Archive for George W. Bush

Which President Reduced Our Nuclear Arsenal More – George W. Bush Or Barack Obama?

Our favorite Nobel Peace Prize winner has cut fewer nukes that any other modern President.

Proving once again just how full of sh*t the Left is:

OVES who once cheered President Obama for his antinuclear crusades and later fell silent as he backpedaled are now lining up to denounce him. A recent skewering by the Federation of American Scientists details how Mr. Obama, despite calling repeatedly for “a world without nuclear weapons,” has reduced the size of the nation’s atomic stockpile far less than did any of his three immediate predecessors, including both Presidents Bush.

Critics are calling out the president not only for modest cuts but also for spending more than previous administrations to modernize the remaining arms and for authorizing a new generation of weapon carriers. They call the upgrades an enormous waste of money, citing estimates that put the nation’s costs over the next three decades at up to a trillion dollars.

Mr. Obama should “suspend plans to develop a new arsenal,” Joe Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, a private group in San Francisco, wrote recently in an op-ed article in The Los Angeles Times. He argued that the move would save money and advance global security. “Unless something is done soon,” he wrote, “we will buy thousands of new hydrogen bombs and mount them on hundreds of new missiles and planes.”

The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, a Washington-based network of organizations, recently condemned the administration’s plans as “the largest expansion of funding on nuclear weapons since the fall of the Soviet Union.”

Some critics, while conceding short-term gains from Mr. Obama’s cuts, say the benefits pale in comparison to the risks the administration runs in rebuilding bomb plants and modernizing arms. Some warn that the upgrades could allow a future president to rapidly expand the nation’s atomic forces and have already set a bad example for other nations.

The Arms Control Association, a private group in Washington, recently issued a report, “The Unaffordable Arsenal,” that argued that more cuts “could help induce other nuclear-armed states to exercise greater restraint.”

For its part, the White House defends its record as sensible for the times, noting that previous cuts were easy after the collapse of Cold War tensions and that today Congress has fought major reductions. Indeed, it took the administration’s backing of wide modernization to get Senate Republicans to ratify a modest 2010 arms treaty with Moscow. And officials have defended the weapon upgrades as paving the way for future arms cuts and have called the high costs unavoidable, since old arms require more extensive refurbishments.

If you go to the link, there is a chart. George W. Bush cut the most, by quite a lot. I wonder if libs ever feel embarrassed?

– Aggie

Comments (1)

George W. Who?

After five years of Obama, it’s almost as if Bush never happened:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has urged residents of the embattled city of Fallujah to force out insurgents linked to al-Qaeda who have taken control there.

Mr Maliki said if the people expelled what he called terrorists, they would be spared military action.

Iraqi forces are preparing to recapture the city, which has been out of government control for days.

Hundreds have already fled shelling and air strikes by government forces.

Mr Maliki called on “the people of Fallujah and its tribes to expel the terrorists” so “their areas are not subjected to the danger of armed clashes”, state television reported.

The former Iraqi national security adviser, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, has told the BBC it was impossible to defend all of Iraq from attacks by the al-Qaeda-linked militants the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, known as ISIS.

At least Obama kept his promise to get our boys out!

Where else did he say he’d do that?

A young Afghan girl has been detained wearing a suicide vest in southern Afghanistan, officials say.

She was held on Sunday night in Helmand province, as she tried to carry out an attack on border police, an interior ministry spokesman told the BBC.

The girl, reported to be as young as eight and thought to be the sister of a prominent Taliban commander, is said to be in a state of shock and confusion.

Police told the BBC she was encouraged to carry out the attack by her brother.

Awww, sweet!

Al Qaeda and the Taliban terrorizing innocent Muslims across Asia and the Middle East, especially little girls: it’s almost like the years 2001-2009 never existed!

More on the Al Qaeda-ization of Iraq:

The climactic battles of the American War in Iraq were fought in Anbar Province, with U.S. forces at great cost retaking the city of Fallujah at the end of 2004 and Ramadi, the provincial capital, in 2006-07. The latter success was sparked by an unlikely alliance with tribal fighters that turned around what had been a losing war effort and made possible the success of what became known as “the surge.” By 2009, violence had fallen more than 90%, creating an unexpected opportunity to build a stable, democratic and prosperous country in the heart of the Middle East.

