The Cheney Endorsement

In much the way that President Obama's frequent calls for gun control caused gun sales to skyrocket, I suspect that former VP Dick Cheney's endorsement of Kamala is likely to have the opposite result of what he hopes.  From the very start of the George W Bush presidency, Cheney was viewed as the brains behind the administration.  After Bush picked him for VP, the word was that he brought 'gravitas' to the ticket.  Yeah, because George W Bush is not the most eloquent guy.  The Democrats heaped nearly as much blame on Cheney as Bush for the Bush Era.  Cheney spent 8 years as a prime Democrat boogieman, a villain beyond redemption, a former CEO of Halliburton!  Whatever he said was wrong or a lie.  Today, voters should listen to him about who should be president.  Really?

The Bush Administration got the US involved in Middle Eastern wars in a big way with Afghanistan and Iraq.  Though the Biden Administration pulls us out of Afghanistan, it has gotten us entangled in a far more dangerous war between Ukraine and Russia.  Trump wants to stop the war; Cheney endorses Kamala.  Coincidence?  You remember when the Democrats were anti-war?

If a Democrat from 2005 heard that Dick Cheney was endorsing a candidate, the Democrat would vote for the opposition.  Has the party drifted so far that Cheney is now a good guy?  Oddly, I am reminded of FBI Director Comey.  Throughout the 2016 Campaign, he was a hated villain for his pursuit of Hillary and her email server.  There was a natural distaste for him among Democrats.  On one of those late night shows (Colbert or Maher, I think), it was mentioned that Trump fired Comey.  The audience cheered.  They weren't supposed to cheer.  You see, Comey was undermining Trump, so he was a good guy now.  You bumpkins need to keep up with the times.

Topsy Turvy!

Pride in Victimhood

Heather Lind has accused George H W Bush of sexual assault in 2014.  There is a picture of the event included in the story.  So, a then 30 year-old Lind was 'assaulted' by the then 90 year-old wheel-chair bound Bush whose wife, Barbara, was in attendance?   And not just once!  No, he 'touched' her, told a dirty joke, and 'touched' her again.  All of this while being photographed!  Looking at the photo, I could see that he might have his hand on her backside.  Did Bush Sr. cop a feel or is he a frail old man who couldn't tell if he was touching her back or her butt?  Even accepting her story as true, she paints herself as a victim who was helpless against a wheelchair-bound nonagenarian.  Anna Strong would have handled it better.

The Establishment Protests

George W Bush has once again spoken his mind on the state of affairs.  Amazing that he was able to hold his tongue for 8 years while Barack Obama hammered him on everything from the state of US foreign policy to the state of the economy.  No more!  He needs to speak.  According to Bush, the forces of bigotry have been emboldened of late and he fears that the US is slipping toward white supremacy.  No names are mentioned but it's pretty clear who he is blaming.  Just the other day, John McCain criticized spurious nationalism.  Yes, the establishment is furious.

 

The source of all this nationalism and white supremacy nonsense is that Trump has instructed ICE, the Border Patrol, et al. to enforce the laws that Congress had passed and his predecessors had signed.  No new laws have been passed.  After decades of neglect, those laws appear draconian.  Amazingly, enforcing immigrations laws has long been a winning issue that neither party was interested in pursuing.  Bush sought to pass an amnesty - Path to Citizenship - and was shot down.  Bush's brother, JEB, described illegal immigration as an 'act of love.'  McCain is a big amnesty proponent except when he is running for re-election every 6 years.  Obama didn't even bother with Congress and enacted a limited amnesty via executive order: DACA.  The establishment doesn't like the voters and is importing new voters.

 

Bush is part of the establishment, a true believer in big government, which he termed 'compassionate' conservatism.  Moreover, he has personal reasons to dislike Trump, the man who easily squashed his brother's presidential run.  These are not the wise musings of a dispassionate statesman.  This is a member of the establishment trying to damage an outsider lest that outsider derail the deep state.

 

The rebellion against the establishment is a global phenomenon.  Brexit?  Catalonia?  The rise of the right in France, Germany, Austria, Hungary?  Trump is just the American version of this rebellion.  Remember, the establishment with all their Ivy League degrees managed to estrange the electorate to such a degree that the electorate voted for Trump!  Bush and his fellow scolds need to take a long look in the mirror to discover how we came to this point.

The Brand New Doomed Afghan Strategy

President Trump has outlined a plan for further extending America's longest war without providing a means for us to win without Afghan support.  The US didn't care a whit what the random Japanese thought about the war and did not make a plan that depended upon them supporting US troops.  The US did not work with the German government to defeat the Nazis.  In both of those cases - which took considerably less than 15 years - we flattened the enemies cities, invaded their territory with no local support, and imposed a new system of government on them while purging the proponents of the ideology that brought about the war.  Nazism was outlawed and Nazis were hunted like the criminals they are.  Imperialist policies were squeezed from the fabric of Japan to the point that their military has been purely defensive in nature since WWII.

 

What is the equivalent of Nazism in Afghanistan?  Islam.  Islam calls upon its followers to subdue or kill infidels.  Unlike Nazism, Islam is a religion and thus purging it is disallowed by American attitudes toward religious freedom, even a religion that calls upon its adherents to slay all Jews.  Dying while killing infidels is a guaranteed path to paradise.  If one is unwilling to practice forced conversion - which is what Muslims have done to conquered lands over the centuries - then the next best option is to install a dictator who will oppress the people.  A Hosni Mubarak or a Muammar Gaddafi are far preferable to the Mullahs of Iran or the anarchy of Afghanistan.

 

Trump's plan, though an improvement on Obama's, is no more likely to succeed.  If you don't fight the ideas that inspire the terrorists, you aren't fighting to win.  Even Turkey, the best example of a Westernized Islamic country, has suffered backsliding and is likely to de-Westernize in the coming years.  Islam is not compatible with Western values and never will be.  All these politicians who proclaim that Islam is a religion of peace and the terrorists and their ilk have been misinterpreting it for 14 centuries are delusional.  I'm willing to bet that Osama bin Laden the lifelong Muslim had a stronger understanding of Islam than George W. Bush the Methodist.

 

Winning requires tactics that no one will implement.  Therefore, we will not win.  We can only contain and suppress.

More Illegal Spending

Senator Chuck Schumer has observed that money spent on Obamacare was not authorized by Congress.  As all appropriations must go through Congress, that would be illegal spending, embezzling tax dollars.  Sadly, this is hardly big news.  Back in 2008, the Congress declined to allocate funds to bailout the failing car companies.  Despite this lack of authorized funds, President George W. Bush spent billions of tax dollars to prop up the car makers.  Impeachable offense.  Of course, he had a month left in office so it was hardly worth the effort.  Having spent the previous year blasting President Bush's executive overreach, President Obama purchased a controlling share of the car companies while still lacking an appropriation from Congress.  Impeachable offense.  Congress let it slide.  How can we now be surprised - or even upset - that the Obama Administration continued the practice of spending without appropriation?  Without this unauthorized spending, Obamacare would have crumbled even sooner.

 

It should be noted that such spending is a crime.  Obviously, no one is going to be prosecuted because those who broke the law are members of the Washington Elite and above such laws, especially if they are Democrats.  It is a certainty that neither party will look the other way if Trump tries to spend on his pet project - the border wall - without an appropriation.  Three cheers for a return of the rule of law!

Whose Economy Is It?

Trump taking credit for Obama's economy is like someone inheriting millions from his dad and bragging about what a smart businessman he is.

Oliver Griswold, Twitter

 

As seen on Facebook, this is pretty funny. Throughout the Obama years, the anemic economy was blamed on the mismanagement of the Bush Administration. I recall posing the question that, if Romney won, would he be inheriting the Bush or Obama economy? Indeed, Obama's first term saw an average growth rate of less than 1%. His second term was quite a bit better at 2.1% but still anemic by historic standards. Let's explore the numbers, shall we.

 

 

Obama had inherited the worst economy of any president shown and it got worse. He is the first president since Hoover who never saw a year break 3% growth. His best year – 2010 - is worse than Bill Clinton’s worst year -1995. George W Bush does not compare well to Clinton either. The direction of the economy since Clinton left office has not been promising.

 

 

Both Bush and Obama had good excuses for a weak start. Bush had to contend with the Tech Bubble bursting and then 9/11. Obama started his presidency with the economy plunging into the deepest recession since the Depression. On the other hand, both Bush and Obama entered the presidency with plans to expand government. Bush had No Child Left Behind and the Medicare Part D Drug Benefit already in the queue when 9/11 prompted the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Likewise, Obama entered with the promise of a health care overhaul, an $800 billion stimulus, and what eventually became the Dodd-Frank Act to further regulate the financial sector. Therefore, both entered in difficult economic times with plans to expand the scope and expense of government.

