Posts with the tag 'President Bush'
Barack Obama, after a disastrous appearance on Rick Warren’s forum, decided to step up criticisms of John McCain, saying the U.S. economy is a disaster thanks to “John McCain’s president, George W. Bush.”
First, let’s correct señor Obama, on the economy. The economy was enjoying record growth until the Democrats took over Congress. Since Barack Obama’s party took over, gas prices have skyrocketed, and that has had the most significant impact on the economy. The Democrats promised to lower gas prices. They didn’t deliver. The Democrats fought for an increase in the minimum wage. Those of us who understand economics said it would cost jobs. Guess what? We were right. The economy has started losing jobs thanks to the Democrats minimum wage hike.
Sorry Obama, the poor state of the current economy belongs to you and your party.
Second, President George W. Bush is our president, not just John McCain’s. He’s our president and commander-in-chief. I am a proud supporter of President Bush. I donated to his reelection campaign. I started a pro-Bush blog in 2003 that became one of the most successful political blogs of the 2004 campaign season. I’d do it again in a heartbeat. He’s my president, and yours, and he’s the president of every single American citizen who reads these words I’m writing.
I don’t agree with everything President Bush has done, but he’s been a greater President than Barack Obama could ever dream to be. Obama is nothing without a teleprompter and a speechwriter.
Tags: Barack Obama, John McCain, President Bush
August 17th, 2008
President Bush was welcomed in South Korea with a large crowd of well-wishers and a pathetic band of kook lefty protestors, as Amy Proctor notes.
So, the headline? Well from al-Reuters it was:
Bush arrives in Seoul, faces large anti-US protest
But then reality broke in and the large anti-US protests failed to materialise, and large pro-US demonstrations happened. So, what did al-Reuters do? Keep lying as best you can, of course:
Bush arrives in Seoul, anti-U.S. protest fizzles
The headline should have read, “Bush arrives in Seoul to warm welcome”, but that would be to defy the MSM’s meme about President Bush - supposedly the whole world hates us, now, and only Obamessiah can retrieve our national honor from the Bush gutter. The facts, once again, appear to be in defiance of what the MSM wants to report - and my bet is that the entire meme of “Bush hated” is overblown. Sure, there are plenty of anti-Americans out there (and, heck, in America, too) and you’ll not lack for people who can be quoted at length being disgusted with America under Bush and gushing hopeful about how wonderful America will be under Obama…but does this mean the world hates us and that we need to rebuild our reputation?
Well, we certainly don’t need to in Afghanistan, Iraq, Djibouti, Georgia, Israel, India, Phillipines, Japan, South Korea, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Eithiopia, Tanzania….heck, even our relations with China are pretty good (all things considered) and getting on good with Japan and China should be next to impossible. Who really hates us? Well, the Islamists do…and so do those global leftists who will hate us even if Obama is President because they don’t really hate President Bush so much as hate the United States, period…and not for what we do, but for what we are (free, Judeo-Christian, that sort of thing).
As I’ve said before, we live in the Age of Lies, and the main thing which has caused President Bush trouble has been his inability to join in with the lies…a few lies here and there stroking the egos of the left and President Bush would be in a lot better shape as far as elite opinion is concerned, but President Bush couldn’t do it…and God bless him for it; for being, that is, one of those rare people in politics who really doesn’t give a darn what people think of him and who is thus able to do the right thing no matter what.
Tags: media bias, President Bush
August 6th, 2008
While I’ve admired President Bush for many reasons, what I could never understand was the President’s reluctance to answer the many unfounded, over-the-top criticisms and out-and-out attacks that were foisted upon him by the left of this nation.
Paul Kengor addresses this in a must-read piece at the American Thinker. For all of the Bush Administration’s successes, most notably his success via perseverance of his Iraq war policy, President Bush’s “new tone” policy set the stage for the relentless, unanswered barrages of assaults by the leftists of this nation and around the world.
