuel in 2012, and an analysis by Oregon-based McCullough Research indicated that some of them may have misled the public about the amount of fuel they were producing.

I italicized the bold-face type describing how liberalism is stupid and counter-productive and makes living impossible until everybody flees to states that actually AREN’T fascist.  And it is pretty damned amazing that California would blame its sky-high prices on “foreign oil being more expensive” given the fact that California has PLENTY of oil if it were just legal to obtain it.  Sadly, California is dominated by liberals, and liberals are truly stupid people, so they’ve largely banned offshore drilling.

I just wish that Californians would vote to personally bankrupt themselves and then commit hari kari and get it over with.  But California liberals are a slow, stupid people who apparently want to linger, and prefer a slow, torturous death by liberal stupidity.  So they voted for Obama even though he has utterly screwed them.  You know, the way the North Korean people kept voting for Kim Jong-il and then his son Kim Jong-un.  And hang the pictures of these murderous dictators in their homes.  And worship them as “Dear Leader.”  While their country and their children are ground into dust.

In another article I proved that Obama had made gasoline 85 cents a gallon more expensive than George Bush ever did.  Not that actual facts matter any more as America careens idiotically toward complete national collapse.

Under Obama, and due to his stupid and frankly evil gasoline policies by which he attacks the fuel the American people absolutely need to get by in the modern world, gasoline is now MORE than fifty cents a gallon more than it was in 2008 when Obama was slandering George Bush:

Every single working American is going to pay shockingly more this year than he ever has before. Because Obama just hiked his Social Security taxes for the middle class and because Obama passed the largest tax hike on the middle class in American history in the form of ObamaCare. And because Obama imposed bigger and costlier regulations than any president before him. And yes, because Obama made gasoline more expensive than any president who ever lived.

This is God damn America, pure and simple.  And in God damn America, God allows stupid and greedy people to elect and then re-elect a lying demagogue who will bankrupt and implode America.

All the rest of us can do is try to prepare as best we can for the crash that is coming.  And in the meantime try to keep documenting why America fell while we still have the freedom to do so.

(At Least They Aren’t Blaming Bush!): Obama Team Blames Romney, John Kerry, The Moderator AND The Altitude For Obama’s Disastrous Debate Fiasco

October 8, 2012

Rest assurred, if the Obama campaign could have figured out a way to demonize George W. Bush to explain Obama’s failure in his first debate, they would have done so.  After all, that’s pretty much how they’ve explained ALL THE OTHER Obama failures up to now.

Team Obama Blames John Kerry for Debate Loss
by Alexander Marlow6 Oct 2012, 3:44 PM PDT533post a comment

The Obama campaign has been reeling since losing the first Presidential debate of this election cycle in front of 67 million viewers.  They’ve tried–and thus far failed–to craft a narrative to explain away the debacle in Denver.  Previously, we reported to you that Obama Senior Advisor David Plouffe, who ran the President’s successful 2008 campaign, (falsely) accused Mitt Romney of lying.  In a rare comedic moment from the typically robotic former Vice President Al Gore, he suggested on Current TV that the Mile High City’s altitude was the reason Obama was low on energy and enthusiasm.  And, of course, Obama’s chronically dishonest deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter and several others passed the buck to the moderator, Jim Lehrer. None of the above caught on, even with the mainstream pro-Obama media.

Now the Obama Administration is floating their latest excuse: that the campaign, particularly John Kerry (who played the role of Romney in simulated debates), did not channel Mitt’s aggression enough.

From CBS’s “This Morning”:

Norah O’Donnell: “Some Democrats say [Obama’s] campaign needs a wake-up call.  Bill Plante is here with that part of the story.  Bill, you’ve been talking to your sources; what are they saying?

Correspondent Bill Plante: “Well Norah, they’re simply upset and really outraged.  They blame the President’s team, first of all, for not preparing him to meet the challenge of an aggressive Mitt Romney.  They say that nobody in the room challenged him, including the guy that he was debating with, John Kerry, because, as they say, he wants to be Secretary of State so he’s not going to get in the President’s face. And Presidents are used to deference; they’re not used to people challenging them like that.  So they think that the debate prep was terrible, but they also fault the President himself for not understanding that Romney was going to be more aggressive.”

The 2012 Obama campaign continues to be a stark contrast from their 2008 effort.  In 2008, then Senator Obama used youthful ebullience, soaring rhetoric, and a precise campaign infrastructure to capture the hearts and minds of the American people.  In 2012, the President seems increasingly lethargic and quick to make excuses for missteps on the campaign trail.

What once was “Hope and Change” is now “Mope and Blame,” and this time it’s John Kerry under the President’s bus.

