Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Rush was Right -- Democrats did not support President Bush

I'm late to the conversation, but remember I've been away.

Let's take the Wayback Machine and go back a few weeks to CPAC:



Let's take the Wayback Machine back to 2003, when the current Secretary of State told her audience about dissent (strange, there was no YouTube video) in 2003:

"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, 'We are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration'"

And let's take the Wayback Machine to Inauguration day 2001, what did Democrat partisans do? They protested before President Bush ascended to the office. This line really gets me:

"...protesters who hurled insults, bottles, tomatoes and an egg."

And before you say boo, tell me are bottles safe to throw at people? What if they miss? When the time came to put aside partisanship, the Democrats refused.

Now we have 9/11: Do you remember Maureen Dowd? We entered a new world on 9/11 and she is nitpicking President Bush on 9/12. As we were ready to go into Afghanistan, there were protests. Where were the Liberal leaders?

Then someone in the White House read Peter Hopkirk's, The Great Game and understood how Afghanistan is not the place the fight Al-Queda It was an idea, that as a former democrat made sense: End a dictator, build a democracy in an area surrounded by Dictators and Monarchists. Take the Wayback Machine to 1990, New York City and I was protesting against President George H. W. Bush for not installing a Democracy in the Middle East

So, President George W. Bush, following the precedent of history in Afghanistan and following Wilsonian ideals as a way to defeat terrorism (and one of it's sponsors) endorses the Democrats 1990 ideals. Kumbaya, right? Wrong.

The Iraq war begets Daily Kos, Huffington Post and Code Pink. On almost every leftist Blog since Rush Limbaugh gave his speech, there have been two excuses:

1. "We expected President Bush to fail,"

2. "We'd support him, but..."

If you wrote or believed #1, then why didn't Democrats lift a finger to help Bush win his war and bring the troops home? If you wrote or believed #2, is that the attitude you have at work? "I'd do this job on the movie set, but I think the plot sucks," "I'd work on your computer but I think PC's suck," How fast would you be fired?

Once upon a time, Democrats believed in spreading Democracy -- when a Republican President signed onto the cause, the Democrats rejected that philosophy.

My question is this, given the historical precedent of "politics stops at the water's edge," what did you do to support the president at the water's edge? If you did not, how do you rid the world of a Dictator without a military force? Give a historical example using the UN showing how it is done.


Bookmark and Share





12 comments:

  1. Oh JSF, you're breaking my heart here. I would have considered you a step above the knuckle dragging Limbaugh crowd. I think that there's a difference between being critical of the job a president is doing and hoping that they fail. When the president fails, the country fails. Anyone hoping that the president fails, regardless of their political affiliation, is a traitor and an asshole. Criticize all you want. Make jokes. Hope they don't always get their way, but when you root for failure, you're putting your ideology ahead of your country.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jason,

    What I'm showing here is when the Democrats had the chance to be adults and work with a President they didn't agree with, they chose the easy, most politically expediant way: attack, attack, attack.

    And wished him to fail -- find me a Kos post saying they wanted Iraq to be sucessful during 2003-2008.

    There were many excuses why Democrats did not support Bush -- but he took up their ideology regarding the Middle East. Then the Left turned their back.

    It's a litle haughty being told to support our President when the Liberals did nothing to help the last one.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh JSF, are we really going to get right back into the old two wrongs making a right thing again so soon upon your return? Wanting to get our troops out of a war we have no business fighting is not wishing for failure, no matter how many times people like Dick Cheney or Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter say it is. Find me one instance of somebody wishing Bush to fail, and I'll be happy to call them a treasonous asshole too. You may not like the president or their party, but you don't wish them to fail if you care the slightest bit about your country. Bush failed spectacularly and look at the mess we're in now. Oh wait, I forgot that it was somehow the democrats fault for that too, but anyway... Anyone who hoped for that can suck... oh wait, I'm not calling in to Howard Stern here, but you get the idea. And anyone who hopes Obama or any president fails can do the same.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jason,

    I cite example upon example of how the Democrats did not support President Bush -- of course they did not "say" they wanted him to fail, but they gave a heck of a lot of excuses not to support him.

    It's like someone going on a journey and always putting things in his journey to make it harder --did the Democrats and Liberals help?

    It is a big fat NO -- so why are you folks surprised to us oppose after the past 8 years.

    And if you read Peter Hopkirk's The Great Game, you would know how the British lost Afghanistan (twice) and everyone knows the story of Charlie Wilson's war.

    I thought Democrats and Liberals were all for Liberating people from dictators (i.e FDR and Truman), I guess being against all war is the best way to help, then.

    Wait, I'm wrong -- Democrats and Liberals only support wars that Democratