What if George Bush or Dick Cheney had said something like that openly? It's the kind of line that people used to imagine Bush people saying in secret.
IN THE COMMENTS: jayne cobb says:
Didn't Rahm Emanuel say the exact same thing?Yes:
It's the mantra of the Obama administration.
पोस्ट्स
१६२ टिप्पण्या:
As long as Rush didn't say it, it's ok.
The left engages in massive projection. That which they accuse, they are. Now Bush made his own mistakes, but the idiotic accusations of the left come from their own approach and shadow.
Trey
Didn't Rahm Emanuel say the exact same thing?
I used to find it astonishing that they, LibDems, could get away with outrageous statements like those.
Today, I am not even bat an eye.
@jayne Yes. It's the mantra of the Obama administration.
Didn't Rahm Emanuel say the exact same thing?
Well, when they all learned their philosophy from the same source it isn't to be unexpected. Except for the dolts who can't be bothered to pay attention and eat the lies, hook line and sinker, fed to them by the propoganda machine...I mean the media.
Trey is right, and its been obvious in every post of AlphLiberal, Michael, et al.
They think they can ride the crisis, but it is now well beyond anyone's ability to contain it. Hillary!, Rohm and O will be shocked at how it destroys them too.
I pulled a significant amount of cash out of the bank yesterday, and will do the same today.
The organizer's first job is to create the issues or problems," and "organizations must be based on many issues." The organizer "must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act. . . . An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent." He can provoke class resentment by painting Wall Street as villains
Sound familiar?
Remember, the Clintons can say or do no wrong. Why anyone even pays attetnion to that marginalized person is beyond me.
Bush would have been hammered mercilessly. But the One and his minions will get away with anything. History and legacies muest be made. The people be damned.
It's the kind of line that people used to imagine Bush people saying in secret.
People like Naomi Klein...
Around the world in Britain, the United States, Asia and the Middle East, there are people with power who are cashing in on chaos; exploiting bloodshed and catastrophe to brutally remake our world in their image. They are the shock doctors. Thrilling and revelatory, The Shock Doctrine cracks open the secret history of our era.
Klein notes on her web page "health reasons have prevented me from being able to travel [to speaking engagements]for the next several weeks."
Healthwise, I hope she's okay. Given the conspicuous lack of coverage of Team Obama on her blog, however, maybe she needs more time to figure-out how her Shock Doctrine theory fits into the age of Obama?
Other things I was told over the past eight years (I live near a university campus):
1) Bush was going to shut down his critics.
2) Bush was going to sell off our national forests.
3) Bush was going to repeal the Civil Rights Act.
4) Bush was going to (in the words of noted policy expert Cameron Diaz) make rape legal.
5) Bush was going to invade Iran.
6) Bush was not going to relinquish power. There would be an "October Surprise" that he would exploit to cancel the election.
The idiocy of so much of the Left's rhetoric over the past eight years frequently put me in the awkward position of having to defend (to some extent) a president that I did not like. Criticize his deficits, his war, his policies, fine. Say that he was going to make it legal to rape women, and I am forced to defend him.
(Actually, maybe that was their goal and leftists weren't as stupid as they seemed. Make outrageous accusations in order to get your opponents to try to prove a negative; in the meantime, they aren't able to actually end up arguing for their own policies in positive terms. Touche!)
The first rule of robbers is to start a fire at the North end of town, and then rob the Bank at the South end of town. That's nothing new. The new development is that we now elect Community Communists who tell us that all robbery is progress (Re-distribution) to make the poor people winners over the Rich. The notion of a middleclass with its own private property is an old Construct that shall never be seen again. That the news media and a majority of the voters have agreed to this evil ideology is a tribute to the Masters of Deception gleefully brainwashing the voters into a total deception.THEY WON! For now. The only hope is to find a leader, even one that has human shortcomings highlighted in the Obama-media, and speak out for the truth by supporting that leader.No more fence sitting on the elections, because they are not just liberal Americans, but they are an alien ideology at work.
This may explain why they don't seem to want the crisis to go away.
"There is great disorder under heaven, and the situation is excellent.”
Uncle Duke, quoting Chairman Mao.
Capitalizing on a crisis (or even manufacturing one) is one thing, but saying that's what you're doing? The nerve. Where's my local tea party?
I assume all the people criticizing this weren't supporters of Bush's foreign policy?
And the reporter sums up, straightfaced:
Many politicians argue that the economic crisis, energy security issues and climate change can all be dealt with in a "New Green Deal," replacing high-carbon infrastructure with green alternatives and simultaneously creating millions of jobs.
They tried this once in Europe. In the Netherlands. Burning tulip bulbs.
JAC,
Speaking more to the economic crisis/opportunism, I think...
John Althouse Cohen -- You might assume that the people commenting here are smart enough to have learned something from Bush's foreign policy.
You see change. I see more of the same (only moreso). Tell me how I'm wrong.
JAC,
And, not to put too fine a point on it, W's foreign policy was exceedingly reactionary. He hardly capitalized on any crisis other than Iraq and to a certain extent AfPak.
Obama and Clinton are lurching around trying "strategies" and seeing what sticks, not unlike what any administration with a "mandate" does in the early days.
Hillary will no doubt study Kissinger to get a leg up on how to manipulate crises to win friends and influence enemies...
"other than Iraq"
Except for when Chris Brown beat the hell out of Rihanna, he has always treated her with decency.
Don Pedro -
Yup - there were some outrageous claims made which never seemed to come to pass. I like reading the outrage from the Sullivan Reading Room regarding W's "traitorous" legal opinions that he never actually implemented.
However I also observed the 90's and the continual rumors of Clinton conspiring with the UN to take over the US, of the black helicopters and the UN marked vehicles waiting to deploy and implement martial law.
These sorts of hysterical reactions to a new administration seem to be perennial. I'm more inclined to chalk up Obama's actions to simple political opportunism than to the a new dawn of a worker's paradise.
Trevor -
I agree. Short crisises are so much more effective than long drawn out ones. Somolia anyone?
"I assume all the people criticizing this weren't supporters of Bush's foreign policy?"
What I am asking you to imagine is Bush openly saying after 9/11, this is a crisis that we shouldn't waste, that we should see as an opportunity to do all the many things we've wanted to do -- like overthrow Saddam. Imagine coming right out and saying it, shamelessly. It's one thing to say he acted as though that's what they were saying in private. But imagine him openly saying it! That's what we have now.
More "Bush did it too, and you didn't complain." Are there any Obama voters who are going to actually defend what is being said here? Can you be honest, like Althouse (if I'm reading right), and say this is at least worrisome?
John Althouse Cohen, If you didn't like Bush's crisis management -- for all the right reason -- then why not apply your validated wisdom to the new administration's crisis management opportunism. You like where they're going? Or not?
What you think other people think is pretty dull stuff. What do you think?
Damn. Henry said it better.
But this is point. Obama is not a doctrinaire. He's an opportunist. Consider the man he seems to be compared to continually these days, FDR.
FDR was not terribly concerned with due process or the division of gov't. He tried to pack the courts, and in the ramp up to WWII, he covertly supplied the Brits with war material against the express wishes of Congress.
I would suggest that you look to Obama's history as a Chicago pol than to his possible marxist tendencies...
What you think other people think is pretty dull stuff. What do you think?
I actually believe the laziness of the question tells us what he thinks. Maybe he'll elaborate though. I'd be happily surprised to be wrong.
The left engages in massive projection. That which they accuse, they are.
More and more, I think this is the answer to all the truly headshaking things I see coming out of the left.
Invading Iraq because of 9/11 and reducing our dependence on fossil fuels because of an economic crisis.
Yeah, I can see how those two things are similar.
FDR was not terribly concerned with due process or the division of gov't. He tried to pack the courts, and in the ramp up to WWII, he covertly supplied the Brits with war material against the express wishes of Congress.
I would suggest that you look to Obama's history as a Chicago pol than to his possible marxist tendencies...
You left out the concentration camps and the wholesale outright theft of the internees properties and real estate. Some of the choicest real estate in Los Angeles and some of the prime Claifornia farm land belonged to those interred in the camps. This was stolen from them and given away to FDR Administration insiders.
If FDR is Obama's guide, our liberty is in danger.
Wow, I got a tag.
Callooh! Callay!
Henry is a very smart, moderate commenter who adds much to the debate here. He is reasoned, never extreme nor highly partisan on eother side.
If the Obama admin has lost Henry's ear and others like him, the Dems are in big trouble.
The other problem with trying to engage lefties in conversation is that they know how frustrated we get when they ignore or misrepresent the facts. So they distort the facts or lie and we get all upset and they do it some more. 8)
It is like attempting to play tennis where one side refuses to acknowledge those little white lines on the ground. After awhile, the guy who respects the reality of the game leaves the court while the guy who ignored the lines claims victory.
I do not think that strategy of the left will work much longer. In 40 days the Democratic party has destroyed 25% of the American and God knows how much of the world markets. This will not be put back together quickly or easily. The Democratic "solutions" will make things worse.
It is going to be an ugly few years and rhetoric will no longer count for much.
Trey
Two can play this game. If things get bad enough, there will be an opportunity for patriots to restructure this nation in a way that will not be to the liking of any liberals that survive.
Krauthammer is going to need secret service protection.
Where's my local tea party?
I don’t see any in Arkansas but am seriously thinking about hitting the Memphis one. Would try for Dallas, but would have to take off too much time from work to drive there on a Wednesday.
Your point is well taken, Prof. Althouse. The public reaction to Bush openly suggesting the use of 9/11 as a lever to do things that would have been otherwise politically impossible would have been earth-shattering.
My question to you is, are you surprised at Obama's openness about doing the same thing with the current economic trouble. If you are, why? Could you not see this essential flaw in his character? It was there for everyon to see. How does one sit in a church led by a flaming bigot for 20 years and hang out with the leaders of the Weather Underground and not have such a character flaw? How?
Now David Brooks is surprised?
Didn't Naomi Klein warn us about this?
(What? Oh...)
Am I reading JAC wrong, or are we already getting, six weeks in, a thinly veiled "well, he's no worse than Bush" defense?
I'd say it was projection. Liberals, who want to run every aspect of our lives, from our diet to our choice of transportation, love to accuse conservatives of the same.
Of course this administration will most certainly cause as many crises as is humanly possible. Some will be intentional, to take advantage of and some will be simple incompetence. All will be used to remold American society into some utopian pipe dream. If you happen to like "unhealthy" or "wasteful" things, be prepared. You will be demonized, taxed and if necessary prohibited from your choices.
Hope and change is a slogan for a utopian. If you don't want his utopia, you will be crushed.
Corollaries:
1. If there isn't a crisis at hand, create one, or the appearance of one.
2. If there is a crisis at hand, making it worse makes exploiting it easier.
Blogger John Althouse Cohen said...
"I assume all the people criticizing this weren't supporters of Bush's foreign policy?"
You may think his foreign policy idiotic (I thought it well intended, but poorly executed), but he did not use it as a means to radically restructure the fabric of US society and the economy. At worst, you can say he beat up a bunch of foreigners - no Americans are interred at Gitmo. Obama is out to steal the livelihood and destroy the dreams of millions of Americans through his "green" wealth destruction. Bush, if you recall, also inherited a faltering economy from the previous president - and shortly thereafter, 9/11 occurred, yet the economy did not tank nearly as badly as it is doing now.
""I assume all the people criticizing this weren't supporters of Bush's foreign policy?"
An Iraq implication?
If I remember correctly, the invasion of Iraq occurred 14-18 months after 9-11. It was thoroughly debated in the Congress and in the press during that span. Please recalibrate your
Bush the crisis exploiter metric.
The problem with the FDR comparisons is that the market crashed in 1929. FDR was elected in 1932, inaugurated in '33. FDR had a good line in a letter to a friend in 1931(?). He said his plan was to be sensibly radical -- to propose sweeping but not crazy changes, and basically wait for things to fall into his lap when Hoover's policies failed to work.
When FDR came into office, he had two big advantages that Obama doesn't have. First, the crash had already happened -- businesses had already failed, unemployment was already up, and there was no temptation to try and subsidize his way back to 1928. Second, Hoover had already been at work for four years, and there was a ready-made constituency that was convinced more moderate efforts would never work.
It seems to me that if you want to use a crisis as an opportunity, you would ideally like to have more distance from the crisis as it's developing.
John-
Plenty of Democrats, believed in doing the same thing until it was no longer politically advantageous to them.
24/7 media has changed the whole method of warfare and because of that there is a rapidly closing window for taking any kind of action no matter how justified.
Why do you think Clinton knew to bomb the hell outta stuff from the air and get the hell out?
Democrats-your party went right along with whatever until it was no longer politically advantageous for them.
And of course they did their upmost to create that environment at every turn.
The military this last election supported McCain by 68%-that's high particularly when you consider that we have more minorities in the ranks than your average white band.
