BUSH LITE by Bill Whittle [7:36] < What he said. EVERY WORD!
Obama job approval is almost identical to what Bush’s was at this point in his presidency in September 2006. In 2006, this was news. Now? Not so much.
This bias extends to the media’s own polls.
Well, only according to President Unicorn, who told us over and over and over that the death of Osama bin Laden and removal of U.S. troops from Iraq meant that Bush’s “stupid” Global War on Terror was over, Over, OVER.
Those of us who have been PAYING ATTENTION have known disaster was inevitable … just like we know the economy is headed for a great big, possibly fatal crash because of the Obamacrats’ out-of-control spending. But that’s another story.
“The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant. … I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian,” Obama said in an interview with The New Yorker.
“As the Syrian civil war spills across borders, the capacity of battle-hardened extremist groups to come after us only increases,” Obama said at West Point. “And the need for a new strategy reflects the fact that today’s principal threat no longer comes from a centralized al Qaeda leadership. Instead it comes from decentralized al Qaeda affiliates and extremists, many with agendas focused in the countries where they operate.”
“We don’t have people embedded in those [Iraqi] units, and so obviously nobody knew that,” Kerry said on Fox News.
“It is al Qaeda in its doctrine, ambition and, increasingly, in its threat to U.S. interests. … In fact, it is worse than al Qaeda,” McGurk told the House Armed Services Committee. “[ISIS] is no longer simply a terrorist organization. It is now a full-blown army seeking to establish a self-governing state through the Tigris and Euphrates valley in what is now Syria and Iraq.”
“We do have a strategic interest in pushing back ISIL. We’re not going to let them create some caliphate through Syria and Iraq, but we can only do that if we know that we’ve got partners on the ground who are capable of filling the void,” Obama told The New York Times. (IS, ISIS, and ISIL are all the same group.)
Those former allies that Obama has systematically ignored and disrespected since Bush retired? Those partners that Obama left hanging when he pulled our troops out so he could do his “I killed Osama” end zone dance again and again?
Isn’t this like a doctor who ignored your symptoms until they had grown into a Stage 4 malignancy?
“ISIL is as sophisticated and well-funded as any group that we have seen. They’re beyond just a terrorist group. They marry ideology, a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess. They are tremendously well funded. This is beyond anything that we’ve seen. So we must prepare for everything. And the only way you do that is that you take a cold, steely, hard look at it and … get ready.”
Obama’s evolution on ISIS threat By Kristina Wong – 08/24/14
Woods and Baldwin tweets
On August 31, 2010, President Obama announced the end of combat operations in Iraq, saying this had been his “pledge to the American people as a candidate for this office” and that it was “what we’ve done.” American troops remained in an advisory capacity to assist the Iraqis in assuming security of their own nation.
On October 21, 2011, President Obama announced that all remaining American troops would be shortly leaving Iraq. “As a candidate for President, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end. … After taking office, I announced a new strategy that would end our combat mission in Iraq and remove all of our troops by the end of 2011. … Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki and I are in full agreement about how to move forward.”
CNN Presidential debate: Obama, Romney spar over troops in Iraq [1:17]
This morning, President Obama was asked if he regretted pulling the remaining U.S. troops from Iraq in 2011. He said it wasn’t his decision to do so! BUSH negotiated the SOFA draw down and MALIKI had not wanted any Americans to stay in Iraq!
But on October 21, 2011, the New York Times had reported that American military officials were dismayed by the complete withdrawal of forces from Iraq, saying the Iraqi’s security was still too fragile to endure without an American military presence. They said that the Bush administration had negotiated the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) as a symbolic gesture to help Iraq establish itself as a sovereign nation but that had always been an understanding that a sizable American force would actually stay in Iraq beyond that date.
If Obama had wanted our forces to stay in Iraq, he could’ve made it happen. Now that the country’s gone to hell, he suddenly doesn’t remember that the military warned him this could happen or that he repeatedly boasted about and took full credit for the removal of every last one of our troops from a still fragile Iraq.
What a schmuck.
July 30, 2014: Democrat Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee announced on the House floor today, “We did not seek an impeachment of President Bush.”
Yeah, well, except for that time when you totally did. On June 10, 2008, the House of Representatives voted 251 to 166 to refer “H.Res. 1258: Impeaching George W. Bush, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors” to the Judiciary Committee. It contained 35 separate articles of impeachment. It was sponsored by Democrat Rep. Dennis Kucinich and co-sponsored by 11 Democrats, one of whom was Sheila Jackson-Lee.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. She and whoever else helped her compose her formal PREPARED remarks before Congress … which are now part of the permanent Congressional record … just what … forgot? … that time when Democrats … you know … sought to impeach President Bush?
White House Press Sec. Josh Earnest bristled over the impertinence of the suggestion that Obama should take time out of his fundraising schedule to see the scale of this emerging refugee crisis for himself.
“The reason that some people are suggesting the president should go to [the] border when he’s in Texas is because they’d rather play politics than actually trying to address some of these challenges,” Earnest added.
Yup. Fundraising. That’ll solve everything, right?