"Michael Hirsch writes today in the National Journal, President Obama was sucessful in catching Bin Laden precisely because he broke with Bush’s terror policies. The conservative “assessment couldn’t be further from the truth,” Hirsch writes. “Behind Obama’s takedown of the Qaida leader this week lies a profound discontinuity between administrations — a major strategic shift in how to deal with terrorists,” from Bush’s bombastic and overly expansive “war on terror,” to Obama’s “covert, laserlike focus on al-Qaida and its spawn.”
h/t THINK PROGRESS
"By removing Osama bin Laden, President Obama has accomplished what Bush couldn't do in two terms, no matter what he promised. So why is it still so difficult for the right to give him respect and credit?
The president should not have to prove anything to anyone. Yet, he has handled every unmerited insult with nothing but grace and class. He has risen above every act of insolence, and proved them all wrong. There is, as CBS' 'Face the Nation' host Bob Schieffer described, 'an ugly strain of racism that's running through this whole thing.' "
Meanwhile, the Repubs are pooping green bricks over Mr. Obama's success in getting bin Laden. They can't deal with it! LOL! Go read some of their pathetic blogs where they're twisting themselves into Bushian pretzels trying to discredit or lie about what President Obama and his team pulled off.
History is on Mr. Obama's side, not theirs.
24 comments:
Difference between now and then: now, the grown-ups are in charge.
awesome picture!! Oh yea, and awesome President, cute too! :-)
If Seal 6 had gone to Iraq and taken out Sadam that whole loss of life and treasure would have been avoided. Same for going after OBL in 2001-2.
That picture is priceless! The best one I've seen so far!!
He slept on the decision, it didn't really happen, they just killed him, he did not credit President "I just don't spend that much time on it" Bush enough, his going to New York was grotesque, it w political move, and on and on and on.
The quiet reserved Presidency of Barack Obama, while at times maddening to those of us wanting to see him be more political in his response to the GOP is a welcome change from the constant yelling and cowboy diplomacy we witnessed from DC for many years.
Amen Shaw!
I have read enough reich wing blogs and I decided last week to put an end to that waste of time.
At one time I thought they were actually sincere in their political philosophy...but they aren't. Its all just spin and no substance.
I personally have some real problems with Obama's economic policies and I have some real reservations about Obamacare but one thing you cannot fault Obama on is foreign policy and attacking Al Qaeda.
That is one area that all conservatives just need to leave well enough alone because he has been more aggressive toward taking the fight to Al Qaeda than any republican could ever dream of!
For every conservative that voted for Bush twice because he "kept this country safe..." then they just need to quit blogging right now.
But they won't because they are too in love with their own cuteness.
Tao's right (despite the silly thing of him calling conservatives Nazis at teh top of his comment). Obama is to be commended because he didn't do what the hard left wanted him to do. He did not surrender to the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. He did not release the crazy butchers from "Gitmo" despite an ill-considered promise to do so. And he got Bin Laden. The drone policy is also a very wise one.
Anything to do with republicans is a waste of time. 2012 is now a slam dunk.
2012 is now a slam dunk.
Don't get complacent and count on that. It's a year and a half away yet. Fight every battle as if it could be lost.
Agreed Infidel753, so much could happen, and the American public is so fickle.
Fight every battle.
dmarks: the hard left wanted [President Obama] to ... surrender to the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.
WTF? The "hard Left" did NOT want to "surrender to the terrorists". It was (and still is) the hard Right that wants to give the terrorists exactly what they want.
OBL hoped GWB would invade a middle eastern country after 9/11 so we would be defeated in a war of attrition.
The strategy worked when used against the Sovients in Afghanistan. bush may as well have been in league with OBL. Which may explain why he made no effort to catch him.
No, w-dervish. You do have it wrong. The hard left (Kucinich, etc) wants the US to leave and let the terrorists run free.
"bush may as well have been in league with OBL."
I know. I saw them in a Burger King with Elvis one day. It HAS to be true! Just like the maniacal blithering about Reagan and a "secret deal" on the hostages. If a clueless imagination makes it up, it has to be true!
WTF? The "hard Left" did NOT want to "surrender to the terrorists".
WD, you don't read enough right-wing blogs. They have an image of "the left" which is formed out of the whole cloth of their own rhetoric and bears no resemblance to anything in the real world.
OBL hoped GWB would invade a middle eastern country
Actually bin Laden, based on the precedent of Mogadishu and the Beirut Marine barracks bombing (which he cited in his own writings), believed that a forceful-enough attack would cause the US to withdraw from the Middle East entirely. He wasn't playing 11-dimensional chess. He simply didn't understand the United States very well.
Infidel753: Actually bin Laden... believed that a forceful-enough attack would cause the US to withdraw from the Middle East entirely.
I don't think so.
Osama's stated goal was to "[bleed] America to the point of bankruptcy" through the use of a "war of attrition". He also remarked that it was "easy for us to provoke and bait [the bush] administration". Osama correctly deduced that bush "gave priority to private interests over the public interests ... [as] anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Halliburton and its kind [can see]". These statements are from a video released by al Qaeda in late 2004 which should have been titled "Thank you George W. bush". (Thank you for invading Afghanistan and Iraq).
dmarks, you've got it wrong -- I don't care what your clueless imagination tells you. Dennis Kuchinich thinks we should withdraw from these countries we illegally invaded, but that hardly means letting the "terrorists run free".
There are other ways to fight terror other than by illegally invading countries and spending trillions we don't have. That actually has made us less safe.
w dervish said: "Dennis Kuchinich thinks we should withdraw from these countries we illegally invaded, but that hardly means letting the "terrorists run free".
Neither country was illegally invaded. And of course the terrorists DO want us out ASAP so they can operate without limit. Kucinich has no idea what he is talking about. However, President Obama does.
"There are other ways to fight terror other than by illegally invading countries..."
Of course. I oppose illegal invasions, but such have not occured so we'd best weed that subject out.
And yes Infidel has some rather perceptive analysis here. Unlike w-dervish (with his labelling of one of Osama's lies as "correct"), he's not relying on false claims and wild conspiracy theories. I'm glad President Obama has a more reality-based view of the Middle East, like Infidel, and has not gone down the reality-lorn W-Dervish and Kucinich.
Article 51 of the U.N. Charter states that "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations".
9/11 wasn't an armed attack perpetrated by Afghanistan or Iraq! dmarks, if you want to pretend that these invasions were legal what you're weeding out is the truth.
End the Occupation of Iraq -- and Afghanistan. EXCERPT: The UN Charter provides that all member states must settle their international disputes by peaceful means, and no nation can use military force except in self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council. After the 9/11 attacks, the Council passed two resolutions, neither of which authorized the use of military force in Afghanistan.
The author of the above cited article was Marjorie Cohn, a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and president of the National Lawyers Guild (7/29/2008).
ARTICLE: "Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says United Nations secretary general Kofi Annan" (The Guardian, 9/16/2004).
ARTICLE: "War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal". EXCERPT: International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal. [Pearl said] "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing". (The Guardian 11/20/2003).
dmarks: Unlike w-dervish (with his labelling of one of Osama's lies as "correct")...
The "lie" you're referring to is actually the truth. GWB supported war profiteering. Giving US corporations fat contracts factored heavily into his decision to invade. bush believed that "the best way to revitalize the economy is war. And that the United States has grown stronger with war".
The the two primary reasons bush invaded were -- to get re-elected for being a "war president" and to "revitalize the economy". The so-called "war on terror" just provided him with a convenient excuse (made possible by the 9/11 attacks, or the "new Pearl Harbor" PNAC had been praying for).
It's useless to argue with dmarks. He thinks bush was the best president since Lincoln. He gets positively giddy at the mere mention of his name. He also believes that if he repeats himself enough times he may actually get someone to believe his crazy ideas. He should check out this blog:
http://bloviatingzeppelin.blogspot.com/
this guy is right up his alley.
w-dervish says: "9/11 wasn't an armed attack perpetrated by Afghanistan"
You are quite simply lying.
Time for some education. The Taliban government of Afghanistan was UNITED with Al Qaeda. This is why informed decisionmakeers on the right AND left united on the need to retaliate against the aggressor state.
As for the rest, hardline ideologues masquerading as armchair attorneys can make up the idea that anything's illegal. But it does not make it so.
But I'm not sure you are interested in reality as you are buying into the PNAC conspiracy theory boobery.
Thankfully, there are smarter more critical minds in the White House.
------------
Tim said: "It's useless to argue with dmarks. He thinks bush was the best president since Lincoln."
Still waiting for the source of that quote. You insisted that I said it. Yes, you can argue with me if you come armed with the facts. As for "crazy ideas", name one. Other than the Bush and Lincoln quote, which you dodge when I ask you to source.
Source, please. And no, sorry, you have to be pretty stupid to think that anyone will buy a link to someone ELSE's blog as being any sort of source about me. Are you commenting drunk again?
dmarks, I did not lie, I quoted law professor and president of the National Lawyers Guild Marjorie Cohn. This person is an ACTUAL, and not armchair, attorney. Mrs. Cohn correctly pointed out that attacking and invading Afghanistan wasn't authorized by the UN. A retaliatory strike can't be classified as "self-defense".
Especially given the fact that the Taliban offered to surrender bin Laden. A 10/14/2001 Guardian article titled "Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden Over" states that the Taliban "would be ready to hand him over to a third country [for trial]". bush was so desperate for war that he rejected the offer out of hand.
I also quoted bush administration official Richard Perle who ADMITTED the invasion was illegal, so I haven't a clue as to where you're getting the notion that the invasion being illegal is "made up". Are I, and the people I quoted, "making up" the language used in Article 51 of the UN Charter? Is Article 51 of the UN charter a "conspiracy theory"?
If you ask me that contention truly is boobery. You may not like it, but we did agree to the UN rules when we joined. I don't know how the hell you can argue differently.
W-D, dmarks has called both of us liars, now he is calling me a drunk as well. What can I say? We must be getting under his skin.
Facts are only required if they are against his argument.
Post a Comment