Oh and btw -talk about using military body counts to your best advantage -that would be your party-to hell with what the military dead believed in they were all stupid.
"thoroughly debated"
Yeah, I remember how that debate went:
"Iraq didn't attack us."
"Yet. Why do you want another American city devastated?"
"The inspectors aren't finding any weapons. They need more time."
"Why do you love Saddam?"
"Why do we have to have this vote before a midterm election?"
"So we can accuse you of being soft on terrorism if you don't vote for war, dummy."
And scene.
Obviously I am more sympathetic to Bush's foreign policy decisions than someone on the left is likely to be. And likewise, I am less sympathetic to Obama's broader domestic policy goals than someone on the left is likely to be.
That said, I do think that this administration better fits the notion of "exploiting a crisis" than the Bush administration---in that the changes he is seeking to make really have nothing to do with the crisis at hand. What is Obama doing holding a health care summit in the middle of this mess? (A bankruptcy caused by health care costs every 30 seconds? Big lie.) What is he doing pushing through cap & trade and energy taxes in the middle of this mess?
Jim Cramer is right on here. He voted for Obama and supports Obama's agenda---he just thinks it needs to be tabled so that they can focus exclusively on the financial crisis. Once that is stabilized, then by all means, go back to pushing through the radical changes he believes he was elected to enact.
This ('Progressives' using real or imagined crises to push an agenda) was a significant point made by Jonah Goldberg in his book Liberal Fascism. He more than adequately supports his argument within the same tome. Anyone who thinks the exploitation of crises is by chance is IMHO little more than a Liberalism Denier.
This ('Progressives' using real or imagined crises to push an agenda) was a significant point made by Jonah Goldberg in his book Liberal Fascism. He more than adequately supports his argument within the same tome. Anyone who thinks the exploitation of crises is by chance is IMHO little more than a Liberalism Denier.
So Trevor, are you saying that the Dems went along with Bush's requests on Iraq because they were a bunch of pussies who were worried about being called names?
rhhardin, that was the most lucid analysis and description of events I’ve read to date.
I’m comforted in the historical record that Carter, creator of the Department of Education and the Department of Energy, holder of Nobel Peace Prize, Returner of the Panama Canal, and Defender of Human Rights, Boycotter of the 1980 Winter Olympics, and Holder of the Sacred Chalice of Reeks, oh wait, maybe not that last one, was ultimately a one-term president.
I would adjust TMink's tennis rules for leftists in this way: The only points that count for them is when their balls fall within the lines; the only points that count for their opponents is when their balls fall outside the lines. The New Deal is thus scored on the basis of Social Security, FDIC, and unemployment benefits. The excesses of the NRA, court packing, and the fact that the Depression grew worse under the New Deal are not counted....In a like way, the success of Coolidge, Eisenhower, and Reagan in steering the US out of sharp economic downturns is ignored. Herbert Hoover's dispersal of the bonus marchers is, however, recounted in great detail......At the end of all of this, we will have over 10% unemployment and national health insurance. The national health insurance will be deemed the greatest advance in human rights since the Magna Carta, and the unemployment rate will be considered a small price to pay for such a grand benefit.
Mcg, I wouldn't necessarily put it in those terms, but I think that Congress didn't do its job in pumping the brakes or asking enough questions because they, along with the rest of the country, were frightened (both politically and existentially), yes.
As for your "why health care now" question, I think the answer is pretty clear that this administration believes one of the ways to help business is to get health care coverage costs back down from the rafters.
Maybe Rahm can sue Hillary for copyright infringement.
Mcg, I wouldn't necessarily put it in those terms, but I think that Congress didn't do its job in pumping the brakes or asking enough questions because they, along with the rest of the country, were frightened (both politically and existentially), yes.
I'm OK with that to a certain degree. I mean, it is one thing to say that perhaps the Democrats were skeptical of Bush's plans, but because they didn't have a clear and superior alternative to offer they deferred to the executive. But when you defer to the executive, as they did, you sign on. The few Democrats who voted against the AUMF, for instance, were the courageous dissenters, not the pussies like Daschle who whined about it, voted for it, and then tried to claim they didn't.
Likewise, I'm glad the House Republicans had the balls to vote against the stimulus bill. They're taking a political risk that they will be on the wrong side of history on that vote. But at least they didn't engage in some misguided view of bipartisanship.
As for your "why health care now" question, I think the answer is pretty clear that this administration believes one of the ways to help business is to get health care coverage costs back down from the rafters.
I honestly don't think that's what they believe, because I don't think there is a serious analysis out there that universal health care reduces its cost to the economy. It's just going to shift the cost from one line of the balance sheet to another. Businesses won't have an explicit health care expense, but it will be built into their income taxes. Investors will be paying higher taxes so there will be less available to invest in business. The money has to come from somewhere.
I think they see universal health care as a duty, and I don't dispute the benevolence of that motive. But while there are many ways to justify the implementation of universal health care, overall cost savings isn't one of them unless you commit to a significant rationing of care. I'm pretty sure the administration knows that.
I think the answer is pretty clear that this administration believes one of the ways to help business is to get health care coverage costs back down from the rafters.
I think that’s BS. I can’t see any evidence that Obama cares anything about Business. If you want to see he is trying to lower health costs for consumers, particularly those who don’t health insurance, maybe. I don’t personally think it will work, or at least not in a way that Americans will like, but I don’t believe for a second that it’s about helping the economy or businesses in any way.
"The money has to come from somewhere."
I'm not going to pretend I understand the health care problem beyond a punter's level. But I don't think what we spend on health care each year as a nation has to be a static (or rapidly increasing, really) cost.
Shouldn't the costs to insurance companies and thus to the insured come down if you create bigger pools of affordable-premium-paying people, incentivize healthier behavior, and remove layers of red tape? Get insurance companies out of the business of finding ways to deny claims as a first resort.
So Obama wants to use the financial crisis to help the environment.
And Bush used 9/11 to disenfranchise and demonize gay people.
And according to Ann - those two actions are morally equivalent. No - according to Ann - Obama's actions are worse.
Telling.
""thoroughly debated"
Yeah, I remember how that debate went:
"Iraq didn't attack us.""
"Yes they did. They made numerous attempts to shoot down our planes over a period of 12 years in direct violation of the conditions of the ceasefire that ended the 1991 confrontation."
::crickets chirping::
"They made numerous attempts to shoot down our planes over a period of 12 years in direct violation of the conditions of the ceasefire that ended the 1991 confrontation."
As much as I hate to interrupt the lovely sound of crickets, I'll just point out that if we were willing to tolerate it for 12 years, I didn't see then and don't see now how 9/11 suddenly made that violation a cause for war.