Along with the liberal New Yorker and of course Clint Eastwood, I blame the chair:

Actually, we ought to lay the blame for a president who was clearly incompetent on the backs of the American people, who were so dispicably foolish in 2008 it was unreal.  But as stupid and as depraved as it is to believe the Emperor had clothes on in 2008, anybody who still thinks the naked turd stinking up the presidency is anything but an empty suit when we desperately need a leader is simply in the category of “demon-possessed.”

Vicious Democrats Furious That Romney Visited Hurricane Isaac Disaster Site (Because Now The Hypocrites Can’t Demonize Him For NOT Visiting)

September 4, 2012

When I think of a Democrat I think of a little cockroach scurrying around wearing the face of Harry Reid:

Harry Reid Mitt Romney

Harry Reid: Mitt Romney Trip To Louisiana ‘Height Of Hypocrisy’
The Huffington Post  |  By Elise Foley Posted: 08/31/2012 4:15 pm Updated: 08/31/2012 4:40 pm

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) criticized GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney on Friday for traveling to Louisiana to survey damage left by Hurricane Isaac, saying his vice presidential pick aimed to block disaster relief last fall as a member of the House of Representatives.

“It is the height of hypocrisy for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan to make a pretense of showing sympathy for the victims of Hurricane Isaac when their policies would leave those affected by this disaster stranded and on their own,” Reid said in a statement.

Romney visited Lafitte, La., Friday to meet with Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) and first responders to the hurricane. “I’m here to learn and obviously to draw some attention to what’s going here,” Romney told Jindal, according to a pool report. “So that people around the country know that people [down] here need help.”

But Reid didn’t see it that way. He used the visit as an opportunity to bring up Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) budget, which he said would “gut disaster funding, making it much harder to get aid to our fellow Americans in their time of need.”

“This is yet another example of Mitt Romney’s extreme right wing agenda, which asks middle class families to sacrifice in order to protect millionaires and billionaires from paying their fair share,” Reid said.

Ryan campaign spokesman Brendan Buck responded with a counterattack.

“Paul Ryan believes providing aid to victims of natural disasters is a critical obligation and should be treated as a high priority within a fiscally responsible budget,” he said. “It’s sad that some see these heartbreaking events as opportunities to distort his record and play politics.”

President Barack Obama plans to visit Louisiana on Monday. Romney adviser Stuart Stevens told reporters he didn’t think it was inappropriate to precede Obama’s visit, ABC’s Emily Friedman tweeted.

When reporters asked White House Press Secretary Jay Carney about Romney’s visit, he took a far more diplomatic tone than Reid had.

“I think that it’s always important to draw attention to the fact that individuals and families and business owners are profoundly affected … that’s an important thing to do,” Carney said.

First of all, let’s say I’m talking to a typical liberal puke who is living in mommy’s basement believing that jobs are for capitalists and that he or she is entitled to live off of somebody or anybody else; you own something.  On Harry Reid’s demonic cockroach view, if you would be opposed if government barged into your house and took EVERY SINGLE THING YOU OWNED – your house (or mommy’s house anyway), your car, your clothes, your furniture, etc., etc. – to give them to disaster victims, then you are a bad person and you by definition don’t give a damn about anybody.

If you oppose ANY cut in government spending in ANY way, shape or form, if you don’t want infinite spending on disaster relief, you are a vile human being who should be demonized.  That’s Harry Reid’s view.  If you don’t want the State to have control over EVERYTHING so that it can offer relief with YOUR money, you’re evil.  You don’t care about anybody.  Only communists who want the government to have total dictatorial control over everything and everybody care.

Let me put it this way: let’s take Harry Reid’s position.  Couldn’t we do more for these poor disaster victims if we just taxed a little more?  And couldn’t we do even more if we just taxed a little more than that?  Democrats demonize the rich (like the good Marxists they are) and say we can have more money to help the poor if we just taxed the rich more; but we could have a LOT more money if the government just took it all on the Democrats own “logic,” right? 

FACT:  A study by the Joint Tax Committee, using the same static methodology that I refer to in my opening paragraph, calculate that the government will “lose” – again, because Democrats are communists and literally believe that they own EVERYTHING the people earn, such that such that the government “loses” money if it doesn’t tax people more – $700 billion in revenue if the tax cuts for the top income brackets are extended. And that sounds bad, doesn’t it?  But they also conclude in that same study that the Bush tax cuts on the middle class will cost the Treasury $3 TRILLION over the same period. If we can’t afford to “give” the rich$700 billion, then how on earth can we afford to “give” the middle class” $3 damn TRILLION? And then you’ve got to ask how much the Treasury is losing by not taxing the poor first into the poorhouse, and then into the street? And how much more revenue could we collect if we then imposed a “street” tax?  That’s the way the old Soviet Union worked; if you DIDN’T work you were defined as a shirker and you went to the gulags to be a slave laborer until the system ground you into dirt.

