"It is hard not to read his analysis without feeling that much of the anti-Bush rhetoric of recent years—not to mention its anti-Yoo variety—has been grounded in ignorance as much as outrage."-- Arthur Herman, on John Yoo's new book, "Crisis and Command", and how the Left's assumptions - which make (for those arrogant ideological bozos more suited to texting than politics) an "ass out of u and me" - have done my nation such incredible damage, in The Wall Street Journal.
Anyone can say that criticism is rooted in ignorance, the onus is to prove this is so.
ReplyDeleteThe best you could say for the Bush presidency is that it didn't repeat the same mistake. There was only one major terrorist act on American soil, only one flooded city left too long, only one massive increase in the deficit, only one guy with his genitals hooked to live current, one stack of naked prisoners, one unmuzzled guard dog.
Every administration has its detractors. Even though the incumbent tries his guts out to get consensus, his every action is the target of a rabble sortie of teabaggers and birthers. What chance a President who takes unilateral action, predicts he'll have it wrapped up with minimum casualties in three years, and leaves office after two terms with no guarantee of success?
You expect a lot of people to witness all this, and have as an explanation, a dry rhetoric delivered with the most eccentric syntax of any leader in the western world. You now have a superb orator, with two bestselling novels, subject to endless criticism about his lack of credentials, yet a manifest failure in everything he attempted, should have been held in better regard.
It isn't Bush's critics who spent a trillion dollars on a conflict we look no more likely to win, it isn't they who plunged us further into debt that, even if Obama had slashed his budget, would take a superhuman effort to repay, it isn't the '____ Against Bush' who ignored an intelligence report that warned them of a plan to use domestic aircraft as weapons, or paid heed to a report that said that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, that he somehow failed to deploy even when warned of impending shock and awe.
If anything, Bush's critics were proven to have been thoroughly ignored yet completely correct.
But how like a Bush supporter to blame others for a his mistakes.
Interesting. A bit nonsensical, but interesting:
ReplyDeleteThere wasn't a second attack on U.S. soil under Bush. There have been 9 under Obama.
Katrina was awful. What was Governor Kathleen Balco's role again?
Spending went up. We also had new responsibilities in wartime. Responsibilities that were different than any we've ever faced before: fighting an enemy with no nation state. Weird you didn't notice. Did you think Homeland Security was free?
That guy with his genitals hooked to live current? He's called "the enemy" and I don't have much sympathy. If you want, next time, we can attach them to his eyeballs.
The people who stacked those naked prisoners were busted by the military, tried by the military, and then put in military prison. Bush was Commander In Chief. Good job.
One unmuzzled guard dog? Oooh. I'm crying. Maybe a muzzled guard dog would be more effective at, you know, guarding?
I think the groups we heard most from during W's term were Code Pink (lunatics who suggested those in the enlisted military personnel should shoot their officers) The Daily Kos (started by an astrologer) and those folks who said 9/11 was an inside job - all quite reliable types, no?
"Unilateral action"? Wow. You seem to forget the approval of both houses of Congress, going to the U.N., and The Coalition of the Willing - which included our ally Great Britain, Australia, and quite a few others. But then, detractors always do.
Have you ever heard the saying "No military plan survives engagement with the enemy"? Well now you have. Understanding it is a sign of maturity.
Um, Iraq is a success already. We lost 3 soldiers last month and none the month before that. Haven't you heard? Or aren't you listening anymore? I'm sure you heard Harry reid saying "The war is lost" and the president saying "The surge didn't work." Did you hear when the president ended up saying General Betrayus' surge was a spectacular success? Are you even listening now?
Oh, now it's how people talk - like claiming there are 57 states? Or Austrians speak the non-existent language of "Austrian"? Funny how that happens when those detractors are engaged in the childish game of "gotcha".
A "superb orator", who can't convince anyone of anything once he's in office, is worthless. His novels appear to be written by his friend, Bill Ayers, the domestic terrorist. He still has no credentials - even after becoming president (which is quite a feat). I'd suggest you look here at what we know, about his previous accomplishments, to assess those. Chicago's black population has been doing wonderful since "community organizing" came into their lives, haven't they?
Boy, you sure are hostile to the freeing of millions of people from dictators and violent religious cults. I wonder why? And "you're going to be attacked by airplanes" isn't really clear, is it? I mean, where? How many? When? Why? How? Please, fill in the blanks and get back to me.
Saddam did have WMD - we found tons of them, abandoned, and chemical weapons, too - along with mass graves, rape rooms, and a deal with the French to get around every check we tried to put on him. Tell me: Been bitching about the French recently? I didn't think so,...
Bush's critics were "thoroughly ignored"? Then please explain how Obami is president. I'll wait.
I don't know what mistakes you're talking about:
From what I hear - on the Left - after criticizing Bush to get elected, Obami has cynically adopted almost every "bad" position Bush ever took.
He must be one stupid, stupid man,...
Okay that's actually a good response; free of your usual cant and evasion, and certainly more considered and coherent than yer average FOX commentator. I could almost leave it there but perhaps a couple of points (since I think we're getting somewhere):
ReplyDeletethe guard dog was right in the guy's face. Doesn't usually happen in any prison system. The whole idea of offshore facilities had a sinister element to it that was unique to the Bush era. Neglect may not have led to 9/11 but the renditioning, the imprisonments without trial, the private Blackwater goon squad running amok and murdering people, that followed, was a direct result of policy. Good way to 'keep America safe'. Bad way to observe the kind of freedoms it is supposed to represent and hold dear.
It takes time to dismantle this. Obama has said from Day One that is his objective. Hardly a case of 'adopting every bad position Bush took'. If he was truly doing that, there wouldn't be so much resistance from the GOP faithful, to his agenda.
Unilateral action - despite the fact that it is extremely unusual for its allies to break rank with US actions on a global front, a number did so in this instance. They believed that the stated reason for invasion was not there; that there were no WMDs.
And the Houses go against the elected President's move to war? How likely is that to happen?!
There have been a few killings by Islamic terrorists since September 11, and not all since the change of government. As I recall, not a few analyses warned that these had stepped up as a result of the coalition's military action in the Middle East so, while it may have kept the US safe, other regions were not so fortunate. And you now have no secular buffer, or a very tenuous one.
I'm no fan of al Qaeda and I don't buy the spurious argument that you can separate the religion from the atrocities committed in its name, but when you say
'That guy with his genitals hooked to live current? He's called "the enemy" and I don't have much sympathy. If you want, next time, we can attach them to his eyeballs.'
you very much miss the point. If all one has to do to justify torture is to identify the victim as the enemy, then you open up wholesale future acts committed against our own men on the grounds that - as invading forces, threatening livelihoods, committing (even if unsanctioned) acts of violence and intimidation - we are their enemy.
Remove the principle we took centuries getting to - that the act of torture itself is to be condemned and refused - and there is less safety than there was when a wealthy Saudi fanatic decided to strike a blow against the 'decadent West'
The planes: well we can be wise in retrospect but the only way to attack the US with aircraft is using passenger jets and aiming them at strategic targets. To do that one has to allow on sufficiently large weapons, or objects that can be used as weapons. If you don't know when, alert the air force to scramble when you get word. Oh, and take preventative measures. I'd be interested in seeing how detailed the intelligence report was.
Here's what I was looking for earlier. It's on the same 'Religion of Peace' website, which I think you'd be interested in (and mysteriously main page couldn't be opened the other day):
ReplyDelete'Islamic Terrorists have carried out 14,755 deadly terror attacks since 9/11'