Is Obama “Bush Lite”?

posted at 1:36 pm on December 1, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Most people expect Barack Obama to lay off some of the blame for the directionless policy on Afghanistan this year on George Bush in his speech tonight at West Point.  Lee Siegel at the Daily Beast expects Obama to come across as closer to his predecessor than Obama might imagine.  When it comes to pursuing the war in Afghanistan, Siegel — a war opponent — sees Obama as Bush Lite, and the speech as a manipulation of high order:

Once again, Obama is using Bush’s counter-example as a lever to sway the public. Yet to an even greater extent than his predecessor, Obama is proving himself an expert manipulator of public opinion, capitalizing on the McChrystal and then the Eikenberry leaks to give the impression of anguished, many-sided deliberations over whether to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. The good cop/bad cop routine with Joe Biden, who dutifully argued against more troops, was breathtakingly cynical.

Like Bush, Obama wants to wage an escalating war without worrying about how to pay for it—though no doubt, on Tuesday, we will be subjected to the same ludicrous vows not to increase the deficit. And it is almost uncanny to hear, this time from the liberal Obama, the same bloodcurdling rhetoric about nation-building and creating democratic institutions, and so on, that led us into implacably undemocratic Iraq. Warlord-run Afghanistan is nothing like Iraq. It is more like Somalia. Remember Somalia? …

No, Obama is not Bush. More and more, he seems like a continuation of Bush by other means. If anything, he is even more convinced than his divinely guided predecessor that he holds the truth in his hands. Unlike Bush, however, Obama seems to withdraw into a passive funk when he cannot convince his fellow Americans that his truth is also theirs.

Actually, I do remember Somalia.  The original mission for Somalia had nothing to do with “nation building” or “creating democratic institutions”; it was an attempt to deliver food and secure its distribution.    Somalia was a botch-up created by mission creep from a humanitarian, non-combat mission to provide food transport to starving people into a police action against warlords.    We didn’t resource the military properly for the latter mission, refusing to send armored assets to avoid the look of escalation.  And running from Somalia after getting a bloody nose in Mogadishu contributed to the willingness of Osama bin Laden to attack American assets around the world.

Siegel seems to channel David Obey in his conclusion by arguing that the war will crush the progressive agenda Obama was elected to enact by ruining the American economy.  However, the polling on that data shows that Obama and his supporters fundamentally misread that mandate.  While people wanted to see reform in health-care costs, they didn’t want a government takeover of the industry.  And even without the war in Afghanistan, the money for massive new government entitlements simply doesn’t exist.  Even before 9/11, Medicare and Social Security were going broke, and getting to the meltdown point faster than anyone in the Beltway would admit.  The war spending may make that more acute, but even if we withdrew today, it wouldn’t mean that money exists for the statist policies Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are pushing through Congress.

Obama is a manipulator, but not so much on the war.  He campaigned for two years on fighting more robustly against the real enemies of America in Afghanistan.  If Siegel feels manipulated by Obama’s apparent readiness to fulfill that pledge, then Siegel manipulated himself into that position.  Any expectation that Obama would decide differently demonstrates a disingenuousness on someone’s part — but not Obama, in this case.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Uhh, No.
Bush had convictions, whether you agreed with him or not.

Obama is a hollywood nutcase with no core convictions.

bridgetown on December 1, 2009 at 1:38 PM

Ouch. I had more than my share of problems with Bush, but any comparison with Obama, even one where the latter is referred to as “Bush-Lite”, is grossly unfair to the former.

thirteen28 on December 1, 2009 at 1:40 PM

love him or hate him one is a man with honor. the other, well…

elduende on December 1, 2009 at 1:40 PM

Obama is a hollywood nutcase with no core convictions.

bridgetown on December 1, 2009 at 1:38 PM

Oh he has convictions:

Corporations Bad. Government Good.

It boils down to that.

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 1, 2009 at 1:41 PM

No Bush was smarter and honest and stood for actual American values.

Sharr on December 1, 2009 at 1:41 PM

The Daily Beast is the future of conservatism, whether Frum likes it or not.

BadgerHawk on December 1, 2009 at 1:41 PM

Change you can believe in is sort of like the easter bunny you can believe in.

Daggett on December 1, 2009 at 1:41 PM

Hollywood needs to look at him as a porno star cause all he does he fu*k everyone around him. Of course the wh*res in Hollywood like that. and don’t forget Chris Matthews and Obey.

bluegrass on December 1, 2009 at 1:41 PM

Is Obama “Bush Lite”?

That’s an insult to Bush.

Clinton lite, maybe. Better yet, Carter lite.

UltimateBob on December 1, 2009 at 1:42 PM

Obama is a hollywood nutcase with no core convictions.

bridgetown on December 1, 2009 at 1:38 PM

If only we had a real AG we could change that.

Daggett on December 1, 2009 at 1:42 PM

Let me know when a photo of Obama cutting firewood with a chainsaw pops up.

Connie on December 1, 2009 at 1:42 PM

More like Bush Ice. He does all he thing bad things Bush did to a greater extent and has failed to do any of the things he promised to do better. Oh wait he finally became a federalist on medical marijuana 6 months after he promised he would…

libertytexan on December 1, 2009 at 1:44 PM

Fox just announced that Barry has put down the timeline to get out. July/August 2011.

So what’s the point?

Knucklehead on December 1, 2009 at 1:44 PM

He tastes great by only has half the calories of a real president.

29Victor on December 1, 2009 at 1:45 PM

I guess Siegel was hoping this would be one of O’s promises with an expiration date.

tims472 on December 1, 2009 at 1:46 PM

elduende on December 1, 2009 at 1:40 PM

Chocolate Jesus es un hijo de puta. The puta of course refers to his father.

nyx on December 1, 2009 at 1:46 PM

So what’s the point?

Knucklehead on December 1, 2009 at 1:44 PM

Exactly. wink, wink, blink, blink,
Love,
Nancy Pelosi

bridgetown on December 1, 2009 at 1:47 PM

My bet is that tonight’s speech will morph into Obama saving/creating 30,000 jobs.

joedoe on December 1, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Bush Lite? I’m thinking Zima with an orange wedge.

DanMan on December 1, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Were these people not listening to Obama when he talked about how Afghanistan was a war of necessity? Did his base just assume he was lying to the rubes so that they would think he was tough, when in fact he intended to leave Afghanistan all along?

Meanwhile, he did talk about getting out of Iraq and we do not hear boo about that promise anymore.

There are a lot of differences between Bush and Obama, but the one that I think is the most obvious…is the fact that Bush supported the military and the military returned the feeling. Obama on the other hand acts as if the role of CinC is a distraction. But I really do not think he wants to be known as the guy who lost Afghanistan. So I think he will go along with the commanders to a point and then if and when he decides he has had enough, he will justify his actions by blaming Bush. That is all he seems to know how to do.

Terrye on December 1, 2009 at 1:47 PM

To the left, calling Obama “Bush lite” is about as vile an epithet as they can think of throwing at the president, in hopes of intimidating him into doing what they expected him to do in the first place, campaign statements by Barack about the importance of the Afghan war be damned.

Odds are better than 50-50 they’ll eventually get their way due to Obama’s half-heartedness, but it would be fun to see their reaction if he actually does give McChrystal the time and manpower to properly fight the war, since the left really has no one else to turn to for 2012 (who? Pelosi? Kucinich? Olby? Arianna? Michael Moore?), no matter how angry they might get at the president.

jon1979 on December 1, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Clinton lite, maybe. Better yet, Carter lite.

UltimateBob on December 1, 2009 at 1:42 PM

Let’s not insult Clinton in this manner. He is Carter’s man through and through.

nyx on December 1, 2009 at 1:48 PM

Fox just announced that Barry has put down the timeline to get out. July/August 2011.

So what’s the point?

Knucklehead on December 1, 2009 at 1:44 PM

The point is that he wants to let the world (including our enemies) know what our plans are, so they can plan appropriately. IOW, he wants them to have the advantage, and wants us to get out asses kicked.

UltimateBob on December 1, 2009 at 1:48 PM

Fox just announced that Barry has put down the timeline to get out. July/August 2011.

So what’s the point?

Knucklehead on December 1, 2009 at 1:44 PM

Wait, wait. wait! I thought Iraq was where we needed to pullout of? Why is he so desperate to leave Afghanistan?

Sharr on December 1, 2009 at 1:49 PM

If this bho is going to give a time line to get out, why in the name of goodness is he sending any more American’s over there to be killed? The rop just needs to kill as many American’s as they can and wait to take back the country when we leave.
L

letget on December 1, 2009 at 1:49 PM

To the Left: Bush Lite
To the Right: Marx Lite
To the rest: Jobs Lite

faraway on December 1, 2009 at 1:49 PM

So that’s what they meant by Liteworker.

Hesiodos on December 1, 2009 at 1:50 PM

Unfair to Bush!

Blake on December 1, 2009 at 1:51 PM

Obama is an educated fool. The most dangerous type of human. They screw things up without trying because they are simply unable to grasp reality outside their text books, liberal professors and leftie buddies. They also manage to find the blame for failure in everybody else other than themselves because, Lord knows, they are too educated to fail.

I’m betting as a child other kids stole his lunch money, a lot.

archer52 on December 1, 2009 at 1:51 PM

Obama isn’t fit to shine GWB’s shoes.

GWB wasn’t perfect by any stretch of the imagination but the man was one heck of a commander in chief, he had principles, convictions and class which all is missing in Obama.

gophergirl on December 1, 2009 at 1:51 PM

Did his base just assume he was lying to the rubes so that they would think he was tough, when in fact he intended to leave Afghanistan all along?

Yes, his base did believe that…. which is why you have all these “why have you forsaken me?” articles popping up this week (i.e. Michael Moore).

BPD on December 1, 2009 at 1:51 PM

Oh he has convictions:

Corporations Bad. Government Good.

It boils down to that.

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 1, 2009 at 1:41 PM

Make that “Earning money: bad. Getting money from government: good.”

Count to 10 on December 1, 2009 at 1:53 PM

Why is he so desperate to leave Afghanistan?

Sharr on December 1, 2009 at 1:49 PM

To appease all moonbats and KoolAid drinkers. Gotta build up that base before the next election.

You know, like trying have your cake and eat it too.

Knucklehead on December 1, 2009 at 1:53 PM

Drinking game ideas for Obama speech.

Take a drink everytime he says:

I
ME
I have always said
I think
Job/s

Take a bite of food everytime he says

Victory
Win
Terrorists
Terrorism
Islam
Muslim

I’m expecting to pass out after ten minutes.

MikeA on December 1, 2009 at 1:53 PM

Obama campaigned openly that he would prosecute the war in Afghanistan more seriously than Bush and it appears that he is going to do that. He already sent extra troops and over the next six months the numbers will rise steadily. This is his policy and it is now his war.

lexhamfox on December 1, 2009 at 1:54 PM

I’m expecting to pass out after ten minutes.

MikeA on December 1, 2009 at 1:53 PM

lol~

bridgetown on December 1, 2009 at 1:54 PM

I agree with a previous poster, show me a picture of Obama cutting wood with a chainsaw; or flying a high performance aircraft. On second thought, just show me a picture of Obama doing anything . . . anything at all.

rplat on December 1, 2009 at 1:56 PM

Bend Over Barry is really Malcolm X lite. Except I believe Malcolm X was smarter and more honest then Odumbo. They were both dangerous race pimps in nice suits that blamed America for all the evil in the world. The only difference is Barry has complete control of the state run media and was able to deceive the electorate.

It took forty years but yesterday’s radical is today’s centrist. Just ask Keith Olberdouche.

DeweyWins on December 1, 2009 at 1:56 PM

Wait, wait. wait! I thought Iraq was where we needed to pullout of? Why is he so desperate to leave Afghanistan?

Sharr on December 1, 2009 at 1:49 PM

Surprised?

Count to 10 on December 1, 2009 at 1:57 PM

“I….I..uuhh.. I’ve got a bracelet too!”

ted c on December 1, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Will not be watching tonight.

txag92 on December 1, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Bush Lite? No way. I never once felt scared with President Bush in the WH. I knew he would take care of things even as planes were still in the air on 9/11.

Did Bush spend too much? Yeah, a little too much. Did I agree with every single thing he did? Nope. Did I wish he would have handled Iraq differently? Oh yes, but Obama doesn’t come close to being the man that GW Bush is. BHO never will.

Oink on December 1, 2009 at 1:58 PM

So far, Mr. Obama has not demonstrated the courage nor leadership that Bush demonstrated daily from 9/11 until he left office. Bush “dithered” on the surge strategy, let the insurgency build, but eventually defeated it. Obama takes dithering to a whole new level. He goes way past the point of diminishing returns with his decision loop.

ted c on December 1, 2009 at 1:59 PM

I agree with a previous poster, show me a picture of Obama cutting wood with a chainsaw; or flying a high performance aircraft. On second thought, just show me a picture of Obama doing anything . . . anything at all.

rplat on December 1, 2009 at 1:56 PM

Now wait! I saw a picture of him writing on a white board as he was training a new batch of ACORN nuts. That counts, ya know.

/s

Oink on December 1, 2009 at 1:59 PM

On second thought, just show me a picture of Obama doing anything . . . anything at all.

rplat on December 1, 2009 at 1:56 PM

Here Ya go.

MikeA on December 1, 2009 at 2:00 PM

That’s an insult to Bush.

Clinton lite, maybe. Better yet, Carter lite.

UltimateBob on December 1, 2009 at 1:42 PM

More like Carter (V.2) The current administration is truly a full-strength version of all the incompetence, corruption, and arrogance of the first Carter term.

Beyond that, the filthy lying coward has a fine line to walk tonight after years of campaigning that Afghanistan was the “good war” compared to the invasion of Iraq for oil and as reward for Bush’s big oil buddies. He can’t cut and run but he doesn’t want to admit that Bush was right either.

But I think Lee Seigel is wrong. The filthy lying coward is going to be in full court press on the blame Bush rhetoric tonight. He’s got to square himself with the hard left who would be cheering if America surrenders in disgrace. He has to woo them since that is the last vestige of his support. He can’t do that and do anything but bash Bush and malign the military.

highhopes on December 1, 2009 at 2:00 PM

I agree with a previous poster, show me a picture of Obama cutting wood with a chainsaw; or flying a high performance aircraft. On second thought, just show me a picture of Obama doing anything . . . anything at all.

rplat on December 1, 2009 at 1:56 PM

I think there is a picture floating around of him at a blackboard teaching a law class or something.

Count to 10 on December 1, 2009 at 2:01 PM

Our dear reader has no character, so no he isn’t.

tarpon on December 1, 2009 at 2:02 PM

I can think of a bunch of Norweigans on a prize comittee with their panties all unusually wadded up today.

Marcus on December 1, 2009 at 2:02 PM

Will not be watching tonight.

txag92 on December 1, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Is “Dancing with Elephants” on tonight?

Knucklehead on December 1, 2009 at 2:02 PM

Rush just said the same thing about the pretense of deliberations etc.

Eerie.

Akzed on December 1, 2009 at 2:03 PM

They both belong in the sh!t column. Really for the life of me, I never thought I would be looking “favorably” at the Clinton years, at least relative to the subsequent Presidents. I still find many things Clinton did unacceptable, just as I did then, but comparatively he was better than Bush and Obama on spending, entitlements, deficits, illegal immigrants, civil liberties, federal scope, etc. That’s just an indicator of how bad things have gotten.

LevStrauss on December 1, 2009 at 2:04 PM

I’m expecting to pass out after ten minutes.

MikeA on December 1, 2009 at 1:53 PM

I’m expecting to pass out after his opening line “My humble servants”

faraway on December 1, 2009 at 2:04 PM

Obama isn’t fit to shine GWB’s shoes.

gophergirl on December 1, 2009 at 1:51 PM

That’s gonna cause somebody to call you a racist!

Fact of the matter is that the filthy lying coward in the White House is unfit for any meaningful occupation. He skated through school as the affirmative action throw away, did community organizing long enough to establish himself in politics, became a state Senator long enough to run for the US Senate, was in the US Senate long enough to become POTUS. The rat bastard traitor has never finished anything he ever started and he hasn’t a single meaningful accomplishment in his career other than the purely demographic accomplishments.

I wouldn’t even be surprised if the Obama kids procreationrequired somebody to come in and do the heavy lifting (that’s probably a little too harsh but I don’t really care at this point).

highhopes on December 1, 2009 at 2:06 PM

Pretty much no trolls on this thread. Did someone spray?

Akzed on December 1, 2009 at 2:07 PM

I think there is a picture floating around of him at a blackboard teaching a law class or something.

Count to 10 on December 1, 2009 at 2:01 PM

Obama’s Radical Roots And Rules

Sen. Obama was trained by Chicago’s Industrial Areas Foundation, founded in 1940 by the radical organizer Saul Alinsky. In the 1980s, Obama spent years as director of the Developing Communities Project, which operated using Alinsky’s strategies, and was involved with two other Alinsky-oriented entities, Acorn and Project Vote.

On the Obama campaign Web site can be found a photo of him teaching in a University of Chicago classroom with “Power Analysis” and “Relationships Built on Self Interest” written on the blackboard – key terms utilized in the Alinsky method.

faraway on December 1, 2009 at 2:13 PM

Say what you might about Bush, he said what he believed and stuck by his principles. You can’t say that about the current occupant of the White House. This guy can’t stick with his principles, because you have to have them before you can stick with them. The only thing I think he believes in is “Me first!” and “I want what I want when I want it.” and never mind that inconvenient reality that keeps trying to sneak in.

If the country manages to survive this two-year-old in a man’s body, I hope We the People have learned that you can’t send in a child to do a man’s job, and that “Change” doesn’t always mean better.

hachiban on December 1, 2009 at 2:14 PM

He is not, but it tickles me for him to be called that…to him and the liberals the ultimate insult.
Hey, it could be worse for Obama, someone could have called him Biden lite…

right2bright on December 1, 2009 at 2:15 PM

DeweyWins on December 1, 2009 at 1:56 PM

I strongly disagree, X comes from the Marcus Garvey strain of the civil rights movements, much more emphasis on personal responsibility/self sufficiency than socialist strain. X, though I agree with him on very little, really had every right to have such a chip on his shoulder, you probably would too if your father was killed by racists in a period when women could not make very much money. It put him on the dole (which he hated), made his mother go crazy, and really made his path to success that much more difficult.

LevStrauss on December 1, 2009 at 2:15 PM

since the left really has no one else to turn to for 2012 (who? Pelosi? Kucinich? Olby? Arianna? Michael Moore?), no matter how angry they might get at the president.

jon1979 on December 1, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Feingold has made noises. Howard Dean? I think that if Ø is below 50% approval, and especially if things don’t get appreciably better but instead get noticeably worse, he’ll get a challenge of some kind. “The dream never dies” if you’re a committed lefty. Alternatively, if Ø responds to bad events by catering to his base, he could get a challenge from the center. The odds of the latter increase if the Rs rally around someone perceived as far to the right.

CK MacLeod on December 1, 2009 at 2:15 PM

No, Bush actually cared. Obama? Not so much.

Narutoboy on December 1, 2009 at 2:16 PM

Is Obama “Bush Lite”?

As far as foreign policy goes, Richard Perle sees no difference except in tone.

In other ways (spending, borrowing, printing, banksta bailouts, big gov’t, economic fascialism, etc.), Obama is Bush on Steroids.

Change® = Lots More of the Same

Rae on December 1, 2009 at 2:16 PM

…why you have all these “why have you forsaken me?” articles popping up this week (i.e. Michael Moore).

BPD on December 1, 2009 at 1:51 PM

Cries of, “My God, if we’ve lost Michael Moore then we’ve lost self-aggrandizing, corpulent, bloviating liberals* everywhere!” are echoing throughout the White House.

*Pace, Ted Kennedy

ya2daup on December 1, 2009 at 2:17 PM

Obama’s Aunt: “I loved President Bush,… he is my No. 1 man in my life.”

faraway on December 1, 2009 at 2:19 PM

I was not aware that Zero was a fighter/ interceptor pilot, owned a sports franchise and was a popular governor of Texas.

Fact is the real Obama is nothing more than “Obama ‘lite.’” Nothing more than an arrogant set-aside impostor at Harvard who became failed ACORN activist until he could become an indecisive politician.

viking01 on December 1, 2009 at 2:21 PM

Drinking game ideas for Obama speech.

Take a drink everytime he says:

I
ME
I have always said
I think
Job/s

Take a bite of food everytime he says

Victory
Win
Terrorists
Terrorism
Islam
Muslim

I’m expecting to pass out after ten minutes.

MikeA on December 1, 2009 at 1:53 PM

Don’t forget the ever popular: “Let me be clear..”

unwashed minion on December 1, 2009 at 2:22 PM

I’m expecting to pass out after his opening line “My humble servants”

faraway on December 1, 2009 at 2:04 PM

I’m expecting to find something else to do. There isn’t a single thing the man can say that would cause me to think differently about him than I do now. If it isn’t the filthy lying coward’s resignation speech, it isn’t worth listening to.

highhopes on December 1, 2009 at 2:23 PM

Jeebus. How far Left do you have to be to see D’ohbama as Bush Lite?

Doorgunner on December 1, 2009 at 2:23 PM

This guy can’t stick with his principles, because you have to have them before you can stick with them.
hachiban on December 1, 2009 at 2:14 PM

IOW, he has the courage of his convictions, it’s just that he doesn’t have any convictions.

ya2daup on December 1, 2009 at 2:24 PM

I wish West Point would have told O to take his photo op speech somewhere else,I t makes me sick how he is using the military like this.He is definitely going to play the blame game tonight to appease his base and I for one do not intend to watch him or have ever watched one of his mindless,arrogant,me(ism), speeches.

ohiobabe on December 1, 2009 at 2:24 PM

Bush shuffled toward fascism. Obama’s in a full out sprint.

SKYFOX on December 1, 2009 at 2:25 PM

Most people expect Barack Obama to lay off some of the blame for the directionless policy on Afghanistan this year on George Bush in his speech tonight at West Point.

No. I expect him to entirely blame Bush for the current state of affairs in Afghanistan.

His ‘March’ plan, the blueprint for the current state of affairs, if mentioned at all, will be called ‘the correct path’.

History will decide the truth of that.

Will he acknowledge that the ROE his Pentagon minions inflicted on the troops, a ‘mistake’? In your f*cking dreams.

Will he praise McChrystal for his efforts and leadership? Maybe, maybe not. I suspect I’ll hear the word “I” a lot more often than McChrystal’s name uttered.

Will he warn Iran to stop pouring arms, mutions, and money into Afghanistan, or least? I wish.

Let’s not kid ourselves.

If Obaka could flee Afghanistan tomorrow without a lethal drop in the polls, he’d be signing the documents this afternoon.

Just like his Far Left allies in Congress, he hungers for the money being spent to maintain the struggle against the Jihadis in the region. He just has the good sense not to say so out loud.

He’s not going to West Point to ‘do the right thing’. He’s going there because the average voter is wondering if he’s got the same level of courage Bush consistently showed.

And yes, his current poll numbers reflect that doubt.

He’s going there because he thinks it will make him ‘look good’, otherwise he’d make this speech without the Corps of Cadets as props.

And matters in Afghanistan get worse, fully expect the MSM to pretend tonight’s speech never happened.

Then we can look forward to his next ‘unprecedented’ decision.

CPT. Charles on December 1, 2009 at 2:28 PM

Is “Dancing with Elephants” on tonight?

Knucklehead on December 1, 2009 at 2:02 PM

If Loxodonta isn’t blogging tonight, it probably is.

ya2daup on December 1, 2009 at 2:28 PM

I find it amazing that people who don’t blink twice about voting for a $1T porkulus bill, get all faint and flustered over a few billion dollars to fund the war on terrorism.

MarkTheGreat on December 1, 2009 at 2:33 PM

Shite.

And if matters in Afghanistan get worse . . .

Will he warn Iran to stop pouring arms, mutions, and money into Afghanistan, or else?

Sorry for the boo-boos, I’m seriously pi$$ed over this.

CPT. Charles on December 1, 2009 at 2:35 PM

MarkTheGreat on December 1, 2009 at 2:33 PM

My thoughts exactly and you said it better than I could.

Bush deficits – taking the country down the road of bankruptcy

Obama deficits – taking the country down the road of prosperity

rukiddingme on December 1, 2009 at 2:38 PM

I find it amazing that people who don’t blink twice about voting for a $1T porkulus bill, get all faint and flustered over a few billion dollars to fund the war on terrorism.

MarkTheGreat on December 1, 2009 at 2:33 PM

Ditto.

I get red-faced furious every time some clueless libtard starts howling about the war costs and conveniently neglects to mention the multi-billion throwaways…

Dark-Star on December 1, 2009 at 2:38 PM

“If anything, he is even more convinced than his divinely guided predecessor that he holds the truth in his hands.”

LMAO! At least his predecessor held the truth in his heart and was a bit LESS vain about it. The folks are starting to see through the fake-ness of it all.

maineconservative on December 1, 2009 at 2:40 PM

I was not aware that Zero was a fighter/ interceptor pilot, owned a sports franchise and was a popular governor of Texas.

Of course not. He was hanging out with his commie eggheads. However Obama also wasn’t in a division that included Dallas Cowboys and Senators’ kids. You know the divisions that were expected to see serious action in Nam.

LevStrauss on December 1, 2009 at 2:46 PM

I do remember Somalia. The original mission for Somalia had nothing to do with “nation building” or “creating democratic institutions”; it was an attempt to deliver food and secure its distribution. Somalia was a botch-up created by mission creep from a humanitarian, non-combat mission to provide food transport to starving people into a police action against warlords.

So do I, I was on the second plane into Mogadishu in Dec. 92 and the next to the last one to leave in Feb 94.

We initially had good relations with the bulk of the Somali people in Mogadishu, but more importantly with the people in the country. The warlords weren’t happy with us but we managed. The situation began going bad when the gangs saw us as threats to their cons. I was on the recovery team that recovered the body of the first American G.I. PFC Domingo Arroyo Jr.

The mission began to go to shit when Aideed’s boys whacked a bunch or Pakistani troops (probably because a blackmarket deal went bad) and that got the UNN and U.S. troops looking for Aideed and the humanitarian mission went by the wayside. That was too bad because as much as I hated the idea we’d actually started to make a difference.

Most people don’t know that there was plenty of food there; the gangs just controlled the distribution. We were able to provide security and were able to get the food to those who really needed it, in the country. I don’t recall seeing too many people in Mogadishu going hungry

E9RET on December 1, 2009 at 2:47 PM

Ed’s really on a roll today! First he uses the “tolerance” meme to say bad things about the Swiss when they decide not to cave in to the impending takeover of Europe by Islam, and now he excuses Osama Obama for his miserable failure to come up with a coherent Afghanistan policy by assuming that, among countless lies spouted by the Chicago Jesus during the campaign, his alleged “strong support” for our military mission there actually meant something.

One thing that keep the Traitor-in-Chief from facing immediate removal from office for an assortment of high crimes and misdemeanors is the unwillingness of the opposition — and I’m giving Ed the benefit of the doubt by including him as “opposition” — to speak truth to the anti-American, Constitution-shredding force that currently occupies D.C.

Wake up, Ed. It’s later than you think.

MrScribbler on December 1, 2009 at 2:47 PM

LevStrauss on December 1, 2009 at 2:15 PM

I did say X was more intelligent and honest then Barry is. I also believe X had core values that he was committed to as well – some crazy, some not.

I think we both can agree Malcolm X would be a better president. How funny is that ?

DeweyWins on December 1, 2009 at 2:48 PM

Fox just announced that Barry has put down the timeline to get out. July/August 2011.
So what’s the point?
Knucklehead on December 1, 2009 at 1:44 PM

A summer 2011 withdrawl date allows Chicago Jesus to say during his relection campaign that he’s bringing the troops home. This way, the left-nuts who send him campaign contributions have something to be happy about.

joejm65 on December 1, 2009 at 2:49 PM

I agree with a previous poster, show me a picture of Obama cutting wood with a chainsaw; or flying a high performance aircraft. On second thought, just show me a picture of Obama doing anything . . . anything at all.

rplat on December 1, 2009 at 1:56 PM

Does a picture of O’bama walking topless on Kailua Beach count?

Del Dolemonte on December 1, 2009 at 2:51 PM

A senior administration official told AP news agency President Obama would outline a plan for US troops to start leaving Afghanistan “well before” his first term ends in 2012.

BBC.

So, cadets at West Point, go fight for three years, and those of you who are still alive can organize the withdrawal. Make sure there are enough helicopters for the embassy roof this time.

s/ off

Wethal on December 1, 2009 at 2:53 PM

A summer 2011 withdrawl date allows Chicago Jesus to say during his relection campaign that he’s bringing the troops home. This way, the left-nuts who send him campaign contributions have something to be happy about.

joejm65 on December 1, 2009 at 2:49 PM

It also tells our enemies how much longer they have to hang out in their caves.

Of course, the big thing tonight will be the betrayal of those who have supported the allies in the rural areas. The filthy lying coward’s new strategy is going to concentrate on the cities which means that anybody who helped are going to be toast once AQ reestablishes itself.

highhopes on December 1, 2009 at 2:54 PM

Letter to US Ambassador to Cambodia John Gunther Dean: “Dear Excellency and Friend, I thank you very sincerely for your letter and your offer to transport me towards freedom. I cannot, alas, leave in such a cowardly fashion. As for you, and in particular for your great country, I never believed for a moment that you would have this sentiment of abandoning a people, which has chosen liberty. You have refused us your protection, and we can do nothing about it. You leave, and my wish is that you and your country will find happiness under this sky. But, mark it well, that if I shall die here on the spot and in my country that I love, it is too bad, because we are all born and must die one day. I have committed this mistake of believing in you, the Americans. Please accept, Excellency, my dear friend, my faithful and friendly sentiments. Prince Sirik Matak.”

Sirik Matak was a Cambodian official who refused US help to flee Cambodia when the Khmer Rouge was closing in. They shot him in the stomach. He took three days to die.

How many Mataks will we leave behind to fall into the Taliban’s hands?

Wethal on December 1, 2009 at 2:56 PM

I think we both can agree Malcolm X would be a better president. How funny is that ?

DeweyWins on December 1, 2009 at 2:48 PM

Funny I guess, but not really surprising. I’d take just about anybody from the Garvey strain over the Socialist strain any day. If the civil rights movement would have done the same, the standard of living for blacks would be much much higher.

LevStrauss on December 1, 2009 at 2:56 PM

So, cadets at West Point, go fight for three years, and those of you who are still alive can organize the withdrawal. Make sure there are enough helicopters for the embassy roof this time.

s/ off

Wethal on December 1, 2009 at 2:53 PM

Gerald Ford’s museum has that metal stairway to the helipad on display. Now is the time for Obama’s people to go relic shopping as to what artifacts from the Afghanistan surrender that they want out of Kabul.

highhopes on December 1, 2009 at 2:57 PM

Of course, the big thing tonight will be the betrayal of those who have supported the allies in the rural areas. The filthy lying coward’s new strategy is going to concentrate on the cities which means that anybody who helped are going to be toast once AQ reestablishes itself.

highhopes on December 1, 2009 at 2:54 PM

This feels like Deja Vu.
Did we not have the same strategy in Vietnam with LBJ?

nyx on December 1, 2009 at 2:57 PM

“KT” McFarland hopes to see several questions answered tonight: Just Throwing More Troops at Afghanistan Won’t Work

[...]
Is Our Ability to Act Decisively In Crises Around the World Compromised If We’re Tied Down In Afghanistan for the Foreseeable Future?
Gen. McChrystal’s report makes clear that even adding troops doesn’t guarantee “victory.” What it does make clear is our commitment to Afghanistan will be expensive and long term. When I visited Afghanistan in May, everyone I interviewed –Afghan politicians, U.S. military officers, NATO commanders, NGO workers — spoke in terms of years, if not decades. What if crises develop with Iraq? Iran? Israel? Pakistan? Russia? The Persian Gulf? North Korea? China? Taiwan? Will we have the military capacity and economic resources to deal with them as well?

Unless President Obama can answer all these questions, merely throwing more troops at Afghanistan won’t work. And beginning Tuesday, Afghanistan becomes Obama’s war.

Decades, people.

Rae on December 1, 2009 at 2:59 PM

Wait, wait. wait! I thought Iraq was where we needed to pullout of? Why is he so desperate to leave Afghanistan?

Sharr on December 1, 2009 at 1:49 PM

Surprised?

Count to 10 on December 1, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Not so much. By the headlines its clear victory is not his goal.

Sharr on December 1, 2009 at 3:00 PM

LevStrauss on December 1, 2009 at 2:46 PM

You’re just jealous.

Yet Bush made the grade and passed his ratings nonetheless. Bush was an F-102 interceptor pilot assigned to engage Soviet pilots for a possible World War III confrontation with the probability of no return flight to base. Completely different from what pilots assigned to Vietnam. Different aircraft, different strategy, different tactics, different ROE. Something Gorebots, Kerrybots and O-bots always seem to miss. Their Bush Derangement Syndrome reaching a fever pitch when GWB made that carrier landing!

Probably afflicted with DRS. (Dan Rather Syndrome)

viking01 on December 1, 2009 at 3:00 PM

Ouch. I had more than my share of problems with Bush, but any comparison with Obama, even one where the latter is referred to as “Bush-Lite”, is grossly unfair to the former.

thirteen28 on December 1, 2009 at 1:40 PM

Right, Obama isn’t remotely like Bush especially at the core. Bush had integrity, was forthcoming and honest. Obama doesn’t have either.

docdave on December 1, 2009 at 3:00 PM

I think we both can agree Malcolm X would be a better president. How funny is that ?

DeweyWins on December 1, 2009 at 2:48 PM

Malcolm X would spit on the traitor in chief. He would not spend 12 trillion dollars in one year. He was too honest to do so. And Malcolm knows well the story of Icarus and all the other Greek tales about hubris.

nyx on December 1, 2009 at 3:01 PM

This Lee Siegel

We all owe Lee Siegel a moment of grateful silence. His blog may be gone, his reputation wrecked – but “blogofascism” is a term that will endure, bringing great joy and happiness to generations who’ll never know the first thing about its originator. Three cheers for you, Lee Siegel. Your site is dead, but your neologism lives on.

In place of Siegel’s blog is a letter of apology from TNR’s editor, Frank Foer, explaining that an internal investigation revealed Siegel as the force behind a commentor named “Sprezzatura,” who’d been entering the threads to expansively defend Siegel’s genius. It was a deception, the author donning a mask to gin up support for his own work, and it resulted in the blog’s dismantlement and Siegel’s suspension.

Schadenfreude on December 1, 2009 at 3:01 PM

Any expectation that Obama would decide differently demonstrates a disingenuousness on someone’s part — but not Obama, in this case.

Obama is highly disingenuous, but not on Siegel’s points.

Obama decided 3 months ago to send 30,000 troops. The Marines and Soldiers have been preparing for this. Obama postponed the announcement for political reasons: healthcare, trip to Asia, to appear ‘nuanced’ to the world, etc. For this, having allowed Soldiers to die unnecessarily, he is a big pig.

Schadenfreude on December 1, 2009 at 3:06 PM

Comment pages: 1 2