December 29, 2010

Hamid Karzai, nostalgic about the "golden age" — when George Bush was President....

... in a leaked cable from July 2009.

60 comments:

HDHouse said...

"I drink a second mouthful, in which I find nothing more than in the first, a third, which gives me rather less than the second. It is time to stop; the potion is losing its magic. It is plain that the object of my quest, the truth, lies not in the cup but in myself. The tea has called up in me, but does not itself understand, and can only repeat indefinitely with a gradual loss of strength, the same testimony; which I, too, cannot interpret, though I hope at least to be able to call upon the tea for it again and to find it there presently, intact and at my disposal, for my final enlightenment. I put down my cup and examine my own mind. It is for it to discover the truth. But how?"

Hoosier Daddy said...

Bet he isn't the only one.

master cylinder said...

duh.

HDHouse said...

@master cylinder...

"duh"? I don't think the cable quoted Bush directly but we can assume that is what he would say regardless.

master cylinder said...

HDH-seen the London Review of Books smack down of his book?

Clyde said...

A song for Hamid:

The Golden Age - Cracker

Yes, there IS a Cracker song for every occasion!

roesch-voltaire said...

Nobody complained about where the money (bribes) went in those days- it was all good.

Big Mike said...

A lot of us are thinking that 1980 - 2008 really was a golden age of sorts.

bagoh20 said...

You can never go home again. Which is why you should take decisions about change more seriously. Foreign relations is not like trying a new flavor of ice cream.

bagoh20 said...

"Nobody complained about where the money (bribes) went in those days- it was all good."

You can't be serious. It was a constant charge that nearly evaporated upon Obama's election, like most everything else that Bush was doing, and that Obama continues. Nothing effects the eyesight quite like partisanship.

1jpb said...

"A lot of us are thinking that 1980 - 2008 really was a golden age of sorts."

It is good to be in the top 0.1%

And, having moved a lot of dough to Switzerland (to avoid a dwindling dollar, not to avoid taxes, i.e. taxes were paid on all of this money), it's nice to know that there will be two more years of bumped up un-taxed income. I"m sure the Swiss are happy, too.

I take that back, I meant to say that the ultra rich are the job creators, so of course extra money will benefit the American people because it will trickle down.

Ha ha.

Lem said...

He would like for U.S. forces to again be able to drive their humvees through villages..

Sorry... I'm not going to blame Bloomberg for that one ;)

roesch-voltaire said...

Bag I am referencing the situation in Afghanistan where corruption under Karzai,the Bush administration's choice, has been the rule-- no wonder he wants to return to those good old days.

edutcher said...

Yes, when the adults were in charge.

1jpb said...

"A lot of us are thinking that 1980 - 2008 really was a golden age of sorts."

It is good to be in the top 0.1%

And, having moved a lot of dough to Switzerland (to avoid a dwindling dollar, not to avoid taxes, i.e. taxes were paid on all of this money), it's nice to know that there will be two more years of bumped up un-taxed income. I"m sure the Swiss are happy, too.

I take that back, I meant to say that the ultra rich are the job creators, so of course extra money will benefit the American people because it will trickle down.

Ha ha.


As always, PB&J shows us what hypocrites the Lefties are.

The Crack Emcee said...

I'm at work, so I can't link to it, but I pretty much said the same thing about the Bush years.

Haters don't realize what they did complaining during his term.

Conservatives 4 Better Dental Hygiene said...

Ahhh... the good old days: When our allies could hide behind their cowardice and let us take the fall for it! How the armchair commandos must miss them so!

Interesting to see what some people have in common with Karzai.

Jay said...

Well, it certainly was a "golden age" if you wanted a job.

It certainly was a "golden age" if you thought that spending 1.2 trillion more than you take in was a bad idea.

Now, not so much.

Jay said...

When Harry & Nancy took over unemployment was 4.6% and the deficit was $420 billion.

Now?

The federal government has accumulated more new debt–$3.22 trillion ($3,220,103,625,307.29)—during the tenure of the 111th Congress than it did during the first 100 Congresses combined, according to official debt figures published by the U.S. Treasury.

That equals $10,429.64 in new debt for each and every one of the 308,745,538 people counted in the United States by the 2010 Census.

The total national debt of $13,858,529,371,601.09 (or $13.859 trillion), as recorded by the U.S. Treasury at the close of business on Dec. 22, now equals $44,886.57 for every man, woman and child in the United States.


Aren't Democrats lovely?

Titus said...

Althouse, I am going to Chautura tonight.

Ever been?

David said...

You go to war with the allies you have, not the allies you might want. The Obama administration seems to have missed this point.

Lincolntf said...

How long until soaring gas prices are tied into the Obama administration's cozy relationship with the oil companies?

David said...

"Karzai,the Bush administration's choice . . . . "

And what would you have said if the "Bush Administration" had tried to depose the guy and put in someone better?

Diem! Diem! Diem!

JFK tried that path in Vietnam in 1963 and it did not work out very well.

c3 said...

I'm not sure anyone in either Party seeks the praise of Hamid Karzai.

(But I bet more than a few have wondered:
Where does he get all of those cool outfits?)

Hoosier Daddy said...

It is good to be in the top 0.1%

No doubt. But from a tax perspective its good to be in the bottom 50% who pay no income tax at all while the top 1% pay around 40% of it. Maybe we should just apply say, a 99% tax on all earned income beyond $250,000. That will show em!

Jeremy said...

Hoosier Daddy said..."Bet he isn't the only one."

Yes, that "Golden Age" of a president asleep at the switch before 9/11, skewed intelligence, lies, distortions of the truth leading us into an illegal war, 1,000's of dead American soldiers, 1,000's of wounded American soldiers, 1,000's of dead innocent civilians, a president asleep at the swith during the economic meltdown...those were really the days...

Only for the uneducated dolts like yourself Corn Cob...and of course, only for the teabagging morons who worship the Glenn Becks, Sean Hannitys, Rush Limbaughs and Sarah Palins of the world.

And you can throw The Queen and Needy into that bunch, too.

Jeremy said...

Corn Cob - You REALLY need to start reading more and posting teabagger drivel less.

Jeremy said...

Jay said..."Well, it certainly was a "golden age" if you wanted a job."

Bush created 4.8 million jobs while ‘tax and spend’ Clinton created 23 million.

And he created fewer jobs than any president since Carter (Carter even created more than 3 times as many)...except for his daddy.

Oh, and the unemployment rate was at 7.6% the day little Georgie strolled out the door...and at 8.2% less than a month later.

Stop lying.

tim maguire said...

Is having Hamid Karzai dislike you such a bad thing?

Having handed the controls to Petreus, I think Obama deserves at least some benefit of the doubt over there. Karzai, OTOH, is a corrupt opportunist. His interests do not necessarily coincide with ours.

edutcher said...

Jeremy said...

Jay said..."Well, it certainly was a "golden age" if you wanted a job."

Bush created 4.8 million jobs while ‘tax and spend’ Clinton created 23 million.

And he created fewer jobs than any president since Carter (Carter even created more than 3 times as many)...except for his daddy.

Oh, and the unemployment rate was at 7.6% the day little Georgie strolled out the door...and at 8.2% less than a month later.

Stop lying.


Willie did tax and spend until Newt made him stop. Willie also created no jobs - the dotcom boom did, while it lasted - in fact, Willie and Bobby Rubin knew both Enron and dotcom were going to implode, but did nothing, preferring to push the lie all was well rather than fix the problem.

Oh, and that 7.6% unemployment rate in January '09? Thank Willie and the subprime mortgages that were his idea.

Who's lying?

jerryofva said...

Tsk Tsk those Afghans (or fill in the blank) are so corrupt. So says the liberal living in American bastions of honest government like Chicago, New York, Boston, Detroit, New Orleans or Philadelphia.

Big Mike said...

Karzai, OTOH, is a corrupt opportunist. His interests do not necessarily coincide with ours.

What a shock! The leader of a sovereign nation has interests that "do not necessaily coincide with ours"! I'm glad I'm sitting down or I might faint.

As to Karzai's corruption, first of all no one has yet demonstrated that it differs significantly from Chicago or Philadelphia. Secondly, I thought all you liberal loonies believed in multiculturalism? How can you say that the millenia-old culture of Afghanistan is any worse than the American culture, when our own nation is less than 250 years old?

traditionalguy said...

Karzai thinks he has problems now, but wait until he has to deal with President Palin. That brutal lady attacks corruption just as if she is honest or something. Karzai needs to get a quick briefing from the Murkowski family that still uses Bush's operating methods.

Kirby Olson said...

Bush understood human rights, and fought for them.

Not sure what Obama believes if anything. No one seems to know. He sends mixed signals.

It's as if we had Lincoln, and then in 1863, Buchanan became president.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Corn Cob - You REALLY need to start reading more and posting teabagger drivel less.

IRS statistics is teabagger drivel?

Jay said...

distortions of the truth leading us into an illegal war,

I love that one!

Jay said...

Oh, and the unemployment rate was at 7.6% the day little Georgie strolled out the door...and at 8.2% less than a month later.

Um, bozo:
THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE WAS AT 4.6% WHEN HARRY & NANCY TOOK OVER

Nothing you said disputes that fact.

Jay said...

t's nice to know that there will be two more years of bumped up un-taxed income.

Um, 3.6% of taxable income over $251,000 does not build wealth.

But you're an idiot, so at least we have that.

Jay said...

I love this:
a president asleep at the switch before 9/11,

But notice the fact that the US was attacked multiple times during the Clinton Administration and HQ openly declared war and sent the 9/11 hijackers to America during that time and the fact that Sore-Loserman held up Bush appointees is never mentioned.

Oh well, you're a silly, ignorant dupe, so at least we have that.

Jeremy said...

edutcher - Yeah, the Bush years were all Clinton's fault.

I see you still have a brain the size of a titmouse.

Jeremy said...

Jay - Guess you don't remember this, huh?

White House Fact Sheet: "The August 6, 2001 PDB Entitled "bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US", April 10, 2004.

Little Georgie: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Oh, and when the towers were hit in '93, Clinton's people rounded them, arrested them and convicted them.

Where is little Georgie's ("Dead Or Alive) Bin Laden...?

Jeremy said...

Jay - "Um, 3.6% of taxable income over $251,000 does not build wealth."

The key phrase is "taxable income."

One could make much more "gross" income than the $250,000, but drive the "taxable" portion down via write-offs, deductions, etc.

Didn't know that...did you?

Jeremy said...

Kirby Olson said..."Bush understood human rights, and fought for them."

Now THAT IS FUNNY.

Run that one by the families of the 100,000 dead civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.

WHat a hoot.

Gene said...

The true Golden Age was before 9-11 when we weren't in Afghanistan at all. The warlords and tribal leaders fought each other to their hearts' content. We stayed out of it and didn't pour our money or blood down the Afghanistan drain.

Cedarford said...

For Karzai, the Bush years were indeed a Golden Age. It was when his family was protected by US bodyguards as they consolidated the Heroin trade, back when pallet loads of 100 dollar bills courtesy of Ahmed's "Special Friend" Dubya was being regularly delivered to the Presidential Palace. When a nephew trying to deposit 34 million in a UAE bank had the White House telling Treasury agents "ignore that!".

It was back when idiot Bush was slavering praise on his "dear friend" unremittingly as the beacon of democracy and freedom as Karzai got 2 state dinners and was a special guest of the Bush Family at 2 SOTU Addresses.

