Yes, He Did: Pt. IV - What Will Make Them Happy

When I watched clip last night over at the Right Wing "hate-site" Fox"Nation", it finally became clear to me that it's not Obama that's making the successful killing of Bin Laden about him, it's the Modern American Right that's making it all about Obama:



I'll get back to how this "breaking news" is more about Fox's/The Right's own agenda than about what actually happened that day in New York.

Moreover, I seriously question the validity of Debra Burlingame's version of her encounter with Obama, considering her personal disdain with our President.

And while some will say that it's not right to question a woman that lost so much on Sept. 11th 2001, I feel that it's only intellectually honest to do so based on her preconceived notions of who Obama is and what he has done. After all, he gave the "go-ahead" order that lead to the death of the man that was responsible for the death of her husband.

But more on that portion of the story later.

While the Modern American Right remains to be unmoved by the implications of what has happened over the course of the last two weeks - that Obama has proven has was born in America and has brought down the most wanted terrorist in the world - I have to ask what else he has to do that will make them understand that his presidency is more of a success than the Bush Administration.

Considering the metric by which the Modern American Right operate, the bar is set so high that no one - not even someone they have deified - would be able to claim such a title.

Not Palin, not Trump, not Bachmann, no anyone.

Why is that?

The truth, despite what the Modern American Right will insist upon reads as such:

Obama must be impeached or defeated in the General Election.

And while I am given pause to relate the third and final prerequisite for Right Wing happiness, it shouldn't be ignored that some within their ranks openly and unflinchingly pray for his own death.

Anyone remember the Death Prayer movement?

Again, what does this man have to do?

Walk on water?

Cure the sick with a touch of his hand?

Make NASCAR a more interesting event?

The metric for acceptability lies purely within the hand of the Modern American Right. And no matter what happens, it seems they won't have any of it until he accepts George W. Bush into his heart as his "personal savior".

Sad.

Yes, He Did: Pt 2 - It's All About George

This was a natural path for the Modern American Right to take - credit George W. Bush for the success of the Obama administration. But do they remember this:



So why give credit to a person that admittedly wasn't concerned with Bin Laden - even after the whole "Dead or Alive" meme became such a chant with those that were the unflinching supplicants of the Bush administration. Additionally, since "waterboarding" ended in 2005, and if the Modern American Right are really wanting to maintain that it was the singular technique that helped find Bin Laden, why did the Bush administration not act on this intel they allegedly had?

The reason that people should be asking that is due to the latest meme that has sprung up within the Modern American Right - that Obama took 16 hours to decide how to approach this situation.

Take just a moment to consider the implications of reactionary decision making. While many within the Left wanted the Bush Administration to be more aggressive in going after Bin Laden just days after the attacks on September 11th, we knew that reactionary foreign policy wouldn't work, but this latest and laughable assault on the Obama administration stinks of so much hypocrisy that I shouldn't even have to tell you about it.

But there is an element within this event that I think we all need to understand - that Bush had, at least, a small roll in finding Bin Laden. Obama understood this, accepted this, and wanted him to be a part of the celebration of his death and what should be the singular action that ends our occupation of Afghanistan. The only problem is that Bush wanted no part of it.

Naturally, the Modern American Right are going to frame this as Bush "knowing" that Obama is just using this as a campaign tool. But didn't Bush use Bin Laden as a campaign tool for years? The hypocrisy continues.

Did the Bush Administration have any roll in finding Bin Laden? I'm certain they did, but I'm not so blind to know that "waterboarding" was the singular technique that found him.

Is Bush taking advantage of this to make Obama look bad? you bet he is:

A spokesman for George W. Bush says the former president has declined an invitation from President Barack Obama to attend an observance at New York's ground zero.

Obama plans to visit the site of the destroyed World Trade Center towers Thursday in the aftermath of a Navy SEALs raid that killed Osama bin Laden. The al-Qaida attack, which killed about 3,000 people, occurred in the early months of Bush's presidency in 2001.

The spokesman, David Sherzer, says the former president appreciated the offer to attend but has chosen to remain out of the spotlight during his post-presidency.

