On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 4:28 PM, geoff <[email protected]> wrote: > Your fawning admiration for one of the biggest idiots of our time is truly > vomitous.
Please. My admiration is not fawning -- again, I've been critical, particularly of his reckless spending (which looks tightwad compared the new improved Hope & Change version of the same), and grown doubtful of building "democracy" at home lately, much less abroad. I agree with the gist of the article, in that I think Bush was the object of one of the most massive, coordinated political character assassinations in recent memory, a propaganda coup that resulted in our electing an actual ideological moron. Looking at what Obama is actually doing reveals nothing more than Bush Lite--- that I also agree with, at least on the surface of his foreign policy, the part he really doesn't give 2 shits about, i.e., the war on terror. He's very different than Bush in his support of communist thugs in South America. Otherwise, he's executing the war with much the same strategy, even for all of the bogus ballyhoo about having thought about it very hard. The article was written by a former aid of Sen. Kerry, in case you didn't notice. (Of course you didn't. You're Geoff. You only regurgitate the popular opinions of others.) - Publius > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Publius Maximus > Sent: Thursday, 21 January 2010 6:47 AM > To: ProFox Email List > Subject: [OT] "America Betrayed President Bush" > > http://bit.ly/7OI42g > > - - - > In addition to enduring criticism for his war policies, millions of > Americans demanded the new Obama administration prosecute Bush for his > decision to indefinitely holding detainees charged with war crimes. > When President Obama signed an executive order in May that reinforced > that same Bush policy, the far left was mute. > > Almost no one said a word. Apparently, its acceptable for Obama to > indefinitely hold detainees, just not Bush. > > As Obama continues to make decisions that mirror the Bush doctrine, it > is becoming apparent that the former president was not ignorant or > irrational in his foreign policy decisions despite the harsh criticism > and disloyalty he endured. He was in fact, ahead of his time, a > visionary who understood politics and warfare in the modern age of > terrorism. > > That is why Obama is now following his lead. > > It should be obvious now, even to Obama's most passionate supporters > that shielding the free world requires more than mere words like > "hope" and "change." Bush's detractors should be embarrassed having > arrogantly thought they could do it better, and those Republicans who > abandoned Bush when he needed them most should take a moment to > reflect on their fortitude or lack thereof. > > Americans who chastised President Bush for removing Saddam Hussein > from power in Iraq should apologize and show him the same respect they > are now showing President Obama as he neutralizes the Taliban in > Afghanistan. > > George W. Bush seemed to have an almost mystical understanding of what > the American people needed when we needed it most. He reminded all of > us of why we should be proud to be Americans at a time when there was > a whisper that we brought the Sept. 11 attacks upon ourselves for > promoting democracy abroad. > > President Bush deserves our respect, not our betrayal. > - - - > > What is remarkable about these (obviously true) words -- insofar as > they point out the obvious similarities between Obama's all-purpose > whipping-pole, the "failed policies of the last eight years," and his > own -- is who said them: > > "Jeffrey Scott Shapiro is a journalist and lawyer who served on > Senator John F. Kerry's legal team during the 2004 election." > > That's a big-time WOW if I ever saw one. > > - Publius > > -- > > "It ought never to be forgotten, that a firm union of this country, > under an efficient government, will probably be an increasing object > of jealousy to more than one nation of Europe; and that enterprises to > subvert it will sometimes originate in the intrigues of foreign > powers, and will seldom fail to be patronized and abetted by some of > them. Its preservation, therefore ought in no case that can be > avoided, to be committed to the guardianship of any but those whose > situation will uniformly beget an immediate interest in the faithful > and vigilant performance of the trust." [Federalist Papers #59] > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