 

President Clinton’s first term had a very respectable average growth rate of 3.3%, despite his raising taxes and trying to nationalize the healthcare system. In 1996, he declared the era of big government to be over. His second term saw a phenomenal average growth rate of 4.4%. Moreover, the federal debt shrank during this period and the government was running surpluses.

 

Expectations play a big role in business investment. If the president comes into office with plans to increase the cost and burden of government, business waits to see how much more burdensome it will be and if its business model will still be profitable. On the other hand, if a president announces plans to reduce the cost of government and reduce regulations, capital starts flowing since the future environment will be better than the current one. Thus, Trump’s stated goals of repealing the Affordable Care Act (less burden), cutting taxes (less cost), cutting regulations (less burden), and reducing the federal workforce through attrition (less cost & burden) all indicate that the business landscape will be better tomorrow than it is today. The Trump Economy started on November 9th.

Breaking the Elite Clique

I had mentioned in an earlier blog that Trump's election expanded the potential nominees.  I had offered Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerburg but Oprah Winfrey is also qualified by our new standard.  She is tremendously successful in a variety of enterprises, has name recognition as great or greater than Trump, and - unlike Trump - she is almost universally loved.  Though she didn't think she was qualified, now she thinks perhaps she is.  Although Oprah and I are on different sides of the political spectrum, I would rate her as more qualified than most Democratic politicians because she has been successful in the private sector.  Politicians with a long and distinguished career in government think nothing of piling regulations, taxes, and other burdens on the private sector but Oprah has been on the receiving end of that.  Also, she has more character than most politicians.

 

This is exactly why the insiders are up in arms.  Trump has vastly expanded the competition.  The cozy little clique of Harvard and Yale graduates have controlled the presidency since 1989 and are furious that their reign has been interrupted.  A third of all presidents have gone to Harvard, Yale, or Princeton.  These universities are churning out a professional political class which has become the American aristocracy.  In order to save the clique, Trump must fail.  Trump must fail so badly that the voters realize their error and never commit it again.  Then the aristocracy can claim that it takes a particular education to be president and only we chosen few may apply.

 

Here are the last 8 elections.  Only schools that were attended by multiple nominees are highlighted.

 

2016 - Trump (U Penn) vs. Hillary (Yale)

2012 - Obama (Harvard) vs. Romney (Harvard)

2008 - Obama (Harvard) vs. McCain (Annapolis)

2004 - Bush II (Yale & Harvard) vs. Kerry (Yale)

2000 - Bush II (Yale & Harvard) vs. Gore (Harvard)

1996 - Clinton (Yale) vs. Dole (U Kansas) vs. Perot (Annapolis)

1992 - Clinton (Yale) vs. Bush I (Yale) vs. Perot (Annapolis)

1988 - Bush I (Yale) vs. Dukakis (Harvard)

 

Only Dole and Trump did not attend Harvard, Yale, or Annapolis.  Trump is the first person since Reagan in 1984 to win without having attended Harvard or Yale.  If she runs, Oprah attended Tennessee State University.

Insiders vs. Outsiders

George W. Bush spent the entirely of the Obama Administration in silence.  He didn't speak out when President Obama unraveled Iraq and unleashed the disaster that followed.  He didn't speak when Obama led us into Libya, from behind.  He had no public comments about IRS targeting or the executive rewriting legislation without including the legislative branch.  He didn't feel the need to defend his record when Obama or his surrogates blamed virtually every problem on Bush.  No, he was quite comfortable to retire from the national stage and let President Obama have his turn.

Today, President Bush decided it was time to speak.  He offered a not-so-oblique criticism of President Trump and his treatment of the media.  Interesting.  He hadn't felt compelled to comment on Obama wiretapping the Associated Press or naming James Rosen as an unindicted co-conspirator so he could really spy on him.  No problem with Obama constantly denouncing Fox News.  Nope, nothing to say then.  Huh.

What could explain this change?  George W. Bush is an insider.  Like President Obama, he went to Harvard.  Like President Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry, he attended Yale.  He is a member of the elite, a member of a dynastic family that goes back his grandfather, Senator Prescott Bush.  Heck, his great, great grandfather graduated from Yale in 1844!  Though they may not have titles like Baron, Earl, and Duke, we have an aristocracy in the United States and they are extremely unhappy that some peasant who went to Fordham in the Bronx is president!  A mere businessman lording over the anointed?  The horror!

 

Trump is a modern day Andrew Jackson.  Jackson had a mini-rebellion against the establishment, expanding the franchise and getting far too friendly with the common folk.  Like Trump, Jackson was hardheaded and not prone to eloquence.  Where John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay - who were rivals in the 1824 election - joined forces to deny Jackson the Presidency, Republican and Democrat elites are determined to protect the prerogatives that have taken more than a century to build.

 

This is not a left vs. right conflict but an insider vs. outsider one.

Obama Hates America

Yet again, President Obama has gone overseas and told foreigners of his disappointment regarding America.  Yes, we just keep letting him down.  I remember back when Bill Clinton was running in 1992, one of the attacks against him was that, while a Rhodes Scholar in England, he participated in an anti-American protest.  Heck, even during George W. Bush's presidency, the Dixie Chicks triggered a backlash for dissing the president while on tour in London.  It used to be bad form to attack your country on foreign soil.  Well, now the president does it.

 

Though the article provides 18 particular points that the president made, it can be condensed to the following: Americans are a stingy, cold-hearted, racist, lazy, discriminatory, environment-destroying, racist, murderous, thoughtless people who are failing to stay true to our founding ideals.  This is far from the first time Obama has criticized his country overseas.  He opened his presidency with the infamous Apology Tour.  Really, what kind of president goes to Cuba and says we can learn from the Castros?

 

These repeated jabs at his country, the country that elected him as president, demonstrate that he is not a fan of his country.  That is tragic.  Though I am no fan of George W Bush, at least he loves America, warts and all.  America deserves to be loved, especially by the person elected to lead it.

Establishment doesn't Endorse Anti-Establishment Candidate? Shocking!

Just encountered an anti-Trump post on Facebook that pretends to offer wisdom.  It reads as follows:

There are five living presidents, both Democrats and Republicans.  NONE of them has endorsed Donald Trump for president.

 

Maybe we should listen to those who know what the job requires to succeed.

 

Occupy Democrats

Wow, that's a good point.  Then again, you wouldn't expect the Democrats to endorse a Republican, would you?  That means Obama, Clinton, and Carter are beside the point.  But what about the Republicans?  Let's see, that would be George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush.  Wait, didn't a close relative just get shellacked by Trump?  Yeah, I remember!  JEB, GHWB's son and GWB's brother, was called 'low energy' and utterly trounced in the primaries.  It was actually embarrassing considering how much money JEB got from the establishment donors who had also supported the other Bush campaigns.  Trump broke the family dynasty while hardly spending a dime!  And you say they didn't endorse him?  Huh!  Clearly, that decision was not at all biased.

A Tale of Two Mothers

On April 4, 2004, Specialist Casey Sheehan of the US Army volunteered for a quick reaction force to rescue American Troops in Iraq.  He was killed during this action.  His mother, Cindy Sheehan, blamed President George W. Bush for his death.  Through the rest of his presidency, the activities of Cindy Sheehan were reported regularly: she spent a month camping outside Bush's Crawford ranch, she visited Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, she appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews, she protested at the State of the Union.  The death of her son conferred 'absolute moral authority' to Cindy Sheehan, so said Maureen Dowd.

On September 11, 2012, US Foreign Service IM Officer Sean Smith was killed in Benghazi, Libya.  The attack was initially described as a riot gone out of control in reaction to an internet video.  Latter information, including emails from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, demonstrated that the video had never been the cause.  Pat Smith, Sean's mother, blames Hillary for her son's death.  However, whereas Cindy Sheehan was celebrated by the media, Pat Smith has been fact checked and even had Nathaniel Friedman of GQ claim he "would like to beat her to death."

 

What should be obvious is that the totally unbiased media promoted a grieving mother who set out to attack a Republican but attacked a grieving mother who set out to attack a Democrat.  No bias at all.

Mass Shootings Way, Way Up Under Obama!

In December, I posted about the increase of mass shootings during the Obama Administration.  I used a spreadsheet provided by Mother Jones.  That spreadsheet has been updated but does not include last night's carnage at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando.  Let's explore the numbers.

Admin	Count	Dead	Wounded
Reagan	7	70	76
Bush I	7	63	52
Clinton	18	114	146
Bush II	15	127	91
Obama	33	247	229
Total	80	621	594

Even without including the 50+ dead from last night, Obama dominates the numbers.  However, this table is a bit skewed.  Bush I only served one term so his numbers are worse than they look.  Obama hasn't completed his second term and not quite comparable to his predecessors.  Let's break that down by month:

Admin	Dead	Wounded
Reagan	0.7	0.8
Bush I	1.3	1.1
Clinton	1.2	1.5
Bush II	1.3	0.9
Obama	2.8	2.6

Obama has another 7 months to go and the trend does not look good.

Obviously, if these two tables could have been produced where a Republican had such a high number compared to his Democrat predecessors, his policies would be blamed.  Even though the media would never do that here, is it the case?  Are Obama policies responsible for the dramatic increase in mass shootings?  I'm not sure if his actual policies are responsible but I think his expressed attitude is.  That is to say that Obama hasn't signed a law that made mass shootings easier or more frequent but he has not been a cheerleader for America or American power.  The United States under Obama is a nation in decline, a nation whose influence and reach is contracting.  Weakness invites attack.

Crashing the Party

During the tenure of George W. Bush as President, the Republican party suffered down the ticket.  Nine Senate seats (and control of the Senate in 2006), 42 House seats (plus control of the House in 2006), 7 governorships, and 324 seats in the various legislatures & assemblies through the states. which saw the switch of control in 13 chambers.  When the Democrats took the Presidency in 2008, James Carville looked at this recent history and viewed it as a generational switch to the Democrats, a new period like that from 1932 to 1952 of Democrat control of the Presidency.

 

During the tenure of Barack Obama as President, the Democrats have suffered down the ticket.  13 Senate seats (and control), 69 House seats (and control), 11 governorships, and 913 legislators at the state level, shifting control in 30 chambers.  President Obama has been a disaster for his party's elective offices.  Will anyone, other than me or someone on FOX News, ask Carville about his prediction?

 

This clearly demonstrates that Obama is not as popular as he is portrayed in the media.  Following his prescriptions for the nation, his party had suffered massive setbacks, far worse than the supposedly hated Bush inflicted upon his party.  If the Republicans manage to retake the Presidency and the new president is just as unpopular as Bush was, the Democrats will still be in the hole from where they stood in 2008, especially at the state level.  This shift in power at the state level does not bode well for the 2020 gerrymandering that will greatly impact the Congress from 2020 to 2030.

 

Looking at this, it makes one wonder why the Republicans in Congress are so cowed by the President.  With all this growing strength, why the continued spinelessness?

Why the Terrorists are Winning

Just read an interesting article about an atheist professor who gladly criticizes Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, but steps gingerly around Islam.  Why?  Fear of reprisals.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/atheist-okay-disparage-christians-islam-limits-because-fear

With previous enemies, the United States has been only too happy to demean and dehumanize them.  Watch some of the Disney cartoons that were anti-axis.  The Japanese were depicted in a way that is now considered extremely racist.  There was no fear of upsetting Hitler, Mussolini, or Emperor Hirohito.  They were the enemy.  In war, it is often necessary to dehumanize the enemy lest the horror of what is being done cripple the war effort.  There is a reason that Muslims say that Jews are descended from pigs and America is the Great Satan.

I am not proposing that we start some propaganda campaign that vilifies all Muslims but we sure as heck should not be afraid to merely point out some obvious issues.  As the article notes, Muslim bakeries also refused to make a cake for a gay wedding but there was no firestorm of protest.  Why not?  Fear.  You want to see a real War on Women?  Go to a Muslim country and take a look at the Burqas and that women can't leave the house unescorted by a male relative.  Driving a car?  Certainly not in Saudi Arabia.  Gay rights?  Ha!  ISIS tosses gays from tall buildings to their death.  Iran publicly hangs gays from cranes.  But George W. Bush kept telling us that Islam is a religion of peace.

 

Arabic is the fastest growing language group in the United States.  Tens of thousands of Syrians are coming to America thanks to Obama's brilliant Middle East strategy.  This only serves to give the professor growing cause to be fearful.  Several of the crazed gunmen in recent years were legal Muslim immigrants.  The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslim immigrants who were on welfare!  We were supporting them with tax dollars while they were planning to kills us!  The Chattanooga shooter was a legal Muslim immigrant.  More than a dozen others have been arrested before they were able to carry out plots against America.  This after we created a Department of Homeland Security.

 

In cases like these, deport the rest of the family.  If this is the sort of fruit that these immigrants are bearing, that family tree needs to be uprooted and sent packing.  Of course, that won't happen until the problem gets much, much worse.

 

The US has not seen the sort of assassinations of critics of Islam that have occurred in Europe, Africa, and Asia.  Professor Zuckerman is overly cautious.  However, it is only a matter of time before it arrives on our shores, all the more likely thanks to our suicidal immigration laws.  In the long game, Islam is stealing a march (as Wellington said of Napoleon).  Why kill us now if they can demographically overwhelm us in several decades?  Europe is well on the way to being Eurostan.

Tony Blair's Apology

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has apologized for the Iraq War, even going so far to take some responsibility for the rise of ISIS.  I am truly perplexed at why he has done this.  There is nothing to gain by this apology.  If he thought he was hounded when he held that it was a good decision, just wait for the attacks now that he has admitted guilt for a bad decision.  Sure, he has no political future to protect but history will not be kind.

 

There was a brief period when Tony Blair was the leader of the Free World.  President Clinton was happily ignoring America's traditional leadership role that seemed so unimportant with the end of the Cold War.  Blair took up the mantle and pushed for action in Kosovo, dragging Clinton along.  President Bush resumed America's leadership role.  President Obama has discarded it and there hasn't been a Tony Blair to pick it up.  The Free World is currently rudderless and the consequences are everywhere.

Tony Blair is not responsible for ISIS, not even partially.  This is post hoc ergo propter hoc logic.  If Blair must blame someone, he should be pointing his finger at Barack Obama.  Iraq had been won and was surprisingly stable after the US Surge in 2007.  The US Military was the foundation of that stability.  Had that foundation remained - as it had in places like Germany, Japan, and South Korea, ISIS could not have taken root.  Obama and Biden were proclaiming Iraq as a success of their administration in 2010!  Then we pulled out all US troops, collapse followed, and Blair is accepting some blame?  It almost reminds one of Vietnam where the US achieved success in the Paris Peace Accords - Kissinger received a Nobel Peace Prize - and then, in the wake of Watergate, the Congress cut all support to South Vietnam.  North Vietnam violated the peace accords and the US did nothing.  Collapse and millions of boat people followed.  Bush and Blair won the war but it was up to their successors to keep the peace.  Blair has inexplicably accepted blame for the failures of others.

 

Unless he has some terminal illness that has prompted this apology, Blair will live to regret it.  He did not learn from his contemporary, Bill Clinton: deny everything.  By apologizing, Blair has admitted guilt.  Imagine if Bill Clinton suddenly apologized to all the women who accused him of misconduct, if it apologized for not killing Bin Laden when he had the chance, for suborning perjury, or for lying to the American people about 'not having sex with that woman.'  Would he rise in esteem for having confessed his faults or fall for admitting guilt?  Imagine the campaign ads against his wife that would be nothing but Bill admitting guilt contrasted with Hillary blaming a 'vast rightwing conspiracy.'  Yes, it would be catastrophic.  But Clinton is too good a politician to ever do something so stupid; such is not the case for Blair.

 

Of course, Blair's apology will be used to bludgeon George W. Bush, the prime mover and shaker of the Iraq War.  Perhaps he expects to get the Colin Powell treatment.  Maybe from the US press but probably not from the British press.

WMDs in Iraq

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/23/world/middleeast/thousands-of-iraq-chemical-weapons-destroyed-in-open-air-watchdog-says-.html?mabReward=RI%3A7&action=click&contentCollection=Energy%20%26%20Environment%20&region=Footer&module=Recommendation&src=recg&pgtype=article&_r=0

Yes, all these years later, the New York Times discovers that President Bush was not lying when he said Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction.  Not only were thousands of such weapons destroyed by the US Military during Bush's term, but many have been destroyed since Obama became president.  I would say that he must have known about the WMDs once he became President but it always seems he gets his briefings by reading the papers (e.g. IRS Scandal, Obamacare Rollout Fumble, Jonathan Gruber, etc.).

President Bush crippled himself and his party by not disclosing this at the time.  The constant refrain of "Bush lied, people died" was left unchallenged and it took hold.  I have spent years saying we found chemical and biological weapons.  It has been to no avail since I have changed no minds.  The story that none were found sank into the consciousness of America and now, even after this revelation, I don't think that will change in my lifetime.  It is too late.  Much like Joe McCarthy has been tarred as a villain despite being proved correct in his claims of communists in the government, the WMD story will remain Bush lied.

Waterboard or Death

When President Obama was running for the office, he said Gitmo was bad.  It was unAmerican to treat people - terrorist or otherwise - to permanent incarceration.  Likewise, military tribunals were bad.  Everyone should get a trial by jury, even a foreign terrorist.  Such a policy would have been tough to implement in World War II.  A trial for every captured German?  Worst of all, it was wrong to waterboard captives.  Torture is wrong and even spelled out in the Bill of Rights.  Clearly President Obama felt we were being too harsh toward the enemy.  We weren't living up to American ideals.  How are we doing now?

Well, instead of capturing terrorists and interrogating them, we just blow them up.  Drone strikes are way up under Obama.  They don't even get the benefit of a military tribunal.  The star chamber at the White House has found you sufficiently guilty so here's your missile.  BOOM!  Sorry about killing your son but he was probably going to be radicalized in a few years.  Ditto for the wife.  Collateral damage, don't you know.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for terrorists but there does seem to be a contradiction here.  Typically, a person who opposed indefinite detention and waterboarding would really be opposed to execution without trial, especially if there were collateral deaths.  But instead, that seems to be perfectly fine, even commendable.  It was the Obama Administration that announced its weekly star chamber about which terrorist should be blown to bits.

It is peculiar since I predicted this when Obama first stated his opposition to Gitmo.  If the terrorist is just going to be remanded to the custody of a Middle Eastern country which will likely release him to return to terror, the calculus suddenly changes to a desire to have fewer captives.  Of course, I was expecting the soldiers in the field to more often kill enemy combatants.  Really hadn't expected Obama to embrace the kill don't capture policy.  However, if you oppose putting terrorist in Gitmo and can't try them in American courts (remember the KSM NYC trial fiasco), it does become easier to just kill them.  No messy legal entanglements that way.

Under Bush, the terrorist was more likely to be captured, interrogated, and then spend an indefinite time at Gitmo, where he was fed (typically putting on weight) and provided a Koran.  Under Obama, the terrorist blows up.  Which is more humane?

President Narcissus

The months before I took the oath of office were a chaotic time.  We knew our economy was in trouble, our fellow Americans were in pain, but we wouldn't know until later just how breathtaking the financial crisis had been, and still over those two and a half months in the midst of that crisis, President Bush, his cabinet, his staff, many of you who are here today, went out of your ways, George, you went out of your way to make sure that the transition to a new administration was as seamless as possible.

President Barack Obama

This constitutes part of the remarks made by President Obama on the occasion of unveiling the portrait of President George W. Bush.  The subtext - in case you missed that hammer blow to the head - is that the current economy is still Bush's fault.  Yes, after three and a half years in office, Obama is still blaming his predecessor.  That's nothing new.  That he would do it in a typically non-partisan ceremony does not reflect well on him.  President Bush has remained silent in Texas while Obama has repeatedly attacked him long after Obama should have taken ownership of the economy.  That is impressive restraint and Obama should thank him for it.  Instead, he once again blames Bush.

If that wasn't enough, Obama segued from President Bush standing on the rubble of the Twin Towers to the killing of Osama bin Laden.  Gee, are we getting in a plug for killing bin Laden again?  The ceremony is supposed to be about President Bush and yet Obama can't stop plugging himself.  It is almost as if the unveiling is about Obama.

A few weeks ago, it was reported that almost every presidential profile on the White House website had been updated to include something about Obama.  It is also of note that reporters count the use of the pronoun 'I' in his speeches; he uses it vastly more than any president since Nixon.  A few weeks ago, he commented that the troops were fighting for him.  Not the country but for him.

Back at the unveiling, Bush gave Obama a bit of advice, perhaps in response to Obama's comments:

I am also pleased, Mr. President, that when you are wandering these halls as you wrestle with tough decisions, you will now be able to gaze at this portrait and ask, "What would George do?"

Regardless of one's feelings about President Bush, he wasn't blaming Clinton 3 and a half years into his presidency.