And yet, that crisis (to bring it back on topic) was used to terrify the country into supporting the Iraq war. They just couldn't say it, because it didn't follow logically.
Hey did some Liberal mention
Rihanna-
This one goes out to Obama-
Shut up and Drive!
downtownlad's comment beautifully illustrates the reason why trying to have a discussion with most liberals is just a waste of time: how do you have a meaningful discussion with an idiot?
How did W 'demonize gays'? How did he use 9/11 to do so?
Back to the subject at hand, I agree with other posters... I think Obama will be a one-term president. That's good. The reasons WHY he'll be a one-term president... disastrous economy, disastrous foreign policy leading to one or more major crises, disastrous stewardship of the nation... they'll be bad.
I just shake my head, and guess it has something to do with the fact that unlike me most Americans alive today didn't live under the Carter Administration. They're about to learn why Democrats can't be trusted with the keys.
John Clifford,
It's easy to do. Check it out.
Bush ate oatmeal for breakfast to disenfranchise and demonize gay people.
BAM-O! Now you try.
... I think Obama will be a one-term president. That's good. The reasons WHY he'll be a one-term president... disastrous economy, disastrous foreign policy leading to one or more major crises, disastrous stewardship of the nation... they'll be bad
I pray...literally pray, that he will be a one term President. Unfortunately, it will take us at least 10 years to recover from this. It's a lot easier to break things than to fix them...especially something as complex as the economy.
"And Bush used 9/11 to disenfranchise and demonize gay people."
Just what rights did gays have in 1999 that were stripped by the federal government in the last 8 years?
And if Bush ever "demonized" gays, I haven't seen that either. Reference please?
It is ok when Rahm does it because he is hot.
And yet, that crisis (to bring it back on topic) was used to terrify the country into supporting the Iraq war. They just couldn't say it, because it didn't follow logically.
I keep hearing that over and over again, and yet, that is not what I saw. I did not see a country terrorized at all, but rather, a country that was finally pissed off enough to act where it could act.
Now, you want the United Nations to have some kind of meaning. There it was issuing hollow threats it had as a group no intention of following through with. Europe, generally, wants to see leadership in the US and yet refused at the time to follow. US citizens were attacked in Israel cafes by Palestinian rockets and suicide bombers supported by Hussein. To say Bush terrorized us into a war is simply wrong. He provided an avenue for those angry enough to act.
Were you terrorized? If not, then please stop projecting it where it hasn't existed. But again, I'm so very tired of having this discussion. If you think it would be a better world with Saddam Hussein still in it with the prospect of his two sons carrying on his dynasty, then go ahead and convince me.
Liberal thought used to support human rights world-wide. That was a time when I was proud to identify with liberalism. Now, all of American liberalism's enemies are to its immediate right, and the nattering is ceaseless. The loudest among them never looking beyond their own gay noses.
Rahm can do anything....because he is hot.
I bet Rahm fucks hot. Very bossy and mean and demanding and forceful. Yummmmm.
Rahm is not a liberal pansy wansy fucker.
He fucks with courage and like a man and that is hot.
Also, his hog is cut. Hot. Hot cut hog.
Shouldn't the costs to insurance companies and thus to the insured come down if you create bigger pools of affordable-premium-paying people, incentivize healthier behavior, and remove layers of red tape? Get insurance companies out of the business of finding ways to deny claims as a first resort.
That's probably a fixed cost reduction, yes, but it does nothing to address the growth in costs. That requires rationing.
I like what Ramesh Ponnuru just said. "Obama's 9/11 is the economic crisis, says Cesar Conda. Well, maybe. But Obama seems to be going after Iraq before Afghanistan."
Whatever you think about whether we should have gone to Iraq, we took the time to debate that. They didn’t slip in a 1000 page war resolution in the middle of the night and insist on a vote the next morning before anybody knew what was going. Bush made his case to the nation and to congress. They voted. And this was a year or two out from 9/11, so we had time to absorb it. The current situation is completely different.
Rammesh is not hot. Therefore we can't take him seriously. Also he is very pansy wansy and doesn't fuck hard. Uncut hog, which is fine, but likely it is very small-not very manly. Also, he needs a new voice. He sounds like a girl which is not hot and not courageous. He has feminine glasses too which are not hot. Hot is so important.
I recommend not hot people to keep a low profile for the betterment of themselves as well as society.
Thank you.
I wish their was a "hot committee" to determine who gets to walk the streets and who has to stay home.
That would be hot.
Trevor said Yeah, I remember how that debate went:
"Iraq didn't attack us."
"Yet. Why do you want another American city devastated?"
"The inspectors aren't finding any weapons. They need more time."
"Why do you love Saddam?"
"Why do we have to have this vote before a midterm election?"
"So we can accuse you of being soft on terrorism if you don't vote for war, dummy."
That's pretty cute considering you just made that up from whole cloth. Actually, they're not hard too find but a good chunk of the Democratic party, Secretary Hillary herself are on record beating the drums to war and how Saddam had WMDs and we needed to act.
There would be not hot ghettos though so the not hot's could get some exercise.
---Invading Iraq because of 9/11 and reducing our dependence on fossil fuels because of an economic crisis.
Yeah, I can see how those two things are similar.---
Invading Iraq because of 9/11 and reducing American standard of living - forcing us into sitting in the dark under blankets, setting up the tax system so that 50 percent of the population benefits from the other 50 percent paying taxes, having the Secretary of Health and Human Service determine when you are too old to receive medical care...
Yeah, I can see how those two things are similar.
"The inspectors aren't finding any weapons. They need more time."
You know, in hindsight, I'll bet Saddam regrets kicking the inspectors out. Or regretted it, before he choked out.
Asked Cheney's daughter how she felt demonized?
For all their faults, Repubs & conservatives are pretty good at doing the needful in their personal choices, while the Dems make big noises, shoot off fireworks, and leave tons of trash behind.
Wasn't it John F. Kerry who had so much class wrt the Cheneys? Not.
Hey did you see on Instapundit how Palin is running her "theocracy?" Not.
Try working with ideas and actions, not fantasy templates. (Have & Have-nots, evil gay bashing Repubs...)
Bush is the one who gave momentum to all of the Constitutional Amendments against gay marriage.
Bush also stated that he favored jailing gay people for having sex in the privacy of their own homes.
Bush also gave support to people who said that gays were trying to destroy civilization.
And Bush was very successful. Hate crimes against gays soared during Bush's administration.
That's why Bush's 2004 election campaign revolved almost entirely around demonizing gay people. He barely even discussed the war in his ads.
Jesus Christ, here we are again, accusing liberals of loving Saddam. Thanks for proving my point, Chip. And Hoosier, pointing out Hillary's vote and speech doesn't change my point.
"Bush made his case to the nation and to congress."
On evidence the administration was repeatedly warned was shoddy. We may or may not have "absorb(ed)" 9/11 by the fall of 2002, but they sure as shit did their best to tell us that we'd have another one to absorb if we didn't invade Iraq. How is that not manipulating a crisis to achieve a goal they had before 9/11?
"I'll bet Saddam regrets kicking the inspectors out."
He probably would have, if it hadn't been us that told them to get out because we were invading.
---"Iraq didn't attack us."
"Yet. Why do you want another American city devastated?"
"The inspectors aren't finding any weapons. They need more time."
"Why do you love Saddam?"
"Why do we have to have this vote before a midterm election?"
"So we can accuse you of being soft on terrorism if you don't vote for war, dummy."---
Such a shallow little diatribe. Typical liberal thought. Well not thought, really... imagination, fantasy-- Hey kids let's put on a show -- We are the World we are the children!!!! Simpleton.
Adults had to weigh all the factors. Leave it to a Lefty to discredit debate. How much debate did Clinton have when he bombed Serbia against the UN?
And making fun of the danger of terrorism - we're back to September 10th. Were you drunk or stoned when they hit Mumbai?
"An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent."
Heh. In this case I don' think they know what they have started.
We didn't sign up to be in his "community," but we sure are dissatisfied and discontent.
I can't wait until April 15. Let's see how much coverage the dissatisfied and discontented taxpayers get in the nationwide demonstrations protesting the wild prolfigate spending of OUR money by an undisciplined ideologue who wants to re-make America in his image.
No thank you.
People like DBQ think it's the end of civilization that Obama is letting tax rates go back to where they were in 2000.
I'm affected by the tax changes and I am not even blinking an eye about it, because it's so minor. I already pay AMT, so I'll probably end up paying a penny more on every dollar I earn.
Poor me. This is obviously a disaster from which we will never recover.
DBQ's would solve today's economic crisis by cutting the capital gains tax.
She also thinks today's unemployment rate is entirely Obama's fault.
What a joke.
mcg touches on a point that seems missed in the whole Bush/Obama crisis debate. Prior to 9/11, Bush was more of an isolationist, "no nation building" kind of guy. He did not seize on 9/11 to do what he'd always hoped to do anyway, he did a 180 and pursued a policy to keep us safe despite the fact that it was radically different from what he hoped to do once elected.
Jesus Christ, here we are again, accusing liberals of loving Saddam.
You're projecting Trevor. No one accused you of being a Saddam lover. You were only asked if you think the world would have been better off with him remaining in power.
And Hoosier, pointing out Hillary's vote and speech doesn't change my point.
Well it certainly throws some cold water on it considering the biggest amount of debate on the war was in the halls of the UN rather than Congress. Perhaps if you can actually point to some instances of the Bush administration accusing a member of Congress of being Saddam lovers or wanting to see an American city destroyed would help your case but I'm betting you can't.
--Yeah, I remember how that debate went:
"Iraq didn't attack us.""
"Yes they did. They made numerous attempts to shoot down our planes over a period of 12 years in direct violation of the condi...--
You didn't include that they were proven (in court) to have participated in the 1st WTC bombing.
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200406010821.asp
But tim, don't you see, it doesn't matter if Bush was an isolationist, he retained Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and a host of neoconservijews, and we all know what they wanted to do was usher in the new empire.
"You were only asked if you think the world would have been better off with him remaining in power."
I didn't answer it because it is and always has been a stupid question, designed to change the subject of whether it was good for us at that moment to commit to a second war.
Each non hot would have a Hottie counselor or role model in order to look up to and hopefully get to the level of being hot.
And yet, that crisis (to bring it back on topic) was used to terrify the country into supporting the Iraq war. They just couldn't say it, because it didn't follow logically.
Actually, Bush said vary clearly why 9/11 changed the Iraq situation. He said 9/11 made tolerating a long-term threat like Iraq a bad idea, and that such threats should be removed BEFORE they became "imminent" threats. He said this repeatedly. There are good reasons to dispute that, but pretending that's not what he said (while popular amongst the left) is just stupid.
---I'm affected by the tax changes and I am not even blinking an eye about it, because it's so minor. I already pay AMT, so I'll probably end up paying a penny more on every dollar I earn.---
See this is a perfect demonstration that liberals cannot extend their personal experience to an abstract populstion or economic system.
The commenter will not feel the tzx increase because he/she is so well off. But he/she will undoubtedly spend less because the government has taken that much from him/her. The spending that he would have done would have given somebody a job. Raising taxes IN A RECESSION will be horrible. Its what Roosevelt did to prolong the Great Depression. Bread lines coming to a city near you.
So yes, little Richy-Rich will be unaffected by the tax increase, but it will lead to another percentage of unemployment or months more of current unemployment.
But hey no big deal "I'm ok."
---But tim, don't you see, it doesn't matter if Bush was an isolationist, he retained Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and a host of neoconservijews, and we all know what they wanted to do was usher in the new empire.---
Just like Ram Emmanuel looks forward to construcing re-education camps for the middle class, Barney Frank looks forward to jailing Wall Street CEOs and Maxine Waters looks forward to nationalizing the oil industry.
OF COURSE Hillary feels this way. Wasn't it her husband's aide who publicly lamented 9/11 not happening on Bills watch so the country could see what a leader Bill was? I can't find the story, but it should still be out there.
"Never waste a good crisis".
What a horrible thing to say; an utter disregard for and disdain of the well-being of American citizens.
It drips with cynicism: We are entitled and must use the suffering of the American people to our advantage.
Worse, these fuckers can't even figure out how to do it. They are too cute by half, and have fucked up the opportunity they slavered after.
I didn't answer it because it is and always has been a stupid question, designed to change the subject of whether it was good for us at that moment to commit to a second war.
Fair enough. Then again, you weren't being accused of being a Saddam lover.
I'll argue Saddam should have been left in power because it wasn't worth it to sacrifice 4000 Americans to keep the Iraqis from butchering each other after he was toppeled. In hindsight we should have kissed and madeup and had yet another ally against Al Quaeda and Iran.
Then again I have a realpolitik outlook on foreign affairs.
They are too cute by half, and have fucked up the opportunity they slavered after.
I'm hoping that turns out to be (unintentionally) a feature, not a bug. They won't push as far as they may have because of miscalculation and infighting.