The “feel-good” language espoused by many democrats regarding “getting along” and their supposed pining to end the “politics of personal destruction,” in the end, of course, was so much political puffery. On the other hand, George Bush’s “new tone” was not only a buzzword, but S.O.P. for his administration. As with nearly every aspect of his administration (and what those on the left could never fathom nor abide), Bush actually meant what he said and said what he meant when he proclaimed that he would establish “a new tone” in Washington.
Paul Kengor asserts that Bush’s “new tone” was a spinoff of his adherence to his evangelical Christian roots; specifically with regard to the principle of “turning the other cheek (Luke 6:29).”
While a president’s abiding by principle is certainly to be lauded, the application of this principle to Bush’s leftist detractors during his administration yielded disastrous, and yes, even dangerous results. Turning the other cheek allowed the leftists to set the agenda for debate, and allowed them relatively free rein in their efforts to dangerously damage the morale of this country with carte-blanche levels of seditious rhetoric and out-and-out falsehoods. Bush’s “new tone” allowed the leftist elements of this country to give licentious aid and comfort to America’s enemies during a time when our sons and daughters were in harm’s way, giving our enemies encouragement to climb out of their caves and kill another day. Bush’s “new tone” has made it much easier for democrats and other leftist elements to continue relatively unabated on a roll of propaganda based on contrivances that continues to this day, on every issue from energy to foreign policy.
Unfortunately, the Bush Administration’s failure to utilize the bully pulpit to answer unjust criticism and attacks from detractors has left those of us on the right side of the aisle to do all the heavy lifting; which was all well and good, but not enough.
President Bush has many legislative and policy accomplishments for which to be proud. But public opinion and debate in the arena of ideas are also matters of import.
It is my opinion that President Bush’s “new tone” policy is a virtual handbook of how not to play the game.
Tags: Leftwing Alternate Universe, President Bush, The Fifth Column
July 21st, 2008
FOX News reports,
Tony Snow, the former White House press secretary and conservative pundit who bedeviled the press corps and charmed millions as a FOX News television and radio host, died after a long bout with cancer. He was 53.
A syndicated columnist, editor, TV anchor, radio show host and musician, Snow worked in nearly every medium in a career that spanned more than 30 years.
President Bush and Laura Bush issued the following statement:
Laura and I are deeply saddened by the death of our dear friend, Tony Snow. Our thoughts and prayers are with his wife, Jill, and their children, Kendall, Robbie, and Kristi. The Snow family has lost a beloved husband and father. And America has lost a devoted public servant and a man of character.
Tony was one of our Nation’s finest writers and commentators. He earned a loyal following with incisive radio and television broadcasts. He was a gifted speechwriter who served in my father’s Administration. And I was thrilled when he agreed to return to the White House to serve as my Press Secretary. It was a joy to watch Tony at the podium each day. He brought wit, grace, and a great love of country to his work. His colleagues will cherish memories of his energetic personality and relentless good humor.
All of us here at the White House will miss Tony, as will the millions of Americans he inspired with his brave struggle against cancer. One of the things that sustained Tony Snow was his faith - and Laura and I join people across our country in praying that this good man has now found comfort in the arms of his Creator.
UPDATE: House Republican Leader John Boehner released the following statement:
“Churchill said, ‘I like a man who grins when he fights’ and that was Tony Snow. For 35 years, as a writer, broadcaster, and spokesman, he fought fiercely for what he believed in, and he did it with a smile on his face and a twinkle in his eye. His loss is a loss for our country. His newspaper columns and television and radio shows illuminated issues with grace and humor and solid insight. He served twice in government, distinguishing himself as a speechwriter in President George H.W. Bush’s White House and as a spokesman for the current President. Despite everything Tony did and achieved in life, he never forgot his hometown roots or those who grew up with him. He was a proud son of Cincinnati, and I will miss him. My thoughts and prayers are with his wife Jill, and their three children.”