I'm almost certain that the Modern American Right are going to use this as yet another tool to claim that Bush is more of a leader than Obama is.

A Question Of Leadership

While conservatives "aren't letting a crisis go to waste" in regards to the socio-political unrest in Egypt, Chris Matthews posed a question to his panel yesterday that many within the modern American Right are calling a disaster for the Obama administration.



While the question is a legitimate one, I hardly see how Matthews asking this is any way detrimental to Obama.

Let's look at the data in reference to Bush's response to Sept. 11th 2001.

Rather than send a sufficient force into Afghanistan to capture/kill Bin Laden, he sent in fewer military than there are police officers in Manhattan. Also, his focus - and ultimately that of the entire Right Wing in this country - was shifted to Iraq where he sent precious lives on a fools errand in some vain attempt to finish the job he thought his father wanted him to complete.

The larger point is this - does the modern American Right think we should invade Egypt now? That does seem to be their answer for everything in the Middle East.

Decision Flexible

It's not surprising that Bush's book has themes and passages lifted from previous writings that lauded him as a great leader.

It also comes as no surprise that Bush's book - was it even written by him? - is being recognized as a "best seller", considering conservative authors rely on bulk purchasing to further the narrative the America actually buys into such nonsense.

And it should come as a shock to no one that Fox"News" is going to give Bush a multimedia handjob as often and as fervent as they can. But when they say he's "the boss", then one has to look at what they consider a successful "boss" to be.

Here's Hannity offering yet another dose of his man-love for W.



Seems that Fox, and apparently their viewership, think a "real boss" displays these qualities and runs his "business" like this:

- Taking credit for the successes of others

- Failing at literally every level of his private sector business attempts

- Ignoring a glaring warning of a threat against our nation

- Isn't concerned with the leadership of those that attacked us on Sept. 11th

- Presided over an administration that is responsible for a "bailout" that is now attributed to Obama and Democrats

- Increased the national debt by trillions in less than 10 years

Is that the type of "boss" you want?

Reality Disconnect

Dumb response or dumbest response from George W. Bush?

That's -- "he's a racist." And I didn't appreciate it then. I don't appreciate it now. It's one thing to say, "I don't appreciate the way he's handled his business." It's another thing to say, "This man's a racist." I resent it, it's not true, and it was one of the most disgusting moments in my Presidency.

Yeah, because right after Sept 11th having Kanye talk shit about you really puts a dent in your agenda, doesn't it.

Can't Touch This

How are all the loyal Bushies going to spin this?



Did you see it? Kind of hard not to. At the :15 Bush wipes his hand off on Clinton's shirt after shaking a Haitian's hand.

And while Think Progress rightfully points out that Bush has a pretty severe aversion to germs, this just sends the wrong message. After all, how many people that saw it happen know that Bush is known to grab a healthy serving of hand sanitizer to his palms after shaking someone's hand?

Bush is really out of his element in this relief effort. Come to think of it, he was pretty much out of his element while he was occupying the White House. Kind of makes me wonder how he cleaned up after fisting the average American for 8 years.

The Root Cause

Liz Cheney, every channelling the inane blatherings of her father, was on television yesterday continuing the meme that "civilian trials will lead to more terrorist attacks".

What you have is a situation, unquestionably we went through a period in the nation's history we dealt with terrorism as law enforcement matter....As Attorney General Mukasey pointed out when we prosecuted and convicted people after the '93 World Trade Center bombing and East Africa bombing, what it got us was 9/11 and 3,000 dead Americans.

That's a rather flaccid thesis, as there was ample intelligence to support the fact that bin Laden was ready to carry out an attack within the first year of George W. Bush's initial term in office. So, to use Cheney's model for what does and what doesn't cause a terrorist attack, it would stand to reason that Bush's ignoring of a domestic agenda from January 20th 2001 up until Sept. 12 2001 was a cause of what happened on Sept. 11th.

The only difference between Liz's statements and mine is that there are multiple examples of how the later can be verified. From the Bush cabinet ignored warnings put forth by the intelligence community and advisers as early as five days after being sworn in as President.

I'm reminded of how John Brennan is being put under fire for calling out Republicans for politicizing terror. Isn't that precisely what Liz Cheney is doing?

Small Business Waste

In the post below this one, I postulated that the "Miss Me Yet" billboard was some gimmicky prank in order to make some kind of faux-populist statement about Obama by someone that needs to spend their money more wisely. Turns our I was kind of right.

Mary Teske, the general manager of Schubert & Hoey Outdoor Advertising reports, "The Bush Miss Me Yet? billboard was paid for by a group of small business owners who feel like Washington is against them. They wish to remain anonymous. They thought it was a fun way of getting out their message."

Various people have stepped forward around the country to claim credit -- the latest was a gentleman in upstate New York from what I can tell in his e-mail. But, it's all local, folks.

Of course people are going to start taking credit for it now that it's the latest piece of viral media. I'm sure that Teske knows more than she's able to tell, and that there are more people raising their hand on this one than should be credited. But moreover, if this is the product of struggling "small business" people, wouldn't it stand to reason that they should be budgeting their money in a more "fiscally conservative" manner instead of using it to take pot-shots at the Obama administration?

Billboard Politics

Yep, it's real.

'Miss Me Yet?' Billboard With Photo of George Bush is Real
by burghnews

The question now is this - who would waste money putting this up?

The Glenn Becks of the world will likely claim that this is some form of hoax perpetrated by several of the "czars" in the Obama administration and that the money used to buy the ad-space was from the stimulus package.

On the other hand, the Hannity's and Limbaugh's of the world will likely state that this is the first in a viral form of marketing by the "tea-parties" in order to garner support for "the cause".

I, on the other hand, think that some wingnut with too much money thought he/she would be clever by snagging an image from the internet that has been circulating for some time and just give it a new venue.

And, to answer the question posited - No, the majority of American don't miss you at all.

Blaming Bush? Of Course They Should

Each and every time conservatives throw their hands in the air, exhale a massive puff of hot air, and shout "aw, come on", it's really a signifier that they don't want their parties abject failures and lack of foresight to be put into the spotlight. The party of "accountability" doesn't want to be held accountable in any shape, form, or function.

And while some are claiming that Democrats are rethinking this strategy - of which I think they shouldn't - it should be noted that even after a year of Obama being in the White House, he's still having to deal with the catastrophic mess that was left ( quite literally ) at his doorstep.

Conservatives whining that it isn't fair, isn't right, or is a cheap shot at Bush whenever any Democrat ( be they liberal, progressive, or other ) mentions King George's name need to accept the fact that his strategies failed - big time.

Speaking of strategies, perhaps someone ought to tell Harold Ford Jr. that tax cuts on the wealthy didn't help at all. In point of fact, they cost more than twice what proposed healthcare reform cost. Of course, you don't hear that Bushian fact coming up hardly at all - and it should be.

Year One : Attack Of The Teabaggers ( or ) Nice Try But Not Enough

By and large, conservatives became the party of paranoia, revisionist history, misdirection, and distortion on Janurary 20th of last year. This isn’t to say that they hadn’t already been steeped in these practices prior to the inauguration of Barack Obama, but they were certainly amplified to the Nth degree.

This has not been an easy year for Obama, The monumental task of repairing damage done the previous 8 years wasn’t going to be easy, yet his record has been molested into something completely unrecognizable in many respects. His successes have been marginalized or completely ignored by many in this country. In replace of substantive discussion regarding Obama’s actions as President, the majority of Americans are caught up in responding to specious accusations like Obama’s birthplace, alleged ties to “radicals”, his view of America, and those chosen to be in his cabinet.

Conservatives invested every ounce of energy they had in turning Obama into a morbid caricature of evil. He was labeled a Socialist, Totalitarian, Marxist, Communist - even though none of those can co-exist along side one another – that jaunted around the globe “apologizing” for America and was literally inviting a terrorist attack. There were no attempts at bipartisanship by Republicans in either House of Congress, even though there were cries for it by them. From the very start, Obama was faced with obstructionism from the entire Republican Party.

While he had succeeded in many areas, including the Stimulus, the beginnings of Cap and Trade, vastly improved the image of America around the world, and seated a US Supreme Court Justice. However successful these things were, they were quickly labeled as abject failures by conservatives. Not in-so-much as they were bad, but conservatives would not be seen as failures in their own right. They would do anything to ensure that Americans were convinced Obama had already failed.

