Open thread: the Obama inauguration
For those of you who are near a TV and are planning to watch, here’s a thread where you can talk amongst yourself about the inaugural festivities.
A few liveblogging thoughts:
I find the expressions on the faces of the people while they are inside the Capitol, before they see the crowd and get their special public faces completely arranged, to be informative.
Bill Clinton looked especially grim, and then he bit his lip and started to flash the usual smile as he stepped outside. Obama’s face was a combination of mostly unreadable but serious emotions; he only started to look relaxed and smiley as he went before the crowd, just as Clinton had.
In contrast, Hillary looked happy from the start. Perhaps she actually is; who knows? Laura Bush was her customary gracious and lovely self, with a serenity that was reflected in her simple outfit. Michelle Obama looked pleased, but I have to say her yellow sparkly brocade extravaganza, complete with leather gloves of a hideous green hue, did the usually elegantly-dressed First-Lady-to-be no favors (and speaking of fashion, Aretha Franklin is certainly not given to shy and retiring headgear, although she’s in fine voice).
But the person whose demeanor impressed me most of all was President Bush: it was consistent and unchanging. He looked relieved and happy, both as he walked through the Capitol and when he emerged into the daylight. There is no question in my mind that he is overjoyed to be out of it at last. The man never had a moment of peace during his two terms of office.
Oath of office completed, with a few glitches. Let the wild rumpus start!
What gets me, to the bone, is we do all this without bloodshed.
The Bushes are out of the White House, not to return … for how long? Until a national figure dies? They are adults; life moves on; yet they must be moving forward while carrying strong feelings about leaving a place they lived and loved, filled with individuals they loved.
Juan Williams notices the black faces on the podium; so I notice the white faces who are delighted to be there, delighted to be governed by a man with a black face. It’s good for America to see this. I hope a lot of people are watching.
Biden’s Mom is not taking any guff from anybody. That military aide is there to serve her. She’s doing to make @#$% sure he properly attends to his job. I suddenly realize why Biden is smarter than the rest of us, why he is the most well prepared VP in history.
I love Laura Bush. I just love her.
Olberman, in a reverent voice – filled with wonder:
“This is all really happening.”
Tomorrow all the troops will come home from Iraq or it will be said: “Obama is lying, people are dying”. The problem with idolotry is the members of the inner sactum cut each other’s throats in an attempt to curry favor with the Savior. That does not bode well for strategic planning. The question is not if Obama will own the economy but rather how long corporate America will choose to own him.
I’m proud of our country’s ability to transfer the reigns of power without bloodshed.
I’m also relieved and proud to see that republicans, independents, conservatives and libertarians are behaving like adults and not acting out in infantile rage like the left and the democrats did in January 2001.
The presidential silverware and gifts will all be where they belong. Offices will not be trashed and the ‘O’ key will still be on the keyboards of all staff computers.
gcotharn, that military aide is not there to “serve” Biden’s mother. He serves the United States of America, and performs whatever duties are assigned to him to the best of his ability. But, he is not a servant to anyone. I am not watching this extravaganza but if that woman was churlish to one of our country’s finest, then shame on her.
Neo, I am not surprised that George W. Bush’s demeanor is unchanging. Consistency and steadfastness are his hallmark features. How can he not be glad to step out of the glare? The only person I would expect to be happier, is Laura Bush. Oh, how we will miss them.
I wouldn’t say Biden’s Mom was rude. She was just ensuring that she was attended to in a fashion commensurate with her status.
Cheney in a wheelchair only adds to he legend! Resonates of Mr. Potter, of “It’s a Wonderful Life”, and of Ebeneezer Scrooge.
I loved the way the orchestra was trying to jam to something that doesn’t jam … otherwise it was a beautiful ceremony!
The thing about Laura Bush: grace, class, yet there are certain pretensions up with which she will not put. Texans admire this. It’s very old school Texas, very Midland/Odessa 1950s. Certain pretensions are countenanced only by fools, or by contemptible jackasses, and are absolutely not respected.
I could not bring myself to watch it. It’s going to be a long four years.
i am less concerned with the dog and pony show than the fact that AQ closed theri camps because they released plag ue and it killed 40..
a 200 million boon dogle, to resurect a republican (lincoln) to become a democrat, and channel FDR, whose policies were thrown out because they were com munist… which is why revision history has him as a hero… when they say his policies worked, do they mean worked to make this a com munist feudal state, or worked to make the economy better?
without the object of the concept, we pick what we think it is. but often, as orwell said, they speak with a dual mind… FDR is liked and celebrated by the socialists as nearly making the US com munist with his policies and granting total power to the rulers who are slaves of the people. he is not loved for his economics, which is the assumption we are all making, and what we then spend weeks trying to pound that square peg into the round hole, never understanding, and after doing so, the information never fitting so we get better at knowing. (which should tell us too)
shall we also remember that the great socialist conflagration (later called holo/caust), as predicted by engels, was sweeping the world, till the christian/jewish west put the fire out… we will not be so lucky now… for it may be that they like FDR because FDR nearly made com munism succeed…
[hate the spam thing.. no ryme or reason to it and no way to comply]
[hate the spam thing.. no ryme or reason to it and no way to comply]
everyone should be VERY afraid… because almost everyone here has no experience living under a non western mode of state… or a historical mode of state, like feudalism… (of the kind that our forefathers faught to give us freedom from).
today they are a lot more clever with the policies. in the past, they would just kill or work to death for their political ends. today, they use administration and promotion by appointment to do the same thing with better productive outcomes.
take the elderly… they get substandard care.. so we pay less for them, than they would alone… we then forbid them to use their own money… that way they hasten the end… and whn they are sick, we are administratively slow. so that they cost less. couple that with inheritance laws, and the state can get a big pile o money when the codger kicks off…
AND the best part is that they dont get in trouble for it!!! they are never held to task, and they are rewarded for how bad tey do!! (solve the problem, close the department and jobs)…
so we have put in place most of the same things, but under different means and names. eugenics – planned parenthood. euthanasia – assisted suicide, death by administration, seizures of property, and on and on… no fault divorce, free love… indoctrinating schools modeld after the soviets. s ex education… dumbing down the population… compartmentalizing their knowlege… delegation of power… ignoring the constution… and on and on..
i just wonder at what point is it enough to say its enough?
we have schools that are horrid…
we have CPS with more power to enter a home without a warrant and remove children!!! a cop cant even check if a robber stole something, but a beuracrat can remove kids… and get their organizaiton a bounty for it… then another one for placing it… and so on…
once this passes the point of no return… worrying about how the pubilc will take a policy.. (and having to play games to introduce it), will become a quaint old kind of thing.
we dont get it… but we just traded ourselves, our children, and everything to be state property. (if the state owns everyting, and you live on something, then they own you as you cant sit in a boat on the ocean for the rest of your life…)
when i own the property, can i cut a tree down?
of course
when i own the property, can i cull a herd?
of course
when its people do the rules change?
of course NOT…
since rights now come from the state, we have none excdept what they grant us. and since life is a right, we have no right to life…
you think the women in china who get forced sterlized think they have a right to their lives?
and once we pass this point.. all the other regimes will also revert… why should they not do so? after all, its only the US, and its people, and their meddling that stops them.
just remember “the band played on” wasnt orignally a phrase that went with aids its history is elswhere.
Enjoy the past if you’re old enough
Enjoy what you have now
Freedoms bell has been cracked and will not sound anymore, for we ha te freedom, and it does not stay where it isn’t welcome and defended.
If he can Stal inize Lin coln and F D/R, he and others can hide freedom…
somewher in that last post is a word or combination that is not allowed…nothing went in till i broke up words with odd characters.
sheesh
Free society is such that a man knows he can better his condition; he knows that there is no fixed condition of labor his whole life. I am not ashamed to confess that twenty-five years ago I was a hired laborer, mauling rails, at work on a flatboat – what might happen to any poor man’s son. I want every man to have the chance – and I believe a black man is entitled to it — in which he can better his condition — when he may look forward and hope to be a hired laborer this day and the next, work for himself, and finally to hire men to work for him. That is the true system
And so it may go on and on in one ceaseless round so long as man exists on the face of the earth. abraham lincoln..
This fabulous comment
from the influential and clever lefty blog Washington Monthly gets right to the core meaning of what happened with the Oath flub:
I think Justice Roberts fucking up the oath is a perfect symbol of the transfer of power. Roberts deciding to “wing-it W-style” didn’t use notes and ended up fucking up a very historic event. Obama, in contrast, was left trying to fix the half cocked mess. What a wonderful symbol for what Bush is handing off and the different approaches of the two administrations.
Posted by: palinoscopy on January 20, 2009 at 1:29 PM
I note right-leaning sites are already angling to blame Obama instead (no surprise), Breitbart (a Drudge affiliate/ish) has under “upcoming headlines”:
Obama Screws Up Oath
BTW Obama’s speech was great IMHO but I wish he’d addressed Israel/Palestine directly.
The last several months are a foreshadowing of a new era of government activism, rather than an unfortunate but necessary (and anomalous) emergency action. We will soon shift from a market-based economy to a political one in which the government picks winners and losers and extends its reach and power in unprecedented ways. -brookesnews
Olberman, in a reverent voice – filled with wonder:
“This is all really happening.”
Yes, D’olberman, you’re not being dragged out of the broadcast booth by the FBI to be shot in the street like a rabid dog.
So much for the “Bush will sieze power and rule as an emperor” crowd…
Darth, I also wondered how lefties reconciled their widely touted views that Bush would seize power with their expectations of this day. No truer insight could be had into a) the power of agitprop, and/or b) the left’s propensity for self-delusion.
“BTW Obama’s speech was great IMHO…”
Really? Quote me one line from it from memory.
…
I thought it was pretty bad, a real downer on what should be a joyous day, and a real chance to raise the spirits of people, instead became a nag and a disjointed and awkwardly phrased one at that. Full of bad cliches as well. It was also a pretty hard left lurch from the moderate call he’s been on message with.
Errm, I am just an ignorant Brit. So can somebody, preferably gcotharn, explain to me: what is the Vice-President’s mother’s status? Is it written into the Constitution. I thought I had read it all but can’t recall anything about the Veep’s mum.
I could not tell who botched the swearing in – was it Justice Roberts or was it President Obama. Media did not pick it up right away – the way they used to do with W. But it was quite noticeable.
I did like the line about extending a hand to Muslim governments if they are willing to unclench their fists, Douglas.
explain to me: what is the Vice-President’s mother’s status?
Sweet Fresh Air….
“Who messed up”…?
The way I heard it, Roberts did initially, saying “will execute the office….faithfully”. Then Obama nearly repeated verbatim, but, giggling, corrected himself and Roberts, also giggling at this point, said “will fatihfully execute….”, correcting himself.
It happens. Just ask Biden’s wife.
If America’s free society has a chance to be saved, something tells me Obama and not McCain being sworn in increases our chances in a weird sort of way. A cultural shift of some kind thats the equivalent of lefties getting glimpses of reality is what i’m hoping for. A McCain presidency would have had zero chance of any movement on this monumental problem.
Re Biden’s mom
made an extemporaneous judgment: it’s okay to have fun w/Biden’s Mom. I respect Biden’s mom. She raised a VP. She must have done a huge number of things right. She could teach me a thing or two, I’ve no doubt.
Although I am not an Obama supporter, today I was very proud to be an American.
I invite you to read my comments.
This was a great day for America. Tomorrow, I’ll worry about whether Obama’s actions please me.
Shouting Thomas,
I read your comments and I liked them. But I just want to say that race should not matter at all. It has never mattered for me. Honestly. I was that way as a kid (I was born in ’55 and am a week shy of my 54th) and nothing has changed in the intervening years.
I did not vote for Obama for reasons of ideology and policy. Plus, I think he has been less than forthright about his past. And that’s it.
When I look at Obama I just see a fellow American. This isn’t Europe, where it would seem that the folks like to preach to us, but in fact they don’t walk the talk.
Bard, true- one of the better cliches in the speech.
“Who messed up?”
Almost right, but Obama got Roberts out of rhythm by jumping in on the first line before Roberts was done, forcing him to re-formulate the segmenting. This was apparently not something done easily on the fly. But really, that was a pretty minor point in all this.
I still say the speech missed an opportunity, in the call to duty, to inspire. Reagan, FDR, JFK, all did wonderful jobs of inspiring as they reminded us of the struggles ahead. Obama seemed to be so busy reminding us of the struggles ahead, he forgot to inspire (unless you count the inspiration of the occasion on it’s own merits- not to be entirely discounted).
I often wonder why anyone would want that job? Look at how it aged President George W. Bush. One could see just how much he was just relieved to get out of Washington and into retirement.
And just what will George W. Bush do in retirement?
Seems safe to say he won’t follow in his father’s footsteps and trade on his access, as he, apparently, doesn’t really have much of it, given the way his administration imploded at the end.
Charity work? Possibly, but seems a stretch, given his ideological background.
A speaking tour? Um…no.
Memoir? Good chance of that, but he’ll need a ghost writer and seems likely to put much time to it.
Religion. That’s the way I’m betting. I can see Bush getting heavily into religion, dedicating himself to some sort of ministry.
Bush Estrangement Syndrome?
If I were George W. Bush, I’d stay out of the limelight for at least two years. Remember, he’s got a Library to establish. Then I’d look for some conservative groups that might want a speaker now and again, and for something charitable that could use some administrative skills, something that would appeal to my conservative nature.
I particularly loved Obama’s shout out to Atheist in his speech, “…for we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and non-believers.”
This is what I love about America, it’s variety, it’s endless canvas, it’s 1776 model of revolutionary change that after more than 200 years is the only healthy force of revolutionary change in the world, that just when you think you know what America it renews itself … how envious can tyrants be? How hopeful can everyday people that just want to work and love their family feel that there is a homeland of all people the world. Cheers for America, democracy, and liberalism!
Personally, I think the model George W. Bush should follow is that of Harry Truman. Now there was a man who retired with class.
Yes, Bush is very unpopular now. It remains to be seen if he’ll be vindicated in his lifetime; I suspect that he will. And it’s not unheard of for a former President to be called on to serve in a later administration, even of the opposite party — think of Herbert Hoover answering the call in 1945. (Again, that was Truman — classy, as I said.)
We’ve had a President who went on to serve as a congressman (John Q. Adams) and a President who became a senator (Andrew Johnson); we’ve also had a former President as Chief Justice (Taft). None of those sound like the sort of thing that would appeal to Bush. On the other hand, if he chose to run for governor of Texas again, he could probably do well there.
Or he could go home and retire. I wouldn’t blame him; it’s been a very long eight years.
Quote:And just what will George W. Bush do in retirement?
Seems safe to say he won’t follow in his father’s footsteps and trade on his access, as he, apparently, doesn’t really have much of it, given the way his administration imploded at the end.
Charity work? Possibly, but seems a stretch, given his ideological background. End Quote
Good Lord. How strange. This person jabs at Bush41 for trading on access? What evidence? How would 41 have any access to the Clinton Administration to trade? Speaking of which, who is the acknowledged world champion for exploiting the Presidency?
The last sentence is non-sensical. Bush’s ideology pushed “Faith Based Initiatives” and other private involvement in social programs. His ideology was the antithesis of what you apparently believe it to be. Charity work would fit exactly into his ideology.
If you are going to slam Bush, you should at least have a modicum of knowledge on which to base your tirade. Oh well, why start now?
Barak Obama will become Barak O’Brien and we’ll all be Winston Smith.
Bogey not based in reality wrote, “Charity work? Possibly, but seems a stretch, given his ideological background.”
He gave more in charity to Africa than any other U.S. president. He gave more in funds to Palestinians than any other U.S. president. More in climate change, personally donated more than Obama and Biden put together and guess what raised spending on every domestic program including veterans benefits, education, health, etc.
Given Bogey that you DON’T know the facts and write things that are verifiably false with every post, why would you even attempt at this pap any more?
My question for Bogey is,
is it better to give a man fish or teach him how to fish?
Is dependency your goal or independence?
If reading comprehension and math is required to understand the huge increases that Bush signed towards every issue – do you have either of the two skills? 😉
President Bush will work on his presidential library and policy center for a while. I also think he will continue to do those things which he has always believed in and stood for – the advancement of democracy around the world. I also think he will work with Laura Bush to advance literacy around the world. As far as Bogey Man’s snarky remark about bush needing a “ghost writer” – does he honestly think that either of the Clintons (or any past presidents for that matter) have written these often boring tomes on their own. I think not.
One thing I know Bush will do (following in his father’s footsteps re Clinton) is not criticize or critique the sitting president – either here or abroad. It will be interesting to see if Obama can muzzle Carter.
A couple of things brought a laugh with me – first the remarks about the country pulling together. If they had done so under Bush things would have been a lot better for all of us.
Also the call to volunteerism – funny I thought the government was going to be our big brother and do all for us. And as usual the ones who will be volunteering for the most part will not be the ones who are able-bodied but still a drain on society. It will be the ones who Michelle Obama called mean.
And those words were brought back strikingly as I listened
to the chants at President Bush of “Na-na-na – etc – goodbye”. I recalled Michelle Obama’s remarks about America being a mean country and I thought of all the vilification of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, and Sara Palin. I decided she was right – but who are/have been the mean ones?
obamas election speech translated
extras.timesonline.co.uk/pdfs/obamaelected.pdf
This is a pivotal moment, just not in the way most people in the limelight seem to think.
Time to bury your gold, clean your firearms, stock up on everything you will need to live in spite of a totally incompetent government.
http://www.slate.com/id/2209133/
No Regrets: Why I’m not sorry that George W. Bush beat Al Gore and John Kerry.
Much like FredHjr (as so often seems to be the case),
“…I just want to say that race should not matter at all. It has never mattered for me. Honestly. I was that way as a kid (I was born in ‘55 and am a week shy of my 54th) and nothing has changed in the intervening years.
I did not vote for Obama for reasons of ideology and policy. Plus, I think he has been less than forthright about his past. And that’s it.”
I, too, like many, am proud that we can change leadership without violent revolution, and in an orderly manner, but find it distressing as the cost of campaigns escalates — to the point where this year’s winner SPENT more than the two candidates combined in the previous election (a hotly contested race between Kerry and Bush — and we thought that was expensive).
On top of that, this year’s inauguration cost more than any other in our country’s history. It’s reached the point of obscene. Most especially this applies to the “community activist” who’s so concerned about the lower and middle classes. Just because people are willing to give money to “buy” a campaign (certainly not everybody does so with this in mind, the large part of the money comes from the enormously wealthy — George Soros comes to mind and his MoveOn.Org along with its many sister PACS which provide vehicles for the donation of more money, and so on….
In these times, the fact that the govt. always has money to spend (or can just add to the borrowing) does not mean it has to be spent. Another $1.6 million is also a hefty redecoration budget, which I understand will easily be outspent by the decorator the Obamas have chosen for their private section of the White House, i.e. their home(– the most popular among the rich and powerful celebrity clientele ;any excess will be underwritten by more donors. Certailnly every first family should be comfortable in their new home, but spending money, just because they can, well, I find it somewhat sticks in the craw, when especially the Democratic party is looking to spend another $850 billion (no longer $750 billion, and likely to reach, and possibly exceed $1 trillion or more if they can do it. (By the way, apparently there exist warehouses upon warehouses filled with previous furnishings of first families — Why not auction it off and use the money toward decorating budgets of newly arriving families?)
Add to this, the fact that this particular campaign had 2 issues: BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) and Race — and anyone who does not think race was a key ingredient is just delusional. The participation of more people of color is a wonderful thing — if they are voting for the right reasons — for instance, not because the nominee is promising them “tax cuts” which will bring nontaxpayers checks from the government.
At any rate, the true reason I couldn’t watch yesterday, was not the awful yellow-green suit of the new first lady (oh what a fashion victim she is going to be!) with those pea green gloves cloaking rather large hands waving to the crouds, but it was the unremittant absolute mindless gushing of the media with excitement equal to either a coronation, or the weddin of Prince Charles and Princess Diana, watched round the world.
What would be wrong with a simple stately vow (on a basic bible — not “THE LINCOLN BIBLE” — especially for a guy not even from Illinois) with a single member of the clergy giving an invocation and then a State luncheon or Dinner or both (necessary to give due to all the money people and politicians due favor?)
People, it’s not like we do this once a century! It’s every FOUR years; sometimes 8 if we’re fortunate enough to have a leader who remains popular after the first four — no easy feat given the division in this country.
IMHO, it is indeed a no-win job, and it takes a certain breed to even consider the job, let alone go through with what it takes to win it. This is the glamorous part, I suppose. The next 4 – 8 years, not so much. Then lectures and books that will provide financial security for life. Oh, and the fame. THE FAME! Wonder what that’s worth?
Regarding the oath of office, it appeared to me that The One interrupted Roberts as he was giving him the oath to be quoted before Roberts got to a stopping point.
Of course, it’s been reported in the media that *both* men screwed it up…
Wonder if this portends anything of what is to come for the next 4 years, if indeed the media can’t even state that Obama screwed up his oath of office all on his own and felt the need to spread the blame…
You will note that Obama told us the foundations of our economy are strong. Good to hear.
The thing I’ve noticed across the several weblogs I go to for news, opinion, and to post opinions of my own: even on the Left’s Day of Victory and Celebration the troglodytes of the Left have to stop by the boards and drop their execrable blatherings about President Bush.
They are not content to leave things be. They are not content to have successfully savaged him for 8+ years. They have to kick sand in his face and then piss on him as he is limping out the door.
These people have no class whatsoever. None. This is part of the reason why I left the Left back in ’87. Eventually, I got tired of the mental derangement and ignorance of these people. Honestly, I saw it early on when I started college in 1977, but I was always on an intellectual quest and I thought, at the time, that the garden variety of activist types were not consequential in the big picture and the long view. I eventually realized I was wrong.
The behavior of the Left towards George and Laura Bush yesterday is simply lower than low class. I hope that there were some people in the crowds who took note of this, and stowed away that experience for deeper reflection on down the road. Intelligent and sensitive souls eventually have to put all the pieces together and make a decision about where to go from that point on.
Face facts Fred: ideologues slam their opponents. To suggest that somehow leftists are any more bitter or partisan than their rightist counterparts is hallucinatory.
Just look at this blog. It’s packed with some of the bitterest, most resentful, most outlandish criticism of Obama on, as you say his “day of victory and celebration.”
It’s a good measure of just how much simple bias affects your analysis that you so openly admit that you think its just fine to slam Obama at every turn, but somehow wrong to slam Bush.
Bogey wrote, “ideologues slam their opponents”
Bogey does it with dishonesty or ignorance of the facts.
Bogey wrote, “but somehow wrong to slam Bush”
We ‘slam’ Bush ourselves. We have critiqued him ourselves.
We do it with a factual basis. You do it without a basis in fact.
FredHjr,
Your words actually said anything I might have said and could say. Unfortunately, they are powered via the wind of the media at their back, and so they see no reason — most ironically given Obama’s speech, to take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for their thoughts, words and actions as they display them.
Perhaps, Obama was appealing only to the lower classes comprised primarily of Latinos and Blacks — but not exclusively so — whose social atmosphere is rife with shiftless fathes who feel no reason for responsibility of raisinig a child, providing it with basic necessities, teaching them the absolute necessity of an education, and the avenues open to them in this day and age if they follow these directions with the care and guiding of both mother and father.
The fact, is marriage or not, each child is entitled to the guidance of two parents who may disagree at times on the methods — but never the intent: the well-being of the child they have brought into this world, and maximizing his potential.
I was fortunate to grow up with just such guidance, but I think it was both a moral guidance, and an educational one based on the religious culture and emphasis on education throughout centuries. It was unquestionable and not a choice. It was the way of life.
If President Obama is able to each into these huge and divergent strongholds which basically lack cuture of any kind, and is able to instill the importance of guidance, and the hope of a future — maybe he will do something important.
That’s a part of a very big whole, however, and he has an enormous job ahead of him, with wome notions that will only undo the above, instead of reinforciing it. (That be called “Entitlements.)
Bogey,
You simply were not paying attention to the behavior of the crowds towards the outgoing President yesterday. And you are not paying any mind at all to the ongoing savaging of President Bush in the blogs, and I suspect that you are blind to this because you are so invested in the ongoing jeremiad against this guy.
Every criticism of the revisionist Marxists and socialists I have made since I left their company many years ago has been accurate. What is more, I am not alone in this experience. I have been fortunate to meet and get to know people who have been through the same experience, some of whom, like me, are refugees from that whole tradition of the Frankfurt School and the post-modernists. There are very sound reasons why we are disillusioned.
Like I said, you people are not content to take your victory and go forward with it. It seems psychologically imperative to continue to trash a good, decent man even as he’s out the door and into retirement. You people are low class all the way, and I hope more people notice this and think about what it means.
And I know neo will cringe that I state this, but I’ll get it off my chest anyway. You can go to hell. Find some other place to work out your obsessive derangement.
This is great news. Can we start caricaturing Obama as a monkey now, a la Chimpy Bush?
Nah, I didn’t think so.
Did not watch one minute of it.
House marathon was more the flavor of the day.
scIFi channel got a lot of time also.
FDR is liked and celebrated by the socialists as nearly making the US com munist with his policies
I’m sorry, Artflhitlerdgr, but it must have been a very long eighty ye ars for y ou. FDR a com munist ??? Are you a Mar tian ? I bet you don’t live near the coast.
I see no evidence that criticism of Bush, from all quarters, is any more vitriolic, irresponsible or juvenile than criticism of Obama, from all quarters.
The mistake you are making, Fred, is to compare the left fringe to the right’s mainstream. If you compare like against like, you’ll find no qualitative difference at all.
If you find any evidence of difference, bring it on.
There are lots of thing you don’t see.
The Left is calling President Bush a war criminal and they want trails – putting President Bush and people who worked for him in the docket for war crimes. That’s an example, Bogey, of what I consider to be vitriol and spite. The unwillingness to understand the entire nature of the war we are in and the kind of enemy we are fighting seems a moot point to these idiots.
And I have not said anything about Obama on this thread that is inflammatory, vitriolic, false, and slanderous.
In the past I have criticized Obama for not being forthcoming about his ideological pedigree and not being open and honest about WHY he kept company with terrorists, Communists, a real estate criminal, and a venomous heretic preacher. I think these are reasonable criticisms, but to someone on the other end of the spectrum – and remember I am a guy who crossed over from that end, gradually and in stages, starting in 1987 – these concerns are paranoid and should be stiff armed away.
Look, you are just here to do battle with us eeeeevillll conservatives and run up the flag for your cause. We know that. You know that. We aren’t going to let you forget that we know what the game is. You call us biased, but you won’t admit your bias. What do you take me (and the rest of us) for? A fool?
We shouldn’t be surprised at liberal behavior on Bush’s retirement. Hell they saw no problem with muslims who danced in the streets after 9/11.
Obama has made clear he has no intention of pursuing a war crimes trial for Bush. Pelosi never called for, or even hinted at a desire for, a war crimes trial — she even declined to attempt impeachment, even when Bush’s popularity drifted into the 30s in opinion polls. No mainstream media commentator has sought a war crimes trial.
So, clearly, the “Left” Fred describes is irrelevant to American politics.
Another possibility is that the “Left” of Fred’s imagination doesn’t really exist.
A war crimes trial would not be likely to yield any useful result, in my view, but a “truth commission” of some sort is necessary in the aftermath of the Iraq war debacle.
The facts are clear: Bush, Cheney and their aides made a case that Saddam had WMD and may give them to terrorists.
There can be no debate about that. Turns out, he didn’t have WMD, and there can be no debate about that either.
How did that happen? Bush has blamed bad intelligence, though he also called the intel “darn good,” but that’s another story. The trouble with that excuse, though, is that there were plenty of intelligence professionals, from Hans Blix, to our own CIA, who raised doubts about whether Saddam had WMD. More important, there was the simple fact that the inspectors had not found any substantial evidence of a WMD cache.
It is beyond dispute that Bush, at the very minimum, mis-stated his case. He said he was “certain” there were WMD. He also referred to evidence that was available to him, but not to the public. Evidence which, it turns out, didn’t exist.
It is also beyond dispute that Bush had a clear political motive to lie. Starting wars has always been good — in the short term, at least — for Republicans.
So we know Bush mis-stated. He said there were WMD and there were not. We know he had the motive to start a war. So the question remains: was he lying or so deeply ignorant that he was not even aware of the intelligence professionals who were raising doubts about whether WMD existed.
It is neither vitriol, nor certainly derangement, to suggest that the American voter deserves an answer to that question.
Bogey, Of course there can be no debate with you.
You know very little and yet you trumpet very importantly like you know a lot.
Nice to know you believe 80% of Senators were “duped” after many of them have seen the boatloads of intelligence that Bush saw.
You are so far out there without perspective it is a lost cause to try and persuade you on anything.
You display yourself with every post more than you give us any knowledge of anything.
After combing through the Senate Intelligence Report and reading your words. I can only wonder – when did you stop beating your wife.
Bogey,
You just lied above. The other day Pelosi stated that she was now open to the possibility of trails for war crimes. Obama is reluctant and does not want this, but what if he cannot stop the momentum within his party?
Everything about his political career tells me he is a weak man who caves in. He waffles, he equivocates. We know that there will be horse trading going on between Rahm Emanuel and Pelosi. That’s how those people operate. If you don’t see that, then you are just blind.
What flavor is the Kool Aid these days?
He lies in every post. or he is unaware of the facts….
I remember being like him prior to 1991. Thought I knew so much until I hit the library 3 times a week for a year and had a core belief change from liberalism to libertarianism (wanting a cut in govt by 80%)
Since then I’ve moderated to a centrist position which happens to be to the right of Bush and Obama. I’m for freezing current spending levels for 10 years while we reprioritize.
Of course that would draw howls from the left saying I’m against veterans, health, elderly, the poor. Nevermind what is BEST for America….. The left doesn’t seem to think that way.
A quick Google search returns nothing about Pelosi considering a war crimes trial. There is an item, however, copied verbatim across seven or eight conservative blogs, that is an attempt at parody, in which Pelosi is alleged to have called for war crimes trials. It’s an obvious parody, Fred. Is that where you’re getting your “information”?
Regardless, even if Pelosi supported it, we can still establish that this is not a position of “the Left” It is, at best, a fringe position.