Tags: President Bush, Tony Snow
July 12th, 2008
Fred Hiatt, writing for the Washington Post, notes how Senator John Rockefeller, chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, has been erroneously fueling the “Bush Lied” meme:
Search the Internet for “Bush Lied” products, and you will find sites that offer more than a thousand designs. The basic “Bush Lied, People Died” bumper sticker is only the beginning.
Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word.
“In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent,” he said.
Despite the rhetoric of Rockefeller and other liberals desperate to hold on to the long-debunked notion that Bush lied, Hiatt points out that when you actually read the report, their rhetoric doesn’t match the report’s findings (emphasis mine):
[…] dive into Rockefeller’s report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.
On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by intelligence information.”
On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence information.”
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.” Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? “Generally substantiated by available intelligence.” Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”
As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you’ve mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush’s claims about Saddam Hussein’s alleged ties to terrorism.
But statements regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda “were substantiated by the intelligence assessments,” and statements regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” The report is left to complain about “implications” and statements that “left the impression” that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.
Hiatt also debunks the left’s claim that Bush misrepresented intelligence.
In the report’s final section, the committee takes issue with Bush’s statements about Saddam Hussein’s intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?
After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: “There has been some debate over how ‘imminent’ a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can.”
Rockefeller was reminded of that statement by the committee’s vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), who with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent that includes many other such statements from Democratic senators who had access to the intelligence reports that Bush read. The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report’s preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, “the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers’ statements were substantiated by the intelligence.”
This is not the first time Rockefeller has signed his name to a report with findings that A, B, and C, but then went off to the media saying the findings were X, Y, and Z. The fact is this isn’t even new information… There have been several past investigations/reports that have all come to the same conclusion: there was no manipulation of intelligence prior to the Iraq war. Rockefeller is unfit to be the chairman of the intelligence committee, and the “Bush lied” crowd has to come to terms with the fact Rockefeller and other anti-Iraq war Democrats lied… not President Bush.
Tags: Iraq, John Rockefeller, liberal lies, pre-war intelligence, President Bush
June 9th, 2008
President Bush, thanks for speaking out for sanity.
(CNSNews.com) - “The United States has an opportunity to help increase the supply of oil on the market,” thereby easing gasoline prices for hard-working Americans,” President Bush said on Monday.
He reminded Congress that he has proposed opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Continental Shelf to domestic oil drilling — something that would “help us through this difficult period.”
You almost had, it, Mr. President. If you had pushed harder on what you proposed earlier in your presidency, we would be nearing the end of this mess in which we find ourselves, or at the very least we’d be seeing some light at the end of the tunnel. But after the usual suspects of enviro-whackos, along with their willing shills in Congress did their normal routine of wailing and gnashing of teeth, instead of holding your ground on the matter, you backed off. Rather than rallying the American people to the need for harvesting our own domestic energy reserves, you instead took a page from the Eisenhower playbook and played golf with regard to the issue. You even went so far as to play right into the envirowhackos hands, simultaneously increasing the credibility of their argument while weakening yours.
And you almost had it today, Mr. President. You almost had it on the nuts.
But then you went and said this:
“We remind our friends and allies overseas that we’re all too dependent on hydrocarbons, and we must work to advance tech that help us become less dependent on hydrocarbons,” Bush said on Monday as he headed out to Europe.
One step forward, three steps back.
Mr. President, now’s not the time to humor the delusional fancies of the crazy uncles in the attic making life a living hell for the rest of the family. You’re damned right we’re
“addicted” to oil; in much the same manner as we’re “addicted” to air and to food. So what? We’ve got plenty of it if our legislators would finally quit kowtowing to the crazy uncles in the enviro-whacko movement and act in the interests of the American people for a change.
Screw the enviro-whackos. When the hell were they ever right? About anything?
We have the technology to harvest our own resources in a way that minimally disrupts the surrounding environment; in many cases augmenting it.