You need to understand something about history: the Marxists who took over Russia and “fundamentally transformed it” into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were just like Obama and the Democrats when they took over.  They promised the damn world with their “hope and change” Utopia.  About the only thing you can say in comparison to the Marxist Soviets is that they weren’t as grandiose in their promises as Obama was; because at least the Soviets never promised they would lower the level of the oceans and heal the damn planet like Obama did.  But the rubber met the road, and once the Soviets got their power with their promises of “hope and change” for everybody that the “rich” would pay for and those promises failed, well, things started getting increasingly nasty.

Why did this happen?  You need to understand something: if you take away the incentive to work harder and smarter by taking away the reward for working harder, for longer hours, risking more, saving more, investing more, then the incentive to work diminishes.  It is a necessary result of the class warfare that the communists played in Russia and that the Democrats are playing now.  And as fewer and fewer people work, and the rich are demonized and taxed and then demonized and taxed some more, you will necessarily get exactly what we are seeing: fewer people working, fewer people paying taxes, more people on welfare and disability.  That’s when you get to the “dark side” of what Michelle Obama predicted: “Barack Obama will require you to work…  Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”  And Arbeit Macht Frei.

Obama heralded something that the human race had never seen: a trillion dollar annual deficit.  Not only was Obama the first president or leader to ever do that in human history, but he’s pulled off this insane feat every single year of his presidency.  One year – just one year – the reckless Marxist racked up a $1.6 trillion budget deficit making his bullcrap promises.  The day is going to come when Democrats get the power they want, and they will take over just as leftists have taken over every government they dominated.  And then will come the gulags.  There will just be no other way out, just as there was no other way out for the Russian communists.

So I presume that no liberal is reading this: because that would mean that said liberal hadn’t given up his or her computer to some victim in Louisiana and is therefore a greedy little rich bastard.  And we can safely say that all liberals are currently walking around naked because shame on them if they are wearing clothes that a hurricane victim could be wearing.  Or eating food that should go to a disaster victim.

Liberals are in love with the “generosity” that they display every time they spend money that they seized from somebody else.

That proof of abject liberal hypocrisy out of the way, let’s talk about what hypocrites liberals are.

This picture of George Bush was all Democrats needed to demonize Bush for refusing to visit the Katrina disaster area:

Democrats jumped all over Bush as “detached and uncaring” for merely flying over the disaster.

Bush was the kind of true leader who accepted responsibility even for the way he was viciously demonized.  Versus Obama who has never once accepted responsibility for a single thing in his entire life.

It didn’t matter that Bush flew over because had he landed he would have been taking up enormous security resources that would have been better spent helping victims.  Democrats aren’t people who care about facts or reality; all they care about is rhetoric and demagoguery.

It’s funny: Louisiana is now a Republican state in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Maybe that’s because it wasn’t Republicans who left 2,000 school buses to sit uselessly in flood water while people died for lack of transportation. Maybe that’s because it wasn’t Republicans who offered the most idiotic excuses rather than own up to their utter failure to lead or organize.

But my God, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida and Alabama – IN OTHER WORDS EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE GULF STATES – are now under Republican control, and yet you’ve got demon-possessed roachboy Harry Reid saying that Republicans literally don’t give a damn about Republicans.

When the Democrat leader of the United States Senate is allowed to make these kind of outrageous and morally insane remarks, it is all the proof you need to know that the Democrat Party is the Party of Roaches.

If Mitt Romney had NOT visited Louisiana to see the aid for victims of Hurricane Isaac, Harry Reid would have demonized him all the more.  Because Harry Reid is a demon-possessed little cockroach and demonizing hate is all that flows in his roach veins.

Meanwhile, where’s Obama?  He’s campaigning:

FORT BLISS, Texas — President Obama was planning to visit storm-stricken Louisiana before GOP rival Mitt Romney announced his plans, White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters aboard Air Force One Friday morning.

Romney’s campaign announced his trip to New Orleans — he is touring areas hit by Hurricane Isaac this afternoon — hours before the White House announced Obama would cancel a planned Monday campaign event in Cleveland to divert to Louisiana.

Carney offered no details about where in Louisiana Obama would travel during his Monday trip.

“In terms of the President’s travel, obviously when you’re president of the United States, coordinating travel carries with it I think unique logistical challenges,” Carney said. “And it was the assessment of the president’s team, working with all the people involved in operations as well as people on the ground that Monday would be — was a good day for the president to visit.”

So the man who dropped everything and visited the disaster zone did it because he didn’t care; but the man who is campaigning, campaigning, campaigning and won’t be able to show up until Monday because he’s too busy campaigning hasn’t visited (but he would have! says his mouthpiece) because he cares so deeply.

Bullcrap.