"you weren't being accused of being a Saddam lover."
No, but when that question was posed regularly to opponents pre-invasion, issues like Saddam's rape rooms were regularly invoked. To assert, as you can much more easily now, that the war wouldn't be worth his removal was quickly spun as supporting rape rooms and rocket attacks on Israelis.
As for your other question about Bush officials making those statements ("Saddam lover," etc.), they didn't need to. Surrogates and talking-points echoers were left to argue it out on cable, and relied on the media to marginalize or ignore anyone who questioned the rush, the evidence, or the premise for war. The debate over the war in the media essentially was "How much ass would we kick? A lot or a whole lot?"
trevor @10:53
Shouldn't the costs to insurance companies and thus to the insured come down if you create bigger pools of affordable-premium-paying people, incentivize healthier behavior, and remove layers of red tape? Get insurance companies out of the business of finding ways to deny claims as a first resort.
See Medicare.
I've spent the last twenty years assisting parents and in-laws with Medicare's incomprehensible red tape and Byzantine regulations, it makes the tax code look like cake walk.
Government universal health care will be a boondoggle of massive proportions, think not? Name one government entitlement program that is within budget, fully funded, free of red tape, waste and/or corruption and delivers what it promised to the recipients and the taxpayers?
Unless you've dealt with Medicare you really cannot comprehend how badly the government handles health care.
It's the DMV on steriods.
DTL you so miss the point that it's painful, the Dems are going after small businesses and partnerships who file under individual tax rates, which is a huge pool of investment money. Unfortunately two-earner families will be drive buy victims as well.
The dentists, doctors, professionals, family farms, mom & pops, fast food franchises, auto repair, cleaners, etc. That 4-3% you claim is not big deal would be used to expand, order inventory and hire. The govt will be eating the employment seed corn.
Add cap and trade to the rust belt and higher energy costs and we will indeed have a self-inflicted depression that neither party will be able to ameliorate.
As for your other question about Bush officials making those statements ("Saddam lover," etc.), they didn't need to. Surrogates and talking-points echoers were left to argue it out on cable, and relied on the media to marginalize or ignore anyone who questioned the rush, the evidence, or the premise for war.
Trevor, you keep moving the goalposts. Your orginal snark was over the war being debated in Congress and now we're down to the Saddam Lover slur being leveled by cable pundits and Bush 'surrogates'.
As another commenter said before, perhaps the Dems who later admitted to it being a 'mistake' should have had the testicular fortitude to vote no and damn the media. The GOP right or wrong is doing that right now with the Porkulus spending spree.
In other words, on the question of voting on the war, the Dems took the low road by voting against their principle and only decided to speak out against it when it became politically expedient for them to do so.
Trevor Jackson wrote:
As much as I hate to interrupt the lovely sound of crickets, I'll just point out that if we were willing to tolerate it for 12 years, I didn't see then and don't see now how 9/11 suddenly made that violation a cause for war. It's more of continual annoyance that keeps raising the tension level until we finally deal with the issue in a new way. If a fly continues buzzing around you you eventually flat the swy. After 9/11 when proliferation becomes an even more grave threat to deal with, having Iraq continue to attack our planes takes on even more gravity and becomes even more of a causus belli to end such agression. But of course there was also the 16 resolutions not to mention 1441 supposedly being Iraq's final chance.
But even more fundamentally, your point ignores the basic history of Iraq under a DEMOCRATIC president. Are you not aware that based on Iraq's previous actions Clinton sanctioned the hell out of Iraq, INCREASED the no fly zones in the first place, bombed Iraq on multiple occasions when Iraq continued its nocompliance and passed the Iraq Liberation Act which called for regime change and implementation of democracy in Iraq all before Bush set foot on the stage. Every escalation on our part was caused because Iraq was not cooperating and only shows that the eventual war with Iraq was building for years. It wasn't a static situation at all.
To get back on topic, it was all predicted a long time ago that the left would use a "manufactured crisis" to enact their agenda:
Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis
Turns out the theory of first precipitating a crisis and then using it to your advantage was conceived by Marxist professors 40 years ago. Add that to the Alinsky Rules for Radicals, of which both Obama and Hillary are proponents, and you have a blueprint for what is happening right now.
Hoosier, I don't think I'm moving the goalposts by saying that the debate in the public arena had an impact on easily cowed Democrats. I'm saying that that debate's tone was set by the Bush administration. They were certain that Saddam had WMD and could use them on Americans and that drove the debate.
Combine that encouraged culture of hysteria with the inaccurate and cherry-picked evidence to bolster a flimsy NIE and you have the October AUMF vote in a nutshell.
I wish the Democrats would have shown the same fortitude that Republicans have shown against the stimulus. Dems were more easily cowed in the face of "the crisis" than Republicans have been. Hard to say if they were right yet.
"Never waste a good crisis...It's the mantra of the Obama administration."
I don't see why. They're going to have so many crises it won't matter if a few slip by.
And I thought the Iraq argument had been settled. We shouldn't have invaded Iraq, because Saddam didn't have nukes. We should have waited until he did have nukes, and then invaded. That would have been so much smarter.
Trevor:
"incentivize people to use good behavior"..
Good luck with that. I'd pay good money to watch you try to take donuts, cigarettes, booze and drugs away from Americans.
Liberals blame the US healthcare system for our alleged shorter life expectancy. They conveniently ignore the negative effects of the aforementioned donuts, booze, drugs and smokes.
Like they say in New Hampshire "Live Free or Die". We need more of that mindset in the USA.
On evidence the administration was repeatedly warned was shoddy. We may or may not have "absorb(ed)" 9/11 by the fall of 2002, but they sure as shit did their best to tell us that we'd have another one to absorb if we didn't invade Iraq. How is that not manipulating a crisis to achieve a goal they had before 9/11?
When you linked to that, I thought you were actually linking to something like this. But alas, it was more lib talking points.
But when the US foreign policy was calling for regime change as far back as 1998 it may not come as a shock that the incoming administration might similarly seek a regime change. Because when Clinton and congress passed the ILA in 1998 it had already been established that Iraq had:
1) committed various and significant violations of International Law,
2) had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed following the Gulf War and
3) further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. (this is the very basis for the ILA)
So then the question was how to achieve said regime change. None of the factors had changed since Clinton left except for the worse, and in fact, all inspectors had left/been kicked out after the passage of said act in 1998, and could only even be brought back in through Bush threatening war. So noone at all was minding the store for at least 3 years. Plus the planes continued to be shot at, plus containment continued to be failing.
So even if there was no 9/11 there was still grounds to view regime change in Iraq as a good idea, one shared by multiple administrations across both parties. 9/11 simply made actually dealing with a terrorist state that had a history of trying to develop WMD's and which we were unable to properly contain that much more necessary to deal with.
"You know, I was campaigning in Chicago and somebody asked me, is there ever any time where the budget might have to go into deficit? I said only if we were at war or had a national emergency or were in recession. Little did I realize we'd get the trifecta."
Said by GWB, apparently more than once. It's a joke. Get it?
A reference to this used to be on Whitehouse.gov, but I can't find an archive anywhere.
AJ -- You mention "shorter life expectancies." Isn't the central health care issue really the fact that we have (1) much, much longer life expectancies regardless of technology, (2) expensive technology to sustain and heal humans, and (3) a sense of justice that makes us want to extend that expensive technology to everyone?
I have never been more disgusted with the government or the press.
I was listening to the radio in my car and heard the newscaster announcing the 25 "Saved jobs" Obama flew all the way out to Ohio (on his permanent campaign) to overhype, and the newscaster sounded like she was ready to orgasm.
I want to puke. I want to go off grid. What kind of future do my kids have.
mcg -- The problem is that every bit of Obama's platform is going to cause economic problems. Hence, he will never actually be able to enact his agenda without causing an economic crisis.
I have said it before here many times: I am a libertarian who is conservative only out of pragmatism. I would gladly be a communist if communism worked. But it doesn't. We are beholden to the immutable laws of the world, as sad as that is.
Here's a link courtesy of the wayback machine. (Sorry, don't know how to do the link thing.) Comments by Bush at a GOP luncheon.
So it's not something we need to 'imagine' him saying openly. He did say it.
http://web.archive.org/web/20021104070922/www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020227-6.html
mcg -- The problem is that every bit of Obama's platform is going to cause economic problems. Hence, he will never actually be able to enact his agenda without causing an economic crisis.
While I am inclined to agree with you, I understand that there are fellow citizens who earnestly believe otherwise. What I would hope is that they would agree is that we can wait to see who's right! For instance, if Obama had the good fortune of presiding over a Clinton-era boom, he would be in a much better position to justify a more expensive government.
I don't think that speech means what you think it means.
"Shouldn't the costs to insurance companies and thus to the insured come down if you create bigger pools of affordable-premium-paying people, incentivize healthier behavior, and remove layers of red tape? Get insurance companies out of the business of finding ways to deny claims as a first resort."
This is called wishful thinking economics. If we just wish hard enough, tap our heels together, and, just like Dorothy, the government will be able to do something efficiently and effectively, the oceans will stop rising, and prosperity will be had by all.
I will never understand why anyone thinks that the government could do anything more efficiently than the private sector. I am waiting for a single example of it.
There are, of course, areas where we are willing to pay the "public sector" overhead for doing something. One of these is in defense. Our military is grossly inefficient, but we are willing to pay for it anyway, since we wouldn't have a credible military otherwise.
The reality will be that there will be far more bureaucracy, you won't have any choices when your health care provider refuses your claim (like going to another company), and money will be squandered based on political considerations, as opposed to health considerations. Things like paying for gender reassignment surgery instead of for prostate cancer.
Seven:
Liberals say we have a shorter life expectancy and blame it on the lack of universal health care in the USA. I don't ascribe to that theory because I think we are fatter, do drugs, drink more and exercise less than other countries.
In fact, I lean to the belief that one's lifetime healthcare costs are about the same [no matter your age at death] as long as you die form natural causes. By that I mean, some studies have concluded you spend something like 90% of lifetime healthcare costs in the last six months of your life.
So I think I agree with your basic premises. There is no magic bullet to lower (significantly) healthcare costs other than making everyone responsible for reaching in their own pocketbook to pay the bills.
Agreed. Government-run health care will make the costs of the Iraq war look like, well, a paltry little stimulus package. Again, if someone wants to make the moral argument for it, more power to them, but the cost-control argument doesn't pass the smell test.
Bruce:
Very well said.
Has Obama or any of his admin ever taken a business or govt program and cut spending?
The exception may be Geithner. He can't seem to find qualified employees and so he will be under-budget this year. Heh.
Liberals say we have a shorter life expectancy and blame it on the lack of universal health care in the USA. I don't ascribe to that theory because I think we are fatter, do drugs, drink more and exercise less than other countries.
We also take statistics honestly, which makes us look worse than overseas. Babies born alive overseas that die soon afterwards are often counted as born dead, whereas in America, we count that as infant mortality. We try hard to save every baby; others don't.
AJ Lynch @1:09 Liberals blame the US healthcare system for our alleged shorter life expectancy. They conveniently ignore the negative effects of the aforementioned donuts, booze, drugs and smokes.
When California legalizes weed there's going to be a humongous increase in junk food consumption and couch potatoes.
What a horrible thing to say; an utter disregard for and disdain of the well-being of American citizens.
Since when have the Clintons had any regard or respect for the well being of American Citizens? The have disdain and despise Americans.
John:
Thanks I left that infant issue out.
And to be fair to liberals, the USA has a higher murder rate which depresses our life expectancy a bit.
BJM:
LOL. Fat druggies. What a great country we have! :)
Ann Althouse said...
@jayne Yes. It's the mantra of the Obama administration.
7:49 AM
Althouse, you seem to be very hateful towards the kindly Obama administration lately. Are you sure that someone shouldn't play the RACE CARD????
Hillary Clinton is living proof that a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Hillary Clinton is living proof that a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
3:45 PM
She seems to be quite accomplished for a supposed idiot? Lawyer, helped her husband get elected POTUS, elected to the Senate and Secretary of State. What have you accomplished compared to Hillary?
Anyone notice that the WH & Dem leadership are channeling Jake Blues today?
Alex, perhaps you haven't see this?
"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton opened her first extended talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov by giving him a present meant to symbolize the Obama administration’s vow to “press the reset button” on U.S.-Russia relations.
She handed a palm-sized box wrapped with a bow. Lavrov opened it and pulled out the gift: a red button on a black base with a Russian word peregruzka printed on top.
“We worked hard to get the right Russian word. Do you think we got it?” Clinton asked.
“You got it wrong,” Lavrov said.
Instead of “reset,” Lavrov said the word on the box meant “overcharge.”
We're in deep doo-doo.
BJM:
That is too funny. This new admin boasted they were going to use "smart diplomacy".
I wonder what DTL will say to excuse this goof-up?
...elected to the Senate and Secretary of State...
I did not realize that the Secretary of State was an elected position.
As to the rest of your drivel, it is obvious you read her autobiography, the only known documentation of her accomplishments. Hillary Clinton married Bill. One and only accomplishment.
She is the Tammy Wynette of politics- "Stand by your man...
Seriously Now?'s link done right.
Having said that, I don't see anything in there about taking advantage of a crisis. He does talk about an emergency necessitating deficit spending--is that what you mean?
That's a reach.
Oh, I see your earlier post.
I see the most tenuous connection at best.
Peter V. Bella - you are just a hateful Hillary Clinton person hater you! Be nice to Hillary Clinton!
Let's give Hillary some credit. When she runs off a tarmac at an airport, snipers are unable to take her out.
Zach said...
"The problem with the FDR comparisons is that the market crashed in 1929. FDR was elected in 1932, inaugurated in '33."
Actually, the situation is closer to today's than you might realise.
The market in the 30s had more than one 'crash' and it crashed and declined after FDR was in office also. Much like this recession started before Obama was elected, stocks had declined, and then it continued to tank after he was in office.
Your more biased history books leave out the second crash but I just had a History course that did have it in their book (which was reassuring to see that it had not gone down the memory hole altogether)…
Ann, I hope you agree with the sentiment.
Because you keep voting for people who are open advocates of the concept.
"incentivize people to use good behavior"..
The "incentives" I have picked up from Team Obama are punishments.
In his race to do everything all at once (is he ADD?) he is going to "lower" taxes on low income people and whallop them with energy taxes because they will be unable to go green enough to conform to the new wet dream energy restrictions. (Not to mention unable to afford them.)
In the real world of give and take people like to know they are seen as being reasonable people. Team Obama is dispectful of people by "incentivizing" them.
Something like "collectivizing" that just leaves a really bad taste in my mouth.
It's become increasingly painful to read the news. Obama is turning out to be pretty much as horrible as I'd thought.
They're acting like a 1970s era Rolling Stones afterparty, trashing the place and boozing it up and pissing on the plants.
It's just so goddamned unbelieveable. I can hardly stomach it. Each day Obama adds more burdens to the people, just when they should be lightened. He punishes the producers, the savers, the ones who are the engines of commerce. He just crushes them like little bugs, and smiles that smug little smile.
I am especially aggrieved because I know this will end in global violence, just like before.
They think this will all just blow over in a year or two, and back to business. But not this time. This is going to get very very ugly. Very soon.
As for federal health care -- & Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security -- ?
You do not want the Federal government managing your health care.
I have had to deal with them in a couple different roles the past couple years.
I think it's something like plumbing. The more constraints you put between the faucet and the source, the more energy is lost, the more problems there are. The more likely it is to malfunction, the more costly and inefficient it is.
The government has lost any sense of accountability to We the People. And now that we have an anti-business president with no experience in the business world, the idea that the government should function in an efficient, break even way is incomprehensible.
"The problem with the FDR comparisons is that the market crashed in 1929. FDR was elected in 1932, inaugurated in '33."
You are so wrong!! Very wrong!!! According to the mental midget, Mensa moron, crepuscular cretin, intellectual idiot, and great historian, vice president Joe Biden; In 1929 President Roosevelt addressed the nation on television to assure them that everything was being done to stem the tide of the financial collapse.
Who are you going to believe? Some dumb real historians or the vice president of the United States?
You have to love the look on Hillary's face in this photo and wonder what is going through her mind at that moment.
Might she be wondering why she gave up a safe senate seat and a another run at the WH?
Whomever was responsible for the button thingie has no doubt been banished to a remote outpost to spend whats left of their career processing visas from a yurt.
I speculated at dinner tonight that the "whomever" above was the lone Republican in the State Department getting even.
And do you mean to tell me we don't have a single native Russian speaker working for the State Department? Don't we bring along our own translators as 'insurance?'
I thought it was Arabic we needed!
But giving the Russian Foreign Minister a Staples Easy Button is taking this "bearing gifts" thing to a new low.
You have to love the look on Hillary's face in this photo and wonder what is going through her mind at that moment.
Woah...I don't know about her but what is going through my mind looking at that photo is ..
"Wow...look at that receeding hairline!!!. This woman desperately needs to get some estrogen to combat the male pattern baldness syndrome that she seems to be developing."
"Must be that she really does have all the balls in her family."
also I think:
"She should fire her stylist. Do they never look at her from other angles than full frontal Hillary?"
You have to imagine not only that Bush is openly saying after 9/11, this is a crisis that we shouldn't waste, that we should see as an opportunity to do all the many things we've wanted to do -- like overthrow Saddam.
You have to also imagine that Bush didn't go after any terrorist groups in Afghanistan, the Phillippines, Yemen, the West.
You have to imagine that Bush ignored terrorism completely, the way Obama has ignored the banking crisis, the credit crunch, the stock market collapse.
Nationalising education? Socialising health care? A carbon cap? They are exploiting the banking crisis, but not addressing it.
To actually deal with the crisis, it seems, is to let it "go to waste."
Rahm Emanuel is such a scum-bag. Hillary isn't far off.
Two Columbia Profs named Piven & Cloward had a thesis that explained "forcing political change through orchestrated crisis that Saul Alinsky's esoteric teachings were based on. I had this explained to me at length by none other than Mark Rudd in 1969, where he crashed in my Ann Arbor "pad" during an SDS national get-together. I also got to meet Bill Ayers and his soon-to-explode bombmaker girlfriend Diana Oughton. Mark may have been quoting his Columbia profs Piven and Cloward when he told me: "Dave, the secret is 'dare to cheat, dare to win.'"
Methinks Obama & his inner posse appear well-versed in Alinsky/Piven/Cloward crisis agenda strategy & tactics.
P.S., Hillary wrote her senior thesis at Wellesley on Alinsky. Methinks she will be a SCOTUS if Ginsberg steps down.
..And Obama said essentially the same thing Saturday in his radio address. When will the country wake up and catch on to these con artists???
Taranto writes: "Blogress Ann Althouse, an Obama supporter..."...
Well if this is factual than whatever little respect I had for Althouse has now evolved into an understanding of what an 'abysmally stupid sow Althouse is'...
keep in mind that Alinsky/Cloward/Piven strategy.
I was reading about the connect at the American Thinker.
Once you start seeing the connect and consider such statements, it can only mean one thing - Obama is behind the present crisis (and that statement is not all that far fetched when you start checking out some historical facts about Obama and his association with ACORN, including his lobbying to allow low income earners access to mortgages without having a deposit)
Check it out.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा