« Jimmy Carter, Part 2 | Main | New Beach Boys »

06/03/2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

You're Welcome

kakalakahypocrites

jaycee

Where is Lex Alexander to guide us with his moral compass!!

Harold

So you're not happy with the shoot first and ask questions later approach to fighting terrorists that Obama employs.

Quite frankly he sorta makes W look like a featherweight with regard to killing them before they kill us.

Jim Buie

Good questions, Sam. The indiscriminate use of drones is of highly questionable morality. And I agree with you that if Bush were president, the criticism would be much louder from the left.

But what do you and Jaycee propose? Elimination of drones? That would make you fairly radical leftists yourselves.

Can't believe that in a matter of days, I agree with you on two issues -- this one and Edwards. As I said over at Ed's blog, you and Bubba were right about "the phony" John Edwards, about a year after I posted my own impression that he was a phony.

It should come as no surprise that in politics, whatever one's ideology, it's common to give leaders in one's same ideological ballpark a pass, and excoriate those "on the other side." It cuts both ways. Would you be posting such criticism if Bush or another a Republican were using drones the way that Obama is?

I've also wondered where the Tea Partiers and other "conservatives" who've become so concerned about deficits in the last three and a half years were when George W. Bush was racking up deficits with impunity, as he fought two wars, and expanded Medicare to offer a prescription drug benefit as a sop to the pharmaceutical companies?

Your conclusion could apply then, too, couldn't it? "The absence of any such widespread complaining leads to the obvious conclusion that the outraged expressed by so many during the Bush years was intellectually dishonest and phony political posturing."

I'm waiting for you to start identifying intellectually dishonest, hypocritical, "phony" Republicans on your blog, or do you think that only liberals and Democrats fit that description?

jaycee

The use of drones is not the issue, so put that rabbit back in your hutch.
The issue is the hypocrisy of the left, who spouted faux "outrage" at everything Pres. Bush did, but remains silent when Obama does something similar.
And, Harold, unless you're intimately familiar with all the killing of our enemies in many countries during the Bush administration, and the sea change under Obama regarding Rules of Engagement, etc., then I'd submit you have no yardstick with which to measure Obama's efforts. Relying on the liberal media for your info does not make you an expert.

bubba

"The absence of any such widespread complaining leads to the obvious conclusion that the outraged expressed by so many during the Bush years was intellectually dishonest and phony political posturing."

It's just further confirmation of what everyone (except Harold) has known for years.

bubba

"I'm waiting for you to start identifying intellectually dishonest, hypocritical, "phony" Republicans on your blog, or do you think that only liberals and Democrats fit that description?"

Why bother?

There's always some "progressive" fool to do it for us, and there's always some "progressive" fool to make a statement like yours.

bubba

"And, Harold, unless you're intimately familiar with all the killing of our enemies in many countries during the Bush administration, and the sea change under Obama regarding Rules of Engagement...."

Harold?

He's still dealing with the rules of engagement regarding paper cuts.

Spag

Jim, if you looked at the archives from my previous blog that go back to 2006, you would find the phony Edwards references all over the place.

Jaycee has it right in that this post is about the hypocrisy. I did criticize spending under Bush, but let's face it- nobody is talking impeachment and war crimes over spending and deficits. Face it, both parties bitch about deficits when the other is in power. But even now, those who attacked Bush for spending have nothing to say about Obama's record deficits- other than to blame Bush.

The key reason that the Tea Party was able to gain traction is because people on both sides of the aisle had enough of the spending and deficits. Contrary to the narrative, it wasn't a reaction to Obama. It was formed out of a growing frustration with our fiscal condition and Bush was no exception. The Tea Party was/is fed up with both parties because neither seems willing to actually do anything. That is why there is a rift between conservatives and the GOP establishment.

The marching in the streets attacks on Bush were a daily occurrence accompanied by near hysteria. The local blogs were filled with daily claims of outrage. Now those same characters are silent.

The moral outrage over terror policy during the Bush years followed by silence now makes it clear that the outrage wasn't based on morality at all, but pure partisan politics.

Jim Buie

Sam's criticism of Obama's drone strikes sure is timely. Monday, drone strikes killed Al Qaeda's number two in northwest Pakistan.

Sam writes: "those who attacked Bush for spending have nothing to say about Obama's record deficits- other than to blame Bush." Of course. Just as those who supported Bush as he refused to pay for two wars, slashed taxes and added entitlements had nothing to say about deficits then but now deficits are their number one concern, and they only blame Obama.

Political hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle is not new, not news, and there are plentiful examples on right and left. Why pretend that only liberals are hypocrites and only liberals are intellectually dishonest?

Harold

WSJ has an editorial today titled "Drones Away". The WSJ glowingly reports about one of Obama's rules of engagement. "..Obama's decision to expand the drone program into Pakistan and Yemen - which are difficult for US troops to access - is one of his finest accomplishments..."

Killed #2 and nine others in an apple orchard sipping tea in a Paki apple orchard.

Jim Buie

"The news that Abu Yahya al-Libi, the No.2 leader of al Qaeda, is now confirmed to have been killed in a CIA drone strike in Pakistan's tribal region along the border with Afghanistan further underlines that the terrorist group that launched the 9/11 attacks is now more or less out of business," - Peter Bergen.

"What Bush failed to do in eight years, Obama has accomplished in three...Think back for a few minutes to a decade ago. Imagine George W. Bush achieving what Bergen has now noted. Would a re-election even be in doubt? Or would he already be on Rushmore?" -- Andrew Sullivan.

cheripickr

uhh, do you think the 8 years of groundwork laid by his predecessor might have had anything to do with Obama's successes? That's like saying FDR was a failure but Truman was a hero because he dropped the bomb. Obama out of the gate would more likely have produced a record more resembling the US's 1st 6 months in the Pacific theater. But whatever fits the narrative I guess...

Harold

I bet Obama wishes every day the mission had truly been accomplished, what was it, 10 years ago.

bubba

"I bet Obama wishes every day the mission had truly been accomplished, what was it, 10 years ago."

Of course, Harold......it's all Bush's fault because he didn't get the mission accomplished before he even started.

Quick poll: Who is the most absurd commentator here, Buie or Harold?

I can't decide. Each one keeps giving us new evidence to support themselves for that distinction.

Spag

I love it. Bush was hounded for killing terrorists, Obama is applauded for ostensibly killing them even better.

jaycee

Obama didn't kill anybody. He doesn't have a joystick in the Oval Office controlling drones and Hellfires.
Our military and the CIA (who controls the drones in Paki) developed actionable intel and did their job.
They did the same job while Pres. Bush was in office. You just didn't hear much about it because...well...the media would slit their collective throats before praising anything done by Pres. Bush.

Roch

"Political hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle is not new, not news, and there are plentiful examples on right and left." -- JB

Yes, but Sam only points it out on the left, which, every time he does, makes him a hypocrite. The irony was funny at first but after, half a decade, it's just boring now.

Roch

"That's like saying FDR was a failure but Truman was a hero because he dropped the bomb." -- CP

That's like saying FDR didn't respond to the bombing of Perl Harbor by attacking Thailand. Oh, wait, he didn't saddle America and his successor with such a drain and distraction, did he?

Roch

"Bush was hounded for killing terrorists..." -- Sam

He was? When? Where?

The comments to this entry are closed.