Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston





Sunday, May 8, 2011


The following letter, posted online from "The Commercial Appeal," Memphis, Tennessee,, sums up beautifully what we on the Left know, but have not expressed so succinctly and beautifully:

"Quite a few Republicans this week have tried to claim that the death of Osama bin Laden is due to the efforts of George W. Bush, not Barack Obama. The same Bush who spent eight years chasing wild geese from one end of Iraq to another? Bush chased bin Laden with angry words and empty threats; Obama chased him with Navy SEALs.

These same Republicans will say that the recession is Obama's fault, even though the economy began its fall in early 2007, two years before Obama became president. Now they would have us believe Bush is somehow responsible for bin Laden, even though that took place two years after Bush left office. The only way this illogic makes sense is if they believe America had two presidents at the same time for the past four years, Obama in charge of domestic policy and Bush in charge of foreign policy. That way Obama can be blamed for all the failures of the last four years and Bush can receive credit for all the successes.

Barack Obama, the guy Republicans claim is an illegal Kenyan, a secret Muslim, an unelected president, a conspirator to bring a Shariah dictatorship to America, the guy who wants to take away all our rights and guns and make big government control our lives -- he's the guy who took down America's greatest enemy. He got the job done when your hero Bush could not or would not.

Richard Wilkinson
Amory, Miss."

A simple truth written in clear simple words.  Thanks Mr. Wilkinson.


Charlene said...

You said it.

Mary Mayhem said...

A-F-king-Straight! Take it to the voting booth!

Leslie Parsley said...

Fantastic. I'm gonna share on FB. This is too good to miss.

(O)CT(O)PUS said...

In my humble undersea community, there is a controversy raging about whether it was best to kill bin Laden or capture him for trial. I've stayed away from these discussions - seeing merit in both sides of the argument and a reflection of my own ambivalence. Given a choice between performing seals versus kangaroos holding court, perhaps this is the final irony fit for our times: Carp got the last of bin Laden.

Shaw Kenawe said...


"Carpe die 'im?"

dmarks said...

To summarize what I said elsewhere, whatever policies Bush put in place that contributed to the success of this have been Obama's policies for two years. He took ownership of them in Jan 2009.

Shaw Kenawe said...

If you believe that, dmarks, then the disasterous policies that led to our worst financial implosion since the Great Depression were also put in place during the Bush Administration, and Mr. Obama had to deal with them as soon as he took office.

This is what the letter in my post asserts. You can't give Bush credit on the foreign policy success and not mention his domestic policy failures.

Luckily, job creation has continued to rise since Mr. Obama took office, although the unemployment rate stays stagnant.

dmarks said...

Yes, Shaw. Put in place during Bush, or put in place before (Fannie Mae, etc). But Bush left whatever he inherited in place also.

Tim said...

Bush's policies did not get our man. Obama's did. Bush said he was not interested in getting bin Laden, and attacked Iraq (which had NOTHING to do with 9/11).I said it before all this stuff happened. I will not vote for Bush because if he is elected we bill be back in Iraq. We has and we were. End of story.

dmarks said...

Of course Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. But after 9/11, it made a lot less sense to let their ongoing terrorism and attacks against us continue.