That WAS a Golden Age for the corrupt, Taliban-loving Pashtun.

For all Obama's faults, he ended the Bush-Karzai love affair and saw the man with more clarity than Dubya Bush did.

Jay said...

Jay - Guess you don't remember this, huh?

White House Fact Sheet: "The August 6, 2001 PDB Entitled "bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US


I guess you don't remember this:

December 1, 1998: Bin Laden Actively Planning Attacks Inside US
Edit event

According to a US intelligence assessment, “[bin Laden] is actively planning against US targets and already may have positioned operatives for at least one operation.… Multiple reports indicate [he] is keenly interested in striking the US on its own soil… Al-Qaeda is recruiting operatives for attacks in the US but has not yet identified potential targets.” Later in the month, a classified document prepared by the CIA and signed by President Clinton states: “The intelligence community has strong indications that bin Laden intends to conduct or sponsor attacks inside the US.”


Oh, you're ignorant on the matter.

Nevermind.

Jay said...

By the way, I enjoy trips down memory lane:

On December 4, 1998, an item in President Clinton’s Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) is titled, “Bin Laden Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks.” The PDB says “Bin Laden and is allies are preparing for attacks in the US, including an aircraft hijacking to obtain the release of Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman, Ramzi Yousef, and Muhammad Sadiq ‘Awda. One source quoted a senior member of Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya (IG) saying that, as of late October, the IG had completed planning for an operation in the US

Of course you are so stupid that you're just flinging poo...

Jay said...

One could make much more "gross" income than the $250,000, but drive the "taxable" portion down via write-offs, deductions, etc.

Didn't know that...did you?


Huh?

You are so idiotic, you don't even understand the issue.

So why are you commenting?

The fact of the matter is, that not taxing an additional 3.6% of income over $251,000 does not enable any real wealth creation.

The idiotic assertion by your fellow leftist that somehow this benefits the "ultra rich" is what I was talking about.

Logic much?

Jay said...

Run that one by the families of the 100,000 dead civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yet another idiotic assertion.

Jay said...

ay - Guess you don't remember this, huh?

White House Fact Sheet: "The August 6, 2001 PDB Entitled "bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US", April 10, 2004.


1. You can't name a single bit of actionable information from this PDB.

2. You can't name a single action President Bush could have taken - shut down airports, profile, give pilots handguns, etc - that you would have supported.

3. Per #1 & #2 above, you're a silly, poo-flinging hypocrite.

damikesc said...

Isn't it sad that Bush is a model of competence compared to the blithering idiot who we have been cursed with since?

Cedarford said...

damikesc said...
Isn't it sad that Bush is a model of competence compared to the blithering idiot who we have been cursed with since?

==============
It's true. Jimmy Carter was worse than the clueless, bumbling Gerry Ford.
Unfortunately, while Ford was not as bad as Carter, the passage of time has not made Ford automatically any better than a mediocre, bad President.
Bush II was a poor President that weakened America's strength as a nation here and abroad. A reckless irresponsible President who sold Americans out to the Ruling Elites. Just not as bad as Obama.

And in some cases, Obama does things better than Bush while doing many things worse. Credit Obama with ending the "special relationship" between Bush and the corrupt Karzai cabal.

damikesc said...

Except Obama is doing that with methods he condemned Bush for using far more moderate version of.

Obama has avoided the enemy combatant problem by just slaughtering everybody.

Much better.

jr565 said...

Jeremy wrote:
"White House Fact Sheet: "The August 6, 2001 PDB Entitled "bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US", April 10, 2004.

Little Georgie: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ"


That talking point is as old as Mr Rodgers moth eaten sweaters after he's been dead in the ground for 20 years. How many times do we (me) have to rebut this STUPID talking point. You never respond when I do, even though you could. yet a few weeks later you bring it out again. Just SHUT THE F UP ALREADY. YOU ARE A MORON. IF YOU BRING THIS ONE UP AGAIN SOMEONE SHOULD PUNCH YOU IN THE BALLS.

Oh, and when the towers were hit in '93, Clinton's people rounded them, arrested them and convicted them.

It might have been easier to arrest the 19 attackers on 9/11 if they didn't all blow themselves up, unlike the 93 attackers who fled the country. Yousef was Khallid Sheik Mohammad's nephew, and I notice we didn't in fact catch him until Bush came along. And he, along with Al Qaeda were the true masterminds.

Where is little Georgie's ("Dead Or Alive) Bin Laden...?

Why is Osama some not implicated in Bin Ladens' non caputure. You dems said Bush droppoed the ball and weren't looking. Obama held Mccain accountable and suggested that Mccain said he would follow OBL to the gates of hell but wont even go to a cave in Pakistan. Yet, apparently neither will Osama. So where is he now that the dems are in charge. Are they even looking? Any answers?

jr565 said...

Jeremy wrote:
Run that one by the families of the 100,000 dead civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.

WHat a hoot.

Hey, at least you brought the casualty rate down from the 10 gajilion usually cited by the lefties who talk about the body count. Were none of those inflicted by insurgents. And does Obama when he escalates in afghanistan and does his carpet bombings somehow avoid civilians?

roesch-voltaire said...

I see from the "conservative" posts on this blog, I should not resent the millions of dollars wasted in Afghanistan, with nothing to show for it except more of the same somehow comparing this to corruption to America--ah gotta love those America first hypocrites.

jr565 said...

roesch voltaire wrote:
should not resent the millions of dollars wasted in Afghanistan, with nothing to show for it except more of the same somehow comparing this to corruption to America--ah gotta love those America first hypocrites.

Didn't Obama just escalte in afghanistan? How come none of that is wasted money?

PaulV said...

Jeremy. I see you run and hide whenever your faulty posts are challenged and are too ashamed to defend them

damikesc said...

I see from the "conservative" posts on this blog, I should not resent the millions of dollars wasted in Afghanistan, with nothing to show for it except more of the same somehow comparing this to corruption to America--ah gotta love those America first hypocrites.

Any concerns about Obama's plan to no longer capture prisoners, but to simply execute them on the spot via drones?

How does that fit in the "war criminal" mantra your side loves so under Bush?

Hey, how about the moral imperative of closing Gitmo? Its commercial appeal for terrorists? I guess that isn't the case any more since it's a Democrat who is keeping it open by choice.

Synova said...

Why is it always the uber-liberals who demand that someone be our puppet, who then name him a puppet before the world, and then complain about puppetry?

I don't recall anyone saying anything good about Karzai even during the Bush administration other than, perhaps, that there weren't any particular better choices for the Mayor of Kabul.

But what Bush did that Obama does not is that Bush promoted the reputation of the foreign leader as being independent from the US. So if he worked against us, then that was his prerogative and we needed to deal with him. Yes, this included inflating his reputation locally as someone who can tell us what to do with our ideas about what he ought to be doing or how he ought to be behaving.

Allowing the crook to save face.

Bush did it in Iraq, he absolutely did it with Pakistan, and he did it in Afghanistan.

Karzai won't even speak to our Ambassador half the time. Either our Ambassador is a complete incompetent moron or Karzai finds it necessary to establish that he is not our lap-dog.

This is not *optional* for him, no matter how corrupt or not-corrupt the man is. Anyone with two brain cells attendant on the reality of foreign relations understands that our allies in Iraq and Afghanistan have a driving political *necessity* to establish non-lap-dog status.

Obama, bless him, thinks he's supposed to act tough instead of doing his part to assert that various leaders upon whom we rely are neither puppets nor lap-dogs.

And you know... I honestly believe that Palin would understand this in her *gut*.

abeer ahmed said...

see dns records for blogspot.com
http://dns.domaintasks.com/blogspot.com