Uninspired, phoning it in. The man just doesn't enjoy foreign and defense policy. Tossing in the economic stuff was probably due to Nancy and Harry's begging.
And while I was happy to hear him mention George Bush--he simply can't bring himself to pay Bush the compliment he deserves for the courage of the Surge.
UPDATE: How Senator Obama viewed the surge.
Showing posts with label George Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George Bush. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
WaPost On TARP
I've said many times here that TARP is the only thing government has done in the face of the liquidity crisis and the concomitant recession that has actually helped make things better. The stimulus has done nothing, the efforts to "keep people in their (houses) homes" have been for naught, and extending unemployment benefits simply removed incentive for people to find jobs quicker. TARP ungummed the works and got the country moving again. Now it seems, the $700B price tag will come in at a more palatable $100B as the Government begins to sell its equity in many of the banks it propped up for profit.
The thing that bothers me most about this Editorial is that except for dating the measure (September 2008), it is SILENT as to whom should be given credit for it. Well, that's because it is George W. Bush, the man who agreed to it against his political instincts because he knew the country was in deep trouble and needed immediate, palpable action. But success doesn't fit the Bought and Paid For Media's view of GWB, so he goes unnamed.
The thing that bothers me most about this Editorial is that except for dating the measure (September 2008), it is SILENT as to whom should be given credit for it. Well, that's because it is George W. Bush, the man who agreed to it against his political instincts because he knew the country was in deep trouble and needed immediate, palpable action. But success doesn't fit the Bought and Paid For Media's view of GWB, so he goes unnamed.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Bush, Barack, And Bi-Partisanship
The President makes a lot of noise about bi-partisanship and reaching out to the GOP, but does he mean it? And by that, I mean, is he meaningfully attempting to work with the GOP, or is he just talk about it.
The incomparable Keith Hennessey looks at bi-partisanship in the Bush (you remember him--failure, my way or the highway, most divisive figure in American politics) White House and contrasts it with what we've seen so far from the Obama team. The comparison does not reflect well upon The One.
I've said it before and I'll say it again--historians will (in future years) look back on the Bush Presidency in a more positive light than journalists did. What's the word for how Bush got things done? "Strategery!"
The incomparable Keith Hennessey looks at bi-partisanship in the Bush (you remember him--failure, my way or the highway, most divisive figure in American politics) White House and contrasts it with what we've seen so far from the Obama team. The comparison does not reflect well upon The One.
I've said it before and I'll say it again--historians will (in future years) look back on the Bush Presidency in a more positive light than journalists did. What's the word for how Bush got things done? "Strategery!"
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Obama Claims Stimulus Made Second Depression Less Likely
What a truckload of baloney. The stimulus--two-thirds of which remains unspent--has had little impact on our economy. The TARP credit market intervention (a.k.a "bank bailout") remains the only act of government that has had an appreciably positive impact on our economy. And it was a Bush initiative.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Thank God For GWB
Why? John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Campaign finance gets shredded, 5-4--and free speech in America--whether yours, mine or Ford's--is again protected!
Thursday, January 14, 2010
John Yoo On The Daily Show
Bush Administration Justice Department official, law professor, and the left's great anti-Christ John Yoo sat down with Jon Stewart yesterday. The three part, uncensored interview is here (about 25 minutes altogether).
Yoo's written a book about Presidential power and he was on the show hawking the book. Yoo you may remember, wrote some of the notorious "torture" memos upon which the Bush Administration based its expanded interrogation procedures. Yoo's basic thesis is that during wartime, the President has enormous (but not limitless) power, and throughout history, our greatest Presidents have exercised that power. Conversely, our worst Presidents shrank from it.
The discussion with Stewart is fascinating, though at times annoying. Let's face it; Jon Stewart is a smart, well-informed guy. He was well-prepared to go to the mat with a constitutional law specialist, and there are elements of a great discussion here. The problem though, is that Stewart insists on asking a question and then interrupting Yoo mere seconds after Yoo begins to answer. It is a pattern repeated over and over.
Yoo remains--dare I say it--inscrutable. He is imperturbable, despite Stewart's best efforts, and he appears to gain some grudging measure of respect from Stewart for it by the end of the interview. Clearly Stewart disagrees with Yoo--but in the end, the discussion was not disagreeable. It's worth watching end to end if you have the time.
HT--Instapundit
Yoo's written a book about Presidential power and he was on the show hawking the book. Yoo you may remember, wrote some of the notorious "torture" memos upon which the Bush Administration based its expanded interrogation procedures. Yoo's basic thesis is that during wartime, the President has enormous (but not limitless) power, and throughout history, our greatest Presidents have exercised that power. Conversely, our worst Presidents shrank from it.
The discussion with Stewart is fascinating, though at times annoying. Let's face it; Jon Stewart is a smart, well-informed guy. He was well-prepared to go to the mat with a constitutional law specialist, and there are elements of a great discussion here. The problem though, is that Stewart insists on asking a question and then interrupting Yoo mere seconds after Yoo begins to answer. It is a pattern repeated over and over.
Yoo remains--dare I say it--inscrutable. He is imperturbable, despite Stewart's best efforts, and he appears to gain some grudging measure of respect from Stewart for it by the end of the interview. Clearly Stewart disagrees with Yoo--but in the end, the discussion was not disagreeable. It's worth watching end to end if you have the time.
HT--Instapundit
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Bush Approach a Terror Recruiting Tool?
Frequent Anonymous poster and all-around reliable Bush Basher JPH commented yesterday on a post that had been buried by subsequent stories. The post, Europe Sees Obama Vulnerable On Terrorism is here. Here's what JPH had to say--I repeat it because it is worth raising for group comment and because it reflects current Administration thinking on its approach to the War On Terr0r--whoops--War on Man Made Disasters:
"I will clearly be out of step with the contributors here, but let's go for it. I think GW Bush's policies were the best recruiting tool AQ EVER had.... playing down this rogue element is more likely to bleed them dry then all the guns and bullets in our kit. Moreover, we are more likely to successfully finance this approach than the previous method. JPH.
JPH has raised the recruiting tool issue before, and it is a reliable canard of the left. It sorta goes like this...Bush declared war on terror, this radicalized law-abiding citizens who under other circumstances would simply have gone about their business, and so it can be shown that Bush created terrorists. Quad erat demonstratum.
This view is of course, correct. There were X number of terrorists before 9-11, Bush's response created X + Y. I have no problem conceding this.
However, we must remember that 9-11 and USS COLE happened when there were "X" terrorists. Of course our response created more. That's what war does.
Rich Lowry of National Review has a nice take-down on this theory here. I've dealt with this (raised by JPH) before--the "declaring war on Japan created millions of enemies overnight" argument, one that JPH dismisses (ineffectually, I may add) but which seems to be widely supported here (natch).
But let's suspend disbelief for a second and assume that there was a set of policies that Bush could have followed that would NOT create more terrorists. But which would have made us safer than pre-9-11. What would those policies have looked like? What government approach would have been taken?
I imagine it would look much like....oh....maybe the Obama approach. Change the rhetoric. Go to Cairo and have a dialogue with the Islamic world. Close Gitmo. Try KSM et al in civilian court. Repudiate water-boarding and terror. Etc, etc, etc.
Problem is, the approach ISN'T WORKING if terror monthly recruiting stats are your Measure of Effectiveness. The Skivvy Bomber joined up in the Age of Obama. The five Northern Virginia men who went to Pakistan recently to pursue Jihad were radicalized in the age of Obama. The young man who blew himself up recently with an IED suppository was unleashed in the Age of Obama. Wasn't the world supposed to sit up and take notice when we elected The One? If Bush's approach was a fine recruiting tool for terror (and yes, again, I think it did indeed radicalize thrill seeking Jihadists), what exactly are we to make of the Obama approach?
What we are to make of it is that ANY approach that takes on terror will cause an increase in terrorists--until we start to win. The ONLY effective way in to discourage the recruitment of terrorists in the short and medium term would be to roll over and give up; at which point, the Caliphate wouldn't need terrorists, it would need civil servants. But I digress.
It's time to retire the old saw that looks at terror recruiting as some kind of a badge of dishonor. Bush and Obama both are doing what they can to keep the country safe, and in the process, some will be radicalized. The key now is to "de-radicalize" them. Either with a heartbeat, or without one.
"I will clearly be out of step with the contributors here, but let's go for it. I think GW Bush's policies were the best recruiting tool AQ EVER had.... playing down this rogue element is more likely to bleed them dry then all the guns and bullets in our kit. Moreover, we are more likely to successfully finance this approach than the previous method. JPH.
JPH has raised the recruiting tool issue before, and it is a reliable canard of the left. It sorta goes like this...Bush declared war on terror, this radicalized law-abiding citizens who under other circumstances would simply have gone about their business, and so it can be shown that Bush created terrorists. Quad erat demonstratum.
This view is of course, correct. There were X number of terrorists before 9-11, Bush's response created X + Y. I have no problem conceding this.
However, we must remember that 9-11 and USS COLE happened when there were "X" terrorists. Of course our response created more. That's what war does.
Rich Lowry of National Review has a nice take-down on this theory here. I've dealt with this (raised by JPH) before--the "declaring war on Japan created millions of enemies overnight" argument, one that JPH dismisses (ineffectually, I may add) but which seems to be widely supported here (natch).
But let's suspend disbelief for a second and assume that there was a set of policies that Bush could have followed that would NOT create more terrorists. But which would have made us safer than pre-9-11. What would those policies have looked like? What government approach would have been taken?
I imagine it would look much like....oh....maybe the Obama approach. Change the rhetoric. Go to Cairo and have a dialogue with the Islamic world. Close Gitmo. Try KSM et al in civilian court. Repudiate water-boarding and terror. Etc, etc, etc.
Problem is, the approach ISN'T WORKING if terror monthly recruiting stats are your Measure of Effectiveness. The Skivvy Bomber joined up in the Age of Obama. The five Northern Virginia men who went to Pakistan recently to pursue Jihad were radicalized in the age of Obama. The young man who blew himself up recently with an IED suppository was unleashed in the Age of Obama. Wasn't the world supposed to sit up and take notice when we elected The One? If Bush's approach was a fine recruiting tool for terror (and yes, again, I think it did indeed radicalize thrill seeking Jihadists), what exactly are we to make of the Obama approach?
What we are to make of it is that ANY approach that takes on terror will cause an increase in terrorists--until we start to win. The ONLY effective way in to discourage the recruitment of terrorists in the short and medium term would be to roll over and give up; at which point, the Caliphate wouldn't need terrorists, it would need civil servants. But I digress.
It's time to retire the old saw that looks at terror recruiting as some kind of a badge of dishonor. Bush and Obama both are doing what they can to keep the country safe, and in the process, some will be radicalized. The key now is to "de-radicalize" them. Either with a heartbeat, or without one.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Time Magazine Is Ridiculous
Time Magazine's Cover story this week designates the 00's as the "Decade From Hell", adding to the recurrent social phenomenon of thinking that the times one lives in are somehow "special" and that whatever the issue, it is just more meaningful because those other things--well, they happened to a bunch of dead people. Rubbish.
This really is just another way for the media to bash George Bush, who happened to be president for 80% of this period.
In the article, they qualify their "scope" to post WWII--but I just don't get how the 1970's don't blow the 00's out of the water. Let's review (links provided for Time subscribers):
1. Tail end of Vietnam War
2. A few natural disasters.
3. Richard Nixon
4. Jimmy Carter
5. "Whip Inflation Now"
6. Malaise Speech
7. Iran Hostage Crisis
8. Disco
9. Leisure Suits
10. Gas Lines
11. The Mustang II
12. Jonestown
13. Joyce Carol Oates
14. Munich Olympics
15. Red Brigades
16. Litter
I could go on...and on....and on.
But we now live in the Age of Obama--a man who tells us that this is the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression (wrong) in order to make us feel we're living in notable times. He vexes over his decision in Afghanistan, as if he's the first President to face issues of war and peace.
No, the 2000's weren't particularly bad, but nor were they particularly good. But that doesn't fit the anti-Bush narrative.
This really is just another way for the media to bash George Bush, who happened to be president for 80% of this period.
In the article, they qualify their "scope" to post WWII--but I just don't get how the 1970's don't blow the 00's out of the water. Let's review (links provided for Time subscribers):
1. Tail end of Vietnam War
2. A few natural disasters.
3. Richard Nixon
4. Jimmy Carter
5. "Whip Inflation Now"
6. Malaise Speech
7. Iran Hostage Crisis
8. Disco
9. Leisure Suits
10. Gas Lines
11. The Mustang II
12. Jonestown
13. Joyce Carol Oates
14. Munich Olympics
15. Red Brigades
16. Litter
I could go on...and on....and on.
But we now live in the Age of Obama--a man who tells us that this is the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression (wrong) in order to make us feel we're living in notable times. He vexes over his decision in Afghanistan, as if he's the first President to face issues of war and peace.
No, the 2000's weren't particularly bad, but nor were they particularly good. But that doesn't fit the anti-Bush narrative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