It is now obvious that this opportunity has been squandered, with tragic consequences for the entire region. In recent days the Iraqi army appears to have been pushed, at least temporarily, out of Fallujah and Ramadi by al Qaeda in Iraq militants. A battle is raging for control of Anbar Province with some tribal fighters supporting the government and others AQI. Mosul, the major city of northern Iraq and a longtime hotbed of AQI activity, could be next to fall. If it does, AQI would gain effective control of the Sunni Triangle, an area north and west of Baghdad the size of New England.

AQI’s control would stretch beyond the Sunni Triangle because its offshoot, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, dominates a significant portion of Syrian territory across the border. This creates the potential for a new nightmare: an al Qaeda state incorporating northern Syria and western Iraq.

We’ve had tens of thousands of troops in Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc. for how many decades? And this limp-di*ked loser can’t manage to keep won what thousands gave their lives to win?

Hard as it may be to concede, this failure may be the worst, the most inexcusable, of his myriad failures.

Comments

Told You So

Rush and I called it:

The co-author of the new book “Dallas 1963” says Tea Party members of today are just like the radical political protestors who hated President John F. Kennedy decades ago, that there’s parallels between modern Tea Party rhetoric and the heated political climate that contributed to JFK’s assassination.

“It’s defining your political opponent as an enemy of the state, and this is the same instinct that flared up in Nazi Germany when the Nazis took over,” co-author Steven L. Davis said in an interview with The College Fix.

The parallel is uncanny. Except that Kennedy was killed by an avowed, unabashed Commie. Not a Nazi. Kennedy was virulently anti-Commie, it must be noted—see Cuba, Berlin, Vietnam, etc. By Kennedy, it must also be noted, I mean John, not Ted, who two decades later wrote gushing love letters to ex-KGB goon Yuri Andropov, conspiring to thwart President Reagan’s efforts toward strong national defense. Ted Kennedy was more like Lee Harvey Oswald than any Texas right-winger.

A state Kennedy won, by the way.

But don’t let that stop you!

“(Kennedy) was seen as very threatening to people and basically the status quo, as is Obama,” Davis said. “And so people who oppose that are the ones leading those attacks.”

People…ewww. Don’tcha just hate ‘em?

Davis recalled a visit to Dallas that Obama made at the start of the Tea Party movement where he was met with protestors just as Kennedy had during his presidency. According to Davis, Obama was greeted by these protestors with signs that read “traitor to America,” “Obama wanted for treason,” “Obama un-American” and “impeach Obama.”

These signs, Davis said, were the same kind Kennedy faced in his visit to Dallas.

“And every single person in that audience was white, which should tell you a little something,” Davis said about the protest against Obama.

Davis said protesters during President George W. Bush’s tenure that depicted him as Hitler were a much smaller part of his opposition than those similarly criticizing Obama now.

This is scholarship?

Untitled

Hey, white people! What does that tell us, perfessor?

Comments (2)

BTL, Here’s A Funny One

– Aggie

Comments

The Green Green Grass of Ft. Belvoir

With President Bush’s blessing, President Obama returns to the golf course:

As House Republicans were meeting in a rare weekend session, President Obama stuck to his Saturday routine and went golfing.

Mr. Obama arrived at Fort Belvoir in Virginia just after noon on a seasonably comfortable day with scattered clouds. The White House said that Mr. Obama’s partners were two presidential staff members, Joe Paulsen and Marvin Nicholson, and Mr. Nicholson’s brother, Walter.

Bush excused these obsessive golf outings due to the stress a president faces. Boy, president Obama must be under a lot of stress!

BTW, Bush grants Obama privileges he never granted himself. He stopped playing golf while American GIs were fighting and dying overseas.

Comments

George W. Bush To Undergo Heart Surgery? [Update]

Drudge is reporting this. If true, we wish him and his family the best. Ah, the surgery is complete.

Former President George W. Bush underwent surgery on Tuesday to have a stent inserted after a blockage was discovered in an artery, his spokesman said.
A written statement said a “blockage was discovered in an artery in his heart” during the former president’s annual physical exam.
“The procedure was performed successfully this morning, without complication, at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital,” his office said.
“President Bush is in high spirits, eager to return home tomorrow and resume his normal schedule on Thursday. He is grateful to the skilled medical professionals who have cared for him. He thanks his family, friends, and fellow citizens for their prayers and well wishes. And he encourages us all to get our regular check-ups.”

So… one of the things that I have noticed with our new health care plan is that EKGs are not performed on a routine visit during the annual. I wonder what test was used to discover the problem?

– Aggie

Comments

George Bush, Right Again

Like to see them try this with Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney at the circuit breaker!

Violence exploded in Iraq over the past 24 hours near Baghdad and in Mosul, leaving nearly 50 people dead and hundreds of al Qaeda-linked militants free in a massive jailbreak, authorities said Monday.

Security forces battled militants outside two major penitentiaries near the Iraqi capital of Baghdad and thwarted prison breaks, the Justice Ministry said Monday. The incidents occurred Sunday night at Abu Ghraib, west of Baghdad, and al-Taji prison, north of the capital.

The Justice Ministry said well-armed “terrorist groups” attacked the prisons simultaneously using mortars. They also carried rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns, and were accompanied by suicide bombers and car bombs, the ministry said.

The attacks coincided with riots by inmates who set fires inside the prisons, the ministry said. At least 21 inmates and at least eight prison guards were killed, it said, while 25 inmates and 14 guards were wounded.

More than 500 inmates escaped from the two jails Sunday night, lawmaker Hakim al-Zamili said Monday. Most were from al Qaeda in Iraq, and some were senior members of the group.

It’s hard to run too fast with a leash around your neck.

I don’t condone the senseless exploitation of terrorists, as depicted above. But then I don’t condone terrorists, either. I do condone the reasonable exploitation of terrorists for intelligence. I also condone the incarceration of them indefinitely if they are deemed a perpetual danger to society. So on the whole, President Bush has been proved right. Again.

Comments

Islamists Promise “Intifada”!

Terror war

Hey, BTL! Wanna go on a cruise this summer? We could ask all of our Unitarian friends to band together with us and rent a boat, fill it with stale crackers and expired ibuprofen, and head off to Egypt to help the Islamists!! Why not? We could report to our loyal readers from the ship! I’m so glad there isn’t an extra charge for lots of these: !!!!!!

Pro- and anti-Morsi factions staged competing rallies in Cairo, with those who supported last week’s military intervention attacking US President Barack Obama for his alleged support of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Mr Morsi’s supporters marched on the defence ministry and the Republican Guard headquarters promising to free the former president from detention. But they failed to bring enough people on the streets to pose a threat either to the army or to the dominant anti-Morsi cause in the capital.

“We will continue our peaceful demonstrations,” Ahmed Aref, the senior Brotherhood spokesman, told The Daily Telegraph. “We are the owners of a just cause. Legitimate rights do not disappear with time. We are facing an enforced disappearance of the legitimate president.”
But there were more dramatic calls for resistance from militant groups.

Salafi Jihad issued a call to “intifada”, a “clarion call for Islamic revolution”.

“Anyone who knows an advocate or a sheikh or a revolutionary should call him to urge him to mobilise,” a statement said.
There has already been an upsurge in militant violence since the generals ousted Mr Morsi, particularly in Sinai, long a hotbed of jihadist activity.
Intelligence reports have warned of a build-up of weapons, some stolen from Gaddafi arms stores in Libya, some headed for Gaza but held up by the block on smugglers’ tunnels.

Allow me to point out the stupidity of this American administration, and the previous one. A build-up of weapons, some stolen from Gaddafi arms stores in Libya? Wasn’t it Barack Obama who went into Libya like the dolt that he is, freeing those arms to be used to murder Egyptian civilians? And how ’bout that W? Didn’t he insist that Gaza should hold “elections”? Elections is in quotes, because they got just one election. Predictably Hamas won. And immediately began throwing Fatah members off the rooftops, killing the kids in front of the parents, etc. Isn’t it time for our State Department to cozy up to reality?

– Aggie

Comments

Blacks, Hispanics Buy Houses; Blacks, Hispanics Hardest Hit

If you’re not a die-hard conservative after reading this story, you’re either brain dead or, worse, a liberal for life:

Banks’ unfair treatment of African-Americans and Hispanics did not cause the housing bubble that that crashed the economy in 2007, a new economic study found.

Claims of racism are undercut because “black and Hispanic homeowners had much higher rates of delinquency and default in the downturn,” even when they had similar credit scores, according to the 41-page study titled “The Vulnerability of Minority Homeowners in the Housing Boom and Bust.”

“Our findings [...] raise serious concerns about [government policies that boost] homeownership as a mechanism for reducing racial disparities in wealth,” said the report, which was authored by three university professors.

Let’s pause for a word from our lawyers: BTL.com is an inclusive, diverse website that does not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, sex, or IQ score. (There are no stupid people, just stupid comments.)

With that mutually understood, may we look at the facts?

The housing bubble was inflated by federal policies created during President Bill Clinton, then expanded by President George W. Bush. The policies were supported by Senator and then President Barack Obama.

The policies were intended to help low-skilled Americans — especially African-Americans — and Hispanic immigrants gain housing wealth by pushing down credit-related mortgage requirements.

But the government policy had the reverse effect, when the housing collapse after 2007 eliminated much of the wealth held by African-Americans and Hispanics.

Since the 2007 crash, Obama and his Democrats allies have argued the crash was caused by greedy bankers’ unfair and illegal treatment of African-Americans and Hispanic borrowers.

The new report about the housing-bubble was published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, by authors Patrick Bayer, Fernando Ferreira and Stephen Ross.

“More than 1 in 10 black and Hispanic homeowners in our sample had a delinquent mortgage by 2009, compared to 1 in 25 for white households, and a similar pattern held for foreclosure rates,” said the report.

However, “racial and ethnic differences in foreclosure are tiny for homes that were originally purchased from 1998 to 2003 [when the bubble remains small], but substantial for homeowners who originally purchased their homes between 2004 and 2007,” the report said.

“These results call into question the [government policy] of encouraging homeownership as a general mechanism for reducing racial disparities in wealth… [because] such a push may backfire, leaving vulnerable households in a difficult financial situation and adversely affecting their wealth and credit-worthiness for years,” the report concluded.

I don’t say that blacks and Hispanics are necessarily deadbeats at a higher rate than whites—from 1998 to 2003 they weren’t. But government intervention—during George W. Bush’s administration—made them so.

The facts of life are conservative, Margaret Thatcher sagely observed. The sooner the rest of us learn that, if ever, the better off we’ll be. At this point, I don’t think there’s a choice: it’s survival under conservatism, or crash and chaos under liberalism.

Comments

IMPEACH!

Hear hear!

Democrat Elizabeth Holtzman of New York, who sat on the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate era, powerfully yet dispassionately lays out the case for the immediate impeachment of the president.

“Nothing less is necessary to protect our constitutional system and preserve our democracy,” she declares.

The last straw for the retired Congresswoman was the revelation that the president “directed the wiretapping of hundreds, possibly thousands, of Americans” (a number that is likely conservative).

“As a matter of constitutional law, these and other misdeeds constitute grounds for the impeachment,” writes Holtzman in her bombshell treatise. “A President, any President, who maintains that he is above the law — and repeatedly violates the law — thereby commits high crimes and misdemeanors, the constitutional standard for impeachment and removal from office.”

The eloquent Harvard Law grad provides a devastating legal critique of the vast executive-branch scheme to log every phone call in the United States.

“It now appears that thousands of calls were monitored and that the information obtained may have been widely circulated among federal agencies,” Holtzman writes.

To give away the joke, this was Holtzman on Bush in 2006. Strangely, she has been silent on President Obama’s identical charges.

Go figure.

PS: In a related story…

The number of wiretaps secured in federal criminal investigations jumped 71 percent in 2012 over the previous year, according to newly released figures.

“This is just one more piece of evidence demonstrating the need for a full, informed public debate about the scope, breadth, and pervasiveness of government surveillance in this country,” Mark Rumold, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said in an e-mail. “We have a secret surveillance program churning in the background, sweeping in everyone’s communications, and, at the same time, in the shadows (and frequently under seal), law enforcement is constantly expanding its use and reliance on surveillance in traditional criminal investigations.”

Isn’t that right, Congresswoman Holtzman?

Congresswoman Holtzman?

Hello…?

Comments

I Miss These Guys

I don’t miss George Bush so much. I generally supported his policies, but found him too deferential to the liberal establishment.

His enforcers, however, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld—them I miss:

Donald Rumsfeld, who served as defense secretary under Bush from 2001-2006, said Obama has “blamed the Bush administration for practically everything since he took office.”

Rumsfeld said the United States has not engaged terrorism ideologically in the same way it took on Communism during the Cold War.

“I gave us a D-minus, and I’m an easy grader. I would give this administration an F, because they won’t even use the words,” said Rumsfeld.

“Until today, I haven’t heard people use the word jihad. I haven’t heard the people in the Obama administration talk about the fact that there are people that are determined to kill innocent men, women, and children that are attacking the whole concept of the nation state,” said Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld also took issue with Obama’s assertion that al Qaeda had “been gutted.”

“That just simply isn’t true. Al Qaeda is still effective. We have killed or captured any number of al Qaeda leadership, and they get replaced.

Drones were not started by the Obama administration; there were drone attacks during the Bush years as well.

“We had very few when I came into office. They were increased, and this administration has the benefit of those unmanned aerial vehicles,” said Rumsfeld.

But Rumsfeld said that it is a very tough issue, and agreed with Obama’s statement that the administration would consider options for making drone strikes more transparent, like an independent oversight board, or a special court to approve the attacks.

“Going to the Congress and discussing it with them and getting them on board for some policy – that makes sense to the American people, so that he has that kind of support. He will need it,” said Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld said there is one particular rule he would give to Obama.

“When I was a Navy pilot, the rule if you’re lost is to climb, conserve, and confess. Get some altitude. Take a deep breath, and get on the radio and say, you’re lost,” said Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld said the administration changes its tune “week after week after week, whether it’s Benghazi or whether it’s the Internal Revenue Service.”

“What you need to do is get the people in the office, sit them down, and find ground truth, because the currency a leader has is credibility,” said Rumsfeld.

President Obama has followed most of that advice. He got the people in the office, sat them down—and concocted a cover story. Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video, and the myriad abuses by the federal government happened because of a few rogue junior personnel. That’s their story, and they’re sticking to it.


Watching Lois Lerner take the Fifth.

Comments

The Commander in Chief

I don’t expect the president to know everything going on under his command—the government is so vast, as David Axelrod reminds us—but let’s at least consider President Obama’s complicity in this:

In the days since the Defense Department’s May 7 release of its 2012 Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military, the media and lawmakers have been abuzz. The report’s estimate that last year 26,000 service members experienced unwanted sexual contact prompted many to conclude, incorrectly, that this reliably estimated the number of victims of sexual assault.

The 2012 estimate was also significantly higher than the last estimate, causing some to proclaim a growing “epidemic” of sexual assault in the military. The truth is that the 26,000 figure is such bad math—derived from an unscientific sample set and extrapolated military-wide—that no conclusions can be drawn from it.

Here is what we do know: The actual number of reported sexual assaults in the military in 2012 was 3,374, up from 3,192 in 2011. These figures include reports by civilians against service members. Of the 3,374 total cases reported last year, only 12%-14% were reported by men.

Whatever the number, we can all agree that one is too many. As the C-in-C, what is President Obama’s responsibility, even his complicity? We know he’s not above abusing the military himself.

Earlier, I expressed to Aggie in a comment that the “what if Bush” construct was pretty worn out—yet still vital to understanding today’s political landscape. What if sexual abuse had been rampant (or seen to be rampant) in the military under President Bush? The media elites would have been all over the story like flies on s-s-s-ugar. Gauntanamo, Abu Ghraib, waterboarding, they would have seen everything as contributing to sexual assault in armed forces.

Watch how easy (if dishonest) it is: President Obama’s demeaning attitude toward women, which has shown itself early and often, leads to a hostile environment in the military that serves under him. Calling a woman reporter “Sweetie”, saying Hillary was “likable enough”: could he be any more patronizing? Saying he wouldn’t want his daughters “stuck with a baby” shows a disrespect for the biological uniqueness of women (whether they choose to have children or not). His inner circle (to say nothing of his golfing buddies) is so estrogen deprived, it’s practically in menopause.

No wonder there’s so much sexual assault in the military (or there isn’t, who knows, who cares, that’s not my point). Misogyny comes from the top down. The only difference between my argument and an argument against Bush is that mine is based on fact.

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »