COWBOY BUSH & COWARD OBAMA-78

Do those two presidents of the United States deserve those monikers and all that they imply? Even though everyone reading this will likely already have their own opinion I suggest that before you form a definitive and permanent position on these two widely different in philosophy and temperament people, you should carefully weigh the evidence presented here. I shall be laying out facts and from these facts rendering concluding judgments. Even his supporters should admit that Geo. Bush had a certain jaunty and even cocksure attitude about him. That is not unmitigated criticism – it is just part of his persona. It is manifested in the way he would give people around him and people he came in contact with nicknames and sometimes apply one liner to them. Some of those were not all that accurate: e.g. “You are doing a heck of a job Brownie.” I am amused the way some on the left have demeaned and insulted Bush by calling him dumb and inept. Here is a man who was twice elected governor of Texas and elected and reelected President of the United States. His harsh critics have not accomplished anything even remotely approaching that. So it may be a question of “Dumb & Dumber” with the critics on the south end of it. In case anyone has forgotten, the former governor of Texas, Ann Richards, said of George H.W. Bush at the Democrat Presidential convention in 1992, “Poor George can’t ‘hep’ it, he was born with a silver foot in his mouth.” She thought she was being so clever and so did the convention delegates. Can you imagine the satisfaction in the Bush family when George W. Bush whipped ole Ann, the incumbent governor, in the 1994 Texas governor’s election? Something about the cliché “who laughs last, laughs best.” The USA war with Afghanistan was not optional. Even most Democrats (except for the loony left such as Code Pink) concede that. The Taliban government of Afghanistan gave sanctuary to Osama ben Laden and his merry band of terrorists, including Aymon al-Zawahiri his 2nd in command who remains at large to this day. For justice and to maintain any credibility as a nation Bush had to act. Naturally the pro-forma ritual of demanding the surrender of these killers had to be made to the Taliban prior to an invasion and of course they refused. The mistake by Bush was in staying in Afghanistan in attempting to “democratize” the country. Forget that, they are a tribal society and have been for seemingly millions of years, but at least for centuries. In the 320’s BC Alexander the Great is alleged to have said that it was easier to get into Afghanistan than get out. The British fought two wars in Afghanistan in 1839 – 42 & 1878 – 80 largely to counter the influence of Russia in the East. Although the British forces did temporarily subdue the Afghans, when the Brits pulled out both times it was back to the same old tribal business for the Afghans. The Soviets tried their luck in their little war in 1979 – 1989 and eventually the Russian Bear left with its tail between its legs. Why on earth would the USA have thought the outcome would be any different this time? Perhaps it is hubris and unwarranted confidence by Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al. What did Spanish philosopher George Santayana say? Yes, it was “those who can not remember history are condemned to repeat it.” So simple, yet so true. How about the 2nd Iraq War? In hindsight it certainly should not have been started. Dick Chaney and perhaps Bush would not agree and Chaney has said so, but in the words of George Bernard Shaw, “What are two against so many?” Incidentally, that quote comes when a critic said, “Shaw your latest play stinks.” Shaw replied, “I agree with you, but what are two against so many?” If someone in foresight would have said that the war should not have been started, I would not gainsay that, yet that is far from being the universal view. The argument that Iraq was subdued until President Obama prematurely withdrew American troops seems to me to be greatly flawed. Should the USA have kept a large contingent of troops in Iraq in perpetuity? Even as long as we have had combat troops in Europe and South Korea (What is it, going on 70 years now?) would be way too long. What if China and some other nations decide to stop financing our excessive military spending as well as our profligate social spending? We might end up like Argentina and have to renege on our national debt. Not as Friedrich Hayek titled his 1944 book on economics, The Road to Serfdom, but this could be the Road to Becoming a 3rd Rate Nation. Let us analysis the other wars in the Middle East that overthrew dictators during both the Bush and Obama administrations. (1.) Iraq is now practically an ungovernable mess and certainly worse than when the brutal dictator, Saddam Hussein, was running the country. (2.) Libya has descended into total chaos since the dictator, Muammar Gaddafi, was overthrown and brutally murdered. (3.) Ex-general Hosni Mubarak was deposed and the radical Islamic Muslim Brotherhood, supported by the Obama administration, under Mohammed Morsi came to power in an election. Fortunately another Egyptian general, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, trained at the Joint Service Command and Staff College in the UK in 1992 and at the US Army War College in Pennsylvania in 2006 staged a coop against the government and was subsequently elected president of Egypt. (4.) The dictator and dentist Basher al-Assad rules a fractured and war-torn Syria and President Obama wanted to overthrow him and even said if “he crossed a red line and used chemical weapons on his people “ Obama would use our military to force him out of power. Assad did and Obama didn’t. It was just as well because now the absolutely brutal and merciless Islamic fanatic group, the Islamic State of Iraq (ISIS), subsequently renamed The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and now wanting to be known simply as the Islamic State (IS) because they have delusional ambitions to set up a caliphate in Iraq/Syria to rule the entire world have taken root. They have taken charge not only much of Iraq, but are headquartered in northeastern Syria. As with the other dictators, better to leave Assad in charge than give the opportunity to the more extremist and radical group such as al- Qaeda (the base) and its often even more brutal offshoots to rule. When Barack Obama became a candidate for the Democrat nominee for President of the USA he and his advisors said, “he is a uniter, not a divider”, and Obama said, “there is not a Red America and a Blue America, but only a Red, White, and Blue America.” Does anyone honestly believe this has eventuated? I would submit that in the circa 6 years that Obama has been president the country has become more polarized politically, socially, and racially than in recent history and I will attempt to make that case by giving concrete examples. In 2009 President Obama went on what conservatives called an “apology tour.” (1.) In France in April 2009 Obama said, “There have been times when America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” (2.) In an address to the Turkish parliament also in April 2009 Obama said, “The USA is still working through some of our darker periods in our history.” (3.) In Egypt in June 2009 citing the ‘fear and danger’ after 9/11 Obama said that in some cases, “It has led to the US acting contrary to our traditions and our ideals.” (4.) In Latin America Obama said that the USA had not “Pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors” because we “failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas.” (5.) In London Obama observed that “decisions about the world’s financial system were no longer made by Churchill and Roosevelt sitting in a room with brandy” as if that were a bad thing. (6.) At a NATO Summit in August 2012 Obama was asked if he believed in America exceptionalism. He replied, “He did, just as the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” In other words, he does not. These statements by a sitting American President on foreign soil are unprecedented and reflect badly upon the USA and President Obama. Contrast that to the words of President Kennedy when he declared in West Berlin in June 1963, “Ich ein Berliner (I am a Berliner)” and in the same speech said in response to those who claimed that we could work with the communists, “Lass sie nach Berlin kommen (let them come to Berlin).” Or on June 12, 1987 at the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin at the 750th commemoration of the founding of Berlin when President Reagan said, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” Brave and stirring words by these two USA Presidents versus the weak, subservient, and apologetic words of President Obama. However, if Obama ever blames himself for mistakes or miscalculations I have yet to hear it. Then there were the episodes of President Obama bowing to other world leaders. This cannot honestly be denied despite some of Obama’s advisors and acolytes doing so at the time. There is video evidence that leaves no doubt whatsoever. President Obama made a deep bow to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia when he met him for the first time in the capital Riyadh. President Obama also bowed to Emperor Akihito of Japan, a medium bow as Obama’s bows go, and he bowed to Mexican President Filipe Calderon, a modest bow this time. Significantly President Obama did not bow when he met Queen Elizabeth. I believe that is significant because of the connection Obama has to Kenya and the former British Empire. Barack Obama’s paternal grandfather, who converted to Islam after he visited Zanzibar when he was 20 years old, for a while worked for the ruling British government in Kenya. His son, Barack’s father, hated the imperial British rulers and it would be unusual if some of that feeling did not rub off on the son. How much of the serious problems in the hot spots of the world can be blamed, at least in part, on the clearly failed policies of President Obama, and what, again in part, can be attributed to President Bush and what are neither at fault for? In my opinion Bush shares some of the blame for the havoc in Iraq for invading in the first place and not for invading, but for staying too long in Afghanistan after the Taliban were dislodged from power. There are more seriously adverse foreign problems now than in recent times: (1.) Complete Islamic extremism and chaos in Libya after the misguided overthrow of Gaddafi is largely Obama’s fault. (2.) The problem of Islamic butchers in Iraq is some of Bush’s fault, but more Obama’s for not acting soon enough to confront ISIS and even now responding too weakly. It turns out Obama has been getting daily briefs from the military & CIA for over a year and before that came out he tried to say he wasn’t significantly informed about the growing strength of ISIS – shame on him for trying to divert blame. (3.) The mistake of fostering the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt and thereby allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to come to power was, at least temporarily, rescued by Gen. el-Sisi. (4.) ISIS grabbed a large chunk of Syria and set up their headquarters and training facilities there – again redounds to Obama. (5.) Russian President Putin seizing Crimea from Ukraine and is putting extreme pressure on the eastern part of Ukraine thereby trying to destabilize the Ukraine government in attempting to bring the whole country under Russian control. It is clear that Putin has absolutely no respect for Obama and holds him in contempt – the weakness of Obama has embolden Putin who recently said, “Do not mess with Russia as we are a major nuclear power” and “I could take Kiev in two weeks if I wanted to.” (6.) Iran also has no respect for Obama and I believe will go on to develop nuclear weapons and a missile system for both short and long range delivery. (7.) Hamas and the other Palestinians have neither fear nor respect for Obama. They are further encouraged by Obama trying to restrain Israel in this dispute. (8.) China is blustering and making aggressive moves concerning disputed land and sea territory against its neighbors, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, and Taiwan because it sees how weakly or not at all has been the response of Obama to other trouble spots in the world. It seems that the friends of the USA have no confidence in the Obama government and our enemies do not fear us in the least. There is nothing wrong with presidents being cautious and deliberative in their actions, especially the president of a country with potentially as much power as the USA, however when that results in chronic indecision and paralysis that is going too far. There are also the problems of President Obama words not matching his actions and sometimes his words not even matching his words. He will make a strong statement about an issue one day then back off the next and sometimes even in the same statement. This extends to his cabinet members who will make strong statements concerning positions of the administration and then being forced to essentially repudiate those words in the next day or two. I do not think it is inaccurate or unfair to state that President Obama’s foreign policy is hesitant, confused, and feckless. What really is the philosophy of President Obama in regard to this country? Some on the far right claim that he is dedicated to trying to destroy the country, but where is the real evidence for that and, by the way, what country does he and his family plan on living in after his presidency? That Obama, and incidentally, some Democrats in congress such as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, are trying to fundamentally change the country to make it more egalitarian and “fair” through the auspices of a big, overweening federal government seems clear. To quote what was discussed in a March 9, 1954 CBS TV broadcast by Edward R. Murrow when he was talking about Sen. Joseph McCarthy, “Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed that he has grown so great (Julius Caesar Act I, Scene II)?" Upon what meat does President Obama feed? I would say it is the unconditional adulation of the left, in particular the far left including a largely supine Main Stream Media. The pity is he came into the presidency with such high hopes and expectations - perhaps too high of expectations for a mere mortal. Based on his words and actions or inactions, President Obama has demonstrated that he believes a less powerful USA, primarily militarily, but also economically and socially would benefit both this country and the rest of the world. The present chaos in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Palestine, Egypt, Ukraine, and threats to the Far East with an increasing belligerent China belies that idea. The Ronald Reagan doctrine of Peace Through Strength appears to be valid for all times. The world is never a completely peaceful and tranquil place of course, however it is more so when the United States of America is strong and willing to use that strength or simply having the capability and will to use it even if not exercised. What does Barack Obama, and for that matter, Michele Obama really think of this country? Some clues might be that, in addition to not believing it is an exceptional country, in a speech in San Francisco Barack Obama once said that Middle America clings to its bibles and its guns. When her husband became the Democrat nominee for president of the United States in an unguarded and candid moment, Michele said, “For the first time in my life I am really proud of my country.” She was 44 years old. If someone disagrees with what I have written and wants to weigh in I would welcome it with the proviso that their opinions are supported with facts. Ensuite, veuillez le faire.