Republicans, conservative “tea-party” activists or not, throughout the campaign claimed that Democrats revered Obama as a God-like figure that could do anything. However, they faced their own ironic deification of the man, as they set the bar so high that it was literally unapproachable. This isn’t to say that Obama didn’t try. The only problem was that he didn’t try hard enough. The stimulus wasn’t enough, the full implementation of Cap and Trade still hasn’t taken effect, healthcare reform became ensnared in too many Republican trappings, and he hadn’t effectively pushed-back at those conservatives that leveled inflammatory attacks.

Suddenly obstructionism, willful ignorance, and yes – racial animus ( though the later will be viciously denied despite conclusive proof of its existence ) were considered “patriotism”. Suddenly there had been no terrorist attacks during Bush’s term, that the economic collapse was solely the fault of Obama, that even pointing out the widely recognized and recorded history of the Bush administration was unacceptable. Conservatives were convinced that America did not exist anymore, that we were in danger of losing every freedom and liberty once the Oath of Office was taken by Obama.

It’s been a difficult year, and Obama has faced a great deal. He’s still got more work to do, but so do all Democrats. We can’t let ill-informed conservatives control the message or rewrite history any longer.

Timeline Of A Response

Much is being made about President Obama's actions in the fact of the failed Christmas Day terrorist attack on the NorthWest air-bus headed for Detroit. One of the main talking-points making the rounds is that Obama waited far too long to make a declarative statement.

For a little context, which conservatives normally fail to understand the concept of, George W. Bush never mentioned Richard Reid ( the Shoe-Bomber ) except in a passing moment during the end of a press Q & A in Crawford, TX during one of Bush's famed "vacations". This was over a week after the incident had occured. Conservatives didn't seem to have a problem with that response.

The Dithering Bloom Of Bush/Cheney

In a recent conversation on Twitter with @AnUnlikelySaint, I pointed out that as recently as last year, Bush/Cheney did not answer a call for more troops in Afghanistan. My assertion, back up by a report in McClatchy which I blogged about yesterday, is solidified with new information coming from Admiral Micheal Mullen

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff pushed back in a fact-checking dispute with former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, asserting that the Bush administration objected rejected a Pentagon request for more troops for Afghanistan last year.

Adm. Michael Mullen told a House committee Wednesday that Gen. David McKiernan, who led U.S. troops in Afghanistan between 2008 and this year, had asked for 20,000 troops for the effort but was rebuffed.

“We didn’t have them because they were pushed to Iraq,” the four-star admiral said during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing in response to a question from Indiana Republican Rep. Mike Pence. “That was the priority of the president.”

The conservative base, now faced with the reality that the Bush administration largely ignored Afghanistan in favor of attempting to nation-build in Iraq, are completley unwilling to recognize the failure that they had once claimed liberal/progressive Democrats embraced.

But while many who watched Obama's speech at West Point considered Obama's statement about troop requests and his patience on issuing another ( his first was in March - the one that Bush/Cheney ignored ) was directed at Dick Cheney, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld thought it was all about him:

Such a bald misstatement, at least as it pertains to the period I served as secretary of defense, deserves a response. I am not aware of a single request of that nature between 2001 and 2006. If any such requests occurred, "repeated" or not, the White House should promptly make them public. The President's assertion does a disservice to the truth and, in particular, to the thousands of men and women in uniform who have fought, served and sacrificed in Afghanistan.

But there is one problem with Rumsfeld's statement, he was the Sec. of Defense when this happened - it was Robert Gates, the man that is still holds the position today. And while conservatives will attempt to use this as a "well it's not really Bush/Cheney's fault, is it" defense, the reality of the matter is that Bush/Cheney have authority over Gates just as they had authority over Rumsfeld.

In the end, this whole concept of "dithering" by Obama is a non-starter. The best decision was made with a far more solid plan than at any time during the Bush administration, who largely ignored the mission in Afghanistan.

The Silver Platter

This is not new news, but there are more details emerging now that the Bush administration is no longer in power.

US forces had Osama Bin Laden “within their grasp” in Afghanistan in late 2001, a US Senate report says.

The report seeks to affix a measure of blame for the state of the war in Afghanistan today on military leaders under former president George W. Bush, specifically Donald H. Rumsfeld as defence secretary and his top military commander, Tommy Franks.

It says: “Removing the al-Qaida leader from the battlefield eight years ago would not have eliminated the worldwide extremist threat.

“But the decisions that opened the door for his escape to Pakistan allowed bin Laden to emerge as a potent symbolic figure who continues to attract a steady flow of money and inspire fanatics worldwide. The failure to finish the job represents a lost opportunity that forever altered the course of the conflict in Afghanistan and the future of international terrorism.”

The report states categorically that bin Laden was hiding in Tora Bora when the US had the means to mount a rapid assault with several thousand troops at least.

Fox"News" is quick to spin away from this, and they would be expected to act in such a manner. They have claimed that the evidence is some 8 years old, and by default completely irrelevant to the story. Also, they want to distance themselves from language like this:

Moments after he complained about “over the top” attacks on President Bush by Democrats last night (5/2/06), Sean Hannity reprised his baseless, discredited attacks on Bill Clinton for “turning down” an offer from Sudan of “bin Laden on a silver platter.” In a teaser preceding the interview, FOX News displayed the disrespectful banner, “Bubba and Bin Laden.”

The Bin Laden claim and the complaints about attacks on Bush came during an interview with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Hannity said, “I want to go back to the issue of Sudan offering bin Laden on a silver platter. Bill Clinton, himself, acknowledged this.” In fact, Clinton said no such thing and Hannity knows it – or he damn well ought to.

Media Matters continues:

On July 20, ABC radio host Sean Hannity thrice repeated the false claim that former President Bill Clinton refused a 1996 offer from Sudan to hand Osama bin Laden over to the United States. Hannity has previously propagated this claim, for which the 9-11 Commission found "no reliable evidence to support."

As Media Matters for America has noted, the false claim originated in an August 11, 2002, article on right-wing news website NewsMax.com that distorted a statement Clinton made on February 15, 2002. While addressing the Long Island Association's annual luncheon, Clinton said he "pleaded with the Saudis" to accept Sudan's offer to hand bin Laden over to Saudi Arabia. Sudan never offered bin Laden to the United States, and Clinton did not admit to the Sudan offer in that speech or anywhere else.

And while this specious claim has been debunked multiple times by multiple sources - and completely ignored by conservative media and bloggers - it should be pointed out that this is a verifiable failure by not only George W. Bush's administration, but of the conservative media that claim that reporting accurately on the ongoing "war on terror" is a priority for them as well.

This hardly comes as a surprise, as Bush priorities in relation to the “war on terror” – bin Laden in particular – haven’t always mirrored the initial goals he set forward.

Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes appeared on Fox this morning to discuss his recent meeting with President Bush in the Oval Office. The key takeaway for Barnes was that “bin Laden doesn’t fit with the administration’s strategy for combating terrorism.” Barnes said that Bush told him capturing bin Laden is “not a top priority use of American resources.” Watch it.

Bush’s priorities have always been skewed. Just months after declaring he wanted bin Laden “dead or alive,” Bush said, “I truly am not that concerned about him.” Turning his attention away from bin Laden, Bush trained his focus on Iraq — a country he now admits had “nothing” to do with 9/11.

At this point, It's likely conservatives are going to be on defense for a while as they attempt to excuse, misdirect, and fabricate their way out of this corner.

Some Thoughts For Your Morning

- Allahpundit @ HotAir is all in a twitchy rage about the video that I had blogged about earlier this morning. And he takes the issue to the typical, reactionary, end that only a wingnut can.

- If George W. Bush can be a motivational speaker, then there is something very wrong with this planet. Chris Farley made a better motivational speaker on SNL

- Newt Gingrich is joining the ever growing chorus of conservatives that are begining to see Glenn Beck for what he is - a morning-show radio DJ on crystal meth that thinks the voices in his head are Thomas Paine and Geroge Washington.

- For some reason beyond the comprehension of most Americans, more conservatives are standing in solidarity with the "tea-bagger" candidate Doug Hoffman. The GOP is literally tearing itself apart, attempting to get a breakthrough in their ongoing identity crisis. And the destruction is such a wonderful thing to behold

The Distance Between Us

Back before Bush left office, I started to postulate how long it would take conservatives to not simply distance themselve from the man that they lauded as the savior of America. And it did happen on some levels that most didn't realize, as his departure was under-reported in severe fashion by most conservative forms of media. So, how long is it going to take for these same reactionary conservatives to pass this up.

I'm trying to remember if I've met her before. I'm sure I must have. His eyes twinkled, then he asked, "What is she, the governor of Guam?" [...]

This woman is being put into a position she is not even remotely prepared for, he said. She hasn't spent one day on the national level. Neither has her family. Let's wait and see how she looks five days out. It was a rare dose of reality in a White House that liked to believe every decision was great, every Republican was a genius, and McCain was the hope of the world because, well, because he chose to be a member of our party.

Liberals have been called out as fascists, anti-American, and equal to those that crucified Christ for no less than this.

More from GQ

Some Thoughts For Your Monday Morning

- Why do people on the Right continually think that their Congressional representatives are going to vote with what their constituancy wants? This entire healthcare debate has been framed by the Right as to what "they" want, not what the voters in their districts want.

- While it is true that ACORN has problems with a handful of people ( which they have severed ties with ) there is somewhat of a hypocritical message that is being sent by conservatives - the Republican party in specific. While the Republican party, just within the last few years, has seen several sex scandals ( one involving an underage boy in the Mark Foley incident ) corporate corruption, drugs, and misuse of state funds, how do they have the right to lambast ACORN?

- Has anyone else noticed that Bill O'Reilly has been so marginalized since Glenn Beck got to Fox"News" that he's hardly a headlining act in the American psyche anymore? Sure, he's got his audience every night, but his relevance is all but gone.

- For those that watched the VMAs last night, and saw what Kanye West did to Taylor Swift, do you think that was planned? There's been some chatter on Twitter over the last few hours that it was. If so, I have to ask why? Why would West, a man that is widely known for his childish behaviors, want to continue validating those opinions? That's not exactly good marketing.

- How many blacks did you see at the "9/12" protests? I wasn't there, but I counted 2 that were interviewd by Beck. Diversity? I think not.

- And speaking of the continuing "tea-bagging" within the conservative movement, where were these same people when Bush more than doubled the national deficit? Where were they when Bush's tax cuts and the Iraq occupation cost more than double what proposed healthcare legislation will? Where were they when Bush clearly violated the Constitution, that these people claim to be scholars of, by using warrantless wiretapping on Americans?

-

Your AOL Hotset Poll

Why Didn't This Play Out Differently?

While this has been a point that has been continually validated by the Right, it's not focused on enough.



While it is interesting to note that conservatives and former members of the Bush administration continually laud Bush's complete lack of reaction as the appropriate course of action, this was the first signifier that we had that George W. Bush completely lacked any sort of leadership capabilities in the face of a national emergency.

Not only that, but where were the Secret Service during this? There was a verified attack on the nation and they weren't concerned about getting the president to safety? And not only that, but the remaining members of the Bush administration staff that were there seemed to show some signs of concern. Was it over the situation in New York City or was is that the man that they had to answer to simply sat there, an utter look of confusion playing across his face, and did nothing? Did they quesiton his ability to lead at this point, or were they just as confused as he. After all, there had been intel delivered to them for over a month that this may happen.

Naturally, it is to be expected that Fox"News" would give airtime to someone like Andrew Card to continue the validation process of a man that prefered to just sit there than act.

Something Interesting And Something Missing

Considering our consumerist nature, how we absorb information, and the speed at which that information travels, we tend to forget how quickly marginalized those that were once held as shining examples of conservative wisdom and action are disposed of.

With that being stated, when was the last time you heard people like Hannity, Malkin, Coulter, Limbaugh, or O'Reilly speak at length about former president George W. Bush?

Even though there is plenty on the plates of reactionary conservatives, isn't it nice that that man is gone?