Mr. President, you have a nation that’s bleeding from the ears economically, and you have it within the scope of your office to issue executive orders to stop that bleeding. May I add that, given that we’re in the midst of an economic emergency, and given that our nation’s economic security is at risk, it would not be a misuse of your power under executive authority to do so.
And what greater a presidential legacy to leave your fellow Americans, than to decrease their dependence on foreign oil?
Tags: energy policy, Environmentalism, President Bush
June 9th, 2008
Egomaniac Barack Obama appears even more desperate today as he continues whine like a 5 year old child about Bush’s speech to the Knesset, which Obama thinks was an attack directly on him.
Barack Obama has called President Bush’s comments on appeasement “exactly the kind of appalling attack that’s divided our country and alienates us from the rest of the world.”
Obama criticized Republican rival John McCain and President Bush for “dishonest and divisive” attacks in hinting that the Democratic presidential candidate would appease terrorists.
Obama strongly responded Friday to the comments Bush made in Israel on Thursday and McCain’s subsequent words. Obama told a town hall meeting, “That’s the kind of hypocrisy that we’ve been seeing in our foreign policy, the kind of fear-peddling, fear mongering that has prevented us from actually making us safer.”
Of course, the fact that Obama, by every indication we’ve received on the campaign, would be a terrorist appeaser, but let’s face it, he’s trying to make an issue out of something that really wasn’t about him specifically. No one can deny that Obama is part of a larger group of individuals who seem to believe that we can sit down for tea and biscuits with terrorists and the world will be A-OK after that. But, Obama may just not have enough experience to have a realistic understanding of the world and our enemies.
Meanwhile, in Columbus, Ohio, McCain said he took the White House at its word, but then he weighed into the spat himself, saying: “This does bring up an issue that we will be discussing with the American people, and that is, why does Barack Obama, Senator Obama, want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism?”
Asked if Obama was an appeaser, McCain said Obama must explain why he wants to talk with leaders like Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and added that Obama’s position was a serious error. “It shows naivete and inexperience and lack of judgment to say that he wants to sit down across the table from an individual who leads a country that says Israel is a stinking corpse, that is dedicated to the extinction of the state of Israel. My question is, what does he want to talk about?”
The answer is, Obama doesn’t want to talk about anything that may hurt his candidacy. He feels he is exempt from explaining himself or his positions when such positions could hurt his candidacy.
Keep crying Barack. Waaaa… Waaaa.
Tags: Barack Obama, hypocrisy, Israel, John McCain, President Bush
May 16th, 2008
ABC News reports that Obama’s campaign is “taking issue” with a comment made by President Bush during remarks he made in Israel to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel’s statehood.
“Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” the President said to the country’s legislative body, “We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”
In a statement, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., shot across the bow: “It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel’s independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power — including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.”
Perhaps it’s just Obama’s massive ego, but what makes him think that remark was direct at him? As the story points out, those words from the President are hardly new.
ABC News’ White House troops point out that the President has made similar statements in the past and Bush did not specifically cite Obama by name, though he did reference Sen. William Borah’s immortal reaction upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland and begun World War II, something he has not highlighted in the past.
“(The President) has said similar things before,” a White House official told ABC News’ Martha Raddatz. “But it is in reference to a number of people, think Carter, others who have engaged in this or suggested it.”
White House spokesperson Dana Perino was asked if Bush’s line was a slam against Obama and she insisted, “It is not.”
“I understand that when you are running for office sometimes you think the world revolves around you. That is not always true and it is not true in this case,” Perino added, though the White House is keenly aware of how such statements might play during a heated political season and has steadfastly avoided commenting on the 2008 race.
It sounds to me that Obama is trying to score points with Jewish voters who are understandly wary of supporting a candidate who has the endorsement of Hamas, and whose own advisor had talks with the terror group.
The fact is that President Bush is 100% correct. Appeasement and containment don’t always work - and its dangerous to assume they do. As inexperienced as Obama may be, he should be able to recognize that. But, if he wants to have coffee and doughnuts with terror groups, then that’s his position… but don’t expect me to vote for someone like that.
UPDATE: More from Matt DiBari.
Tags: Barack Obama, Hamas, Israel, liberal lies, President Bush
May 15th, 2008
Looks like Hillary’s put her foot in her mouth again… She’s now blasting Bush for not ending a project that was approved by her husband’s administration.
Hillary Clinton loves to tell the story about how the Chinese government bought a good American company in Indiana, laid off all its workers and moved its critical defense technology work to China.
It’s a story with a dramatic, political ending. Republican President George W. Bush could have stopped it, but he didn’t.
If she were president, Clinton says, she’d fight to protect those jobs. It’s just the kind of talk that’s helping her win support from working-class Democrats worried about their jobs and paychecks, not to mention their country’s security.
What Clinton never includes in the oft-repeated tale is the role that prominent Democrats played in selling the company and its technology to the Chinese. She never mentions that big-time Democratic contributor George Soros helped put together the deal to sell the company or that the sale was approved by her husband’s administration.
What’s next, is Hillary going to blame President Bush for the Defense of Marriage Act? The assassination of President Kennedy?
Democrats are so hellbent on blaming President Bush for anything and everything it would be nice this campaign season for them to stop pointing fingers and blaming Bush for everything they think they can make a campaign issue of. But, that won’t happen. Democrats blame Bush for everything to cover up their own lack of leadership.
Tags: Hillary Clinton, President Bush
April 30th, 2008
Not that we should have expected anything different from Oliver Stone, but his planned film “about” President Bush apparently has as much accuracy as a Michael Moore documentary:
Reactions to the script from the biographers were mixed. They said specific scenes are largely based in fact but noted that the screenplay contains inaccurate and over-the-top caricatures of Bush and his inner circle.
“It leaves you with the impression that the White House is run as a fraternity house with no reverence for hierarchy, the office itself or for the implications of policy,” said Robert Draper, author of “Dead Certain: The Presidency of George Bush.” “Everybody calling everybody else nicknames and chatting about whether to go to war as if they were chatting about how to bet on a football game really misses the mark of how many White Houses, including this one, are run.”
Jacob Weisberg (”The Bush Tragedy”) was skeptical about Stone’s claim that he wants to make “a fair, true portrait” of Bush. “His saying he is going to be fair to Bush is like Donald Trump saying he is going to be modest,” Weisberg quipped.
[..]
In the script — then titled “Bush” — the president’s policy judgments are often manipulated by his White House staff, a depiction several of the biographers said did not ring true.
“The problem here is it goes to this notion of Bush as being the passive receiver of policy and the White House being run by (Dick) Cheney, (Donald) Rumsfeld, (Karl) Rove and others,” Draper said. “Bush’s adversaries have been ill-served by this belief that Bush is an observer to his own presidency. This notion that his schedule is driven by what’s on ESPN is ludicrous.”
This is just a sad attempt at liberal Hollywood trying to define Bush’s presidency with their usual lies, but I’m guessing that you won’t see Bush do to Oliver Stone what the Clintons did prior to the premier of “The Path To 9/11″ back in 2006…
With no date for the release, questions are being raised about whether political pressure is behind its current status as a stalled or discarded DVD project. The reasons are murky, but the miniseries’ writer, Cyrus Nowrasteh, believes it’s crystal clear: Powerful forces are out to protect Bill Clinton’s presidential legacy and shield Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) from any potential collateral damage in her bid for the White House.
Nowrasteh, also one of the miniseries’ many producers, said he was told by a top executive at ABC Studios that “if Hillary weren’t running for president, this wouldn’t be a problem.”
Oliver Stone won’t define Bush’s legacy. History will. And history will look back favorably on Bush’s presidency, no matter how much Hollywood and the Democratic Party tries to distort it.
Tags: liberal lies, Oliver Stone, President Bush
April 8th, 2008
Older Posts
