posted April 16, 2011 09:34 AM            

For eight years, possibly with the exception of the week following the terrorist attacks on 9/11, the left labeled George W. Bush everything from a monkey to a traitor. The left made the case that beyond being a war hawk and a reckless cowboy, Bush was also an idiot. He was an idiot for his careless foreign policy, his endless invasions of tribal Arab countries, his reckless financial policies, and his stumbling speeches. Now that Barack Obama has adopted many of Bush's foreign policies and exceeded him in economic irresponsibility, is Obama the same as Bush?

Excepting the issues of abortion and gays in the military, there has been very little practical difference in the politics of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, from immigration (both have espoused amnesty) to the Bush Tax Cuts to the Patriot Act. There was a time when liberals like Rosie O'Donnell equated the Patriot Act with Apartheid, when blacks in South Africa were forbidden the right to an attorney by white government officials. Yet Obama, our first black president, has extended and expanded Bush's Orwellian Patriot Act. President Obama's ambitious agenda far exceeds the privacy fears liberals had regarding Bush -- Obama supports regulating the internet and expanding the national security state.

On the issue of foreign policy, Obama has not diverged at all from the Bush Doctrine -- the same Bush Doctrine that made the entire primetime lineup on MSNBC foam at the mouth. Obama has doubled down in Afghanistan, where, under his leadership, more U.S. soldiers have been killed than during the near-decade under George W. Bush's presidency. In Iraq, the war of choice, President Obama declared in August 2010 that the last full combat brigade had departed. But 25 American troops have been killed in Iraq since then, and our military base and embassy in Iraq are among the largest in the world. In fact, 50,000 troops remain there. Finally, President Obama has also launched new military operations, famously in Libya in 2011 and not so famously in Somalia in late 2009.

Our current president has also mirrored Bush by not following through on his promise to close Guantánamo Bay. Candidate Obama pledged throughout his campaign and in his first interview after winning the election that he would do so. However, now in 2011, not only have these promises not been fulfilled, but Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, is being tried by a military tribunal, not by a civilian court. The left banged their chests in self-righteous indignation, howling that Gitmo is unconstitutional, undemocratic, torturous, and treasonous. They stopped at nothing to label George Bush Hitleresque, the embodiment of evil, and they constantly claimed that we would face the death of our Republic due to torture at Gitmo. Lo and behold, the left's Prince of Peace has strayed from his sheep and continued the policy which, according to Senator Obama in 2007, "compromised our most precious values."

In President Bush's speech on the invasion of Iraq and President Obama's speech on the air assault on Libya, both presidents emphasized the same key elements. For example, regarding the need for allies in the region, President Obama used the term "international effort." Years prior, President Bush had coined the term "coalition forces" and "coalition of the willing." Both discussed a dictator who assaulted and slew his own people. Both spoke of their desire to present legitimate governments to the people of fractured nations that represent them, and both spoke of their reluctance to use military action.

Perhaps the American left did not vilify George Bush because of those policies. Perhaps the American left viewed him as a dunce not for what he said, but how he said it. It is no secret that President Bush exuded a sense of confidence that could be thought of as arrogant, especially after his high approval ratings post-9/11. As Mark Twain once said, "It is wonderful to observe the calm confidence of a Christian with four aces." If George Bush's policies themselves did not make the left think that he was obtuse, it must have been his flaws in speech.

President George Bush will never be remembered positively for his vernacular or his pronunciation of the word "nuclear." "Bushisms" include his "Brownie, you're doin' a heck of a job"; "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"; and "Mission accomplished," just to name a few. Certainly there have been calendars, books, news show segments, and other satirical slights dedicated to the poor education of George Bush. Yet President Obama is not without his missteps: "57 states"; "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? It's the Post Office that's always having problems" (this while discussing how a federal takeover of health care is a good thing); and "On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes...and I see many of them in the audience here today" -- once again, just to name a few.

Is it the negative attention the media focused on George Bush that did it? The fact that Bush is a Republican? Or maybe that he is from Texas and not Chicago? Is Barack Obama incapable of being cast as an idiot because he is urbane, or black, or plays basketball instead of goes bowling? Or is it possible that the American left are hypocritical for their current defense of policies that they themselves once deemed supportable only by president of subhuman intellect? After spending a decade depicting George Bush as a monkey, they must either depict President Obama in the same light or eat crow and acknowledge George Bush as a man of at least modest intelligence and the author of a doctrine that his successor would faithfully follow.

posted April 16, 2011 10:37 AM            

Interesting to say the least ! I wasn`t aware the parallels in policy were so close.

posted April 16, 2011 04:25 PM            

quote:

---

I only posted this article to show the utter, total hypocrisy of leftists

---

posted April 16, 2011 05:29 PM            

"Since its reorganization into an independent organization, the USPS has become self-sufficient and has not directly received taxpayer-dollars since the early 1980s"...katatonic

Hahaha ...I guess you don't consider getting propped up by the US Treasury Dept to the tune of about $15 Billion to be "receiving taxpayer funds". Is that leftist finance? What? Did the Treasury Dept rob banks to get the money to hand off to the US Postal Service?

They only lost $12 Billion from 2007 to 2009...so, what's that crap about being solvent since "the early 1980's?
http://www.beinformedjournal.org/beinformed-jou rnal/2010/4/12/us-postal-service-has-borrowed-billions-from-treasury-dept-m.html

Oh, and now, it looks like they need a $6 Billion bailout by Congress.

Yep, the US Postal Service is doing splendidly!

Oh, not at all acoustic. I ripped Bush numerous times. But when I did, I ripped Bush for the right reasons...over his policies.

posted April 17, 2011 10:48 PM            

You're convincing me that your elevator doesn't go to the top floor. The lights are on...but no one is home there.

O'Bomber is attempting to cram a Marxist Socialist economic and social policy down America's throat. There is no similarity between O'Bomber and Bush on economic and social policy. Bush cut taxes across the board...including capital gains taxes. O'Bomber wants to raise taxes on job producers, institute taxes on energy for everyone and has already set up more than a Trillion dollars in new taxes for O'BomberCare. O'Bomber has also raised taxes on soda, sun tanning and tobacco products. Gee, I guess no one making less than $250K uses any of those products...or, O'Bomber is just another lying Marxist twit.

O'Bomber said no one making less than $250K would see any of their taxes go up a penny. Right, Check!

End of the story.

posted April 18, 2011 11:56 AM            

But then, Bush was far more right as Prez then he was wrong.

However, Bush was wrong on the prescription drug program. Bush was wrong about illegal alien amnesty. And, Bush was wrong about almost tripling federal funds to education.

I find you strangely hypnotized on the subject of O'Bomber acoustic. You really are an O'Bomber Kool-Aid drinker.

The parallels between O'Bomber and Bush on national security and continuation of wars are stark. Hell, the parallels reach out and slap rational people in the face.

Say, wasn't it O'Bomber who railed against American troops in Iraq? And wasn't it O'Bomber who was going to bring the troops home from Afghanistan? And wasn't it O'Bomber who was going to close Gitmo? And wasn't it O'Bomber who railed against the Patriot Act?

Hey acoustic; I don't know how to break this news to you...but, the troops are still in Iraq; the troops are still in Afghanistan; Gitmo is still open for business; and, O'Bomber signed an extension of the Patriot Act.

Not only that acoustic but O'Bomber "rushed" into yet another war, this time in Libya and committed US military forces. Oh, and without
so much as even "consulting" the Congress of the United States.

posted April 18, 2011 01:25 PM            

quote:

---

The parallels between O'Bomber and Bush on national security and continuation of wars are stark. Hell, the parallels reach out and slap rational people in the face.

---

That was one of the concerns by people against Obama before he got elected, wasn't it? I correctly predicted he'd be as he's been.

Conversely, Obama has spoken on foreign policy only to watch the Bush administration fall in line behind his recommendations. ~ AcousticGod, September 03, 2008 http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/004357-5.html

I would still be ASTOUNDED if the U.S. took a major Socialistic turn. Senate gains came from Red states, which means these Democrats have typically Republican constituents. I'm not sure that they'll be quick to tow the party line. Only time will tell what will happen, but I'd be surprised even by attempts at radicalism. ~ AcousticGod, November 06, 2008 http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/004637-2.html

quote:

---

Say, wasn't it O'Bomber who railed against American troops in Iraq? And wasn't it O'Bomber who was going to bring the troops home from Afghanistan? And wasn't it O'Bomber who was going to close Gitmo? And wasn't it O'Bomber who railed against the Patriot Act?

Hey acoustic; I don't know how to break this news to you...but, the troops are still in Iraq; the troops are still in Afghanistan; Gitmo is still open for business; and, O'Bomber signed an extension of the Patriot Act.

---

Are you trying to state things I don't already know? Because you're doing a terrible job of it if you are.

quote:

---

Not only that acoustic but O'Bomber "rushed" into yet another war

---

Interesting phrasing there. You think that there's some parallel there when it's nothing at all like Bush's rush into Iraq. Bush didn't join the UN bandwagon in going into Iraq, did he? Obama did join the UN in going into Libya, didn't he?

quote:

---

Remember when I was talking about rational people a few paragraphs back acoustic. Well, I sure wasn't talking about you.

---

posted April 18, 2011 01:46 PM            

"Conversely, Obama has spoken on foreign policy only to watch the Bush administration fall in line behind his recommendations. ~ AcousticGod,"

Yeah, O'Bomber railed against the Iraq war...so Bush fell right in line with O'Bomber and yanked out American troops. Didn't he??

O'Bomber railed against the troops surge in Iraq...so Bush fell right in line with O'Bomber, cancelled the troops surge and pulled American troops out of Iraq. Didn't he??

Oh wait, Bush sent More troops to Iraq, completed the troops surge which led to an agreement with the Iraqi leadership to draw down US forces...."as events on the ground permitted."

Let's see, O'Bomber was going to remove ALL US forces within a few months but instead, followed the Bush policy of a draw down...as events on the ground permitted. About 50,000 US military personnel are still in Iraq.

Leave it to you to get it backward acoustic. How much more irrational can you get? Have you hit bottom yet?

Bush didn't fall into line with the recommendations of O'Bomber.

O'Bomber fell into line with the Bush policies.

Nice to see my opinions about you confirmed acoustic. Don't ever quit your day job to become an analyst...of anything.

"but I'd be surprised even by attempts at radicalism."

Taking over AIG, GM, Chrysler and Banks is not radical...in the leftist world.

Cramming a Socialist health care system down America's throat..O'BomberCare is not radical...in the leftist world.

Attempting to skyrocket energy prices by regulation, taxation and drilling moratoriums is not radical...in the leftist world.

posted April 18, 2011 02:12 PM            

You didn't address my nonchalance towards Obama, nor back up your claim of hypnotism.

You didn't address the difference I pointed out between Obama's action in Libya and Bush's in Iraq.

No. You started a whole new talk. Why can't you ever stick to the subject?

quote:

---

Taking over AIG, GM, Chrysler and Banks is not radical...in the leftist world.

---

WE'VE COVERED THIS! Good Lord, JWhop, since when has Obama been the chief executive of any of these private companies? Never. There was no takeover. These entities aren't run by our government. End of story.

quote:

---

Cramming a Socialist health care system down America's throat..O'BomberCare is not radical...in the leftist world.

---

Socialist? So you're saying that the government now runs my healthcare? That's news to me. As far as I know, I'm still only covered by my employer's insurance. Would you like to post your definition of Socialist?

quote:

---

Attempting to skyrocket energy prices by regulation, taxation and drilling moratoriums is not radical...in the leftist world.

---

Who's attempting to skyrocket energy prices? Who put that out as a goal? No one. Get a grip.

Not only so, but your stance lacks any sort of nuance as to how energy prices are actually determined. You tribute politics an inordinate amount.

quote:

---

You say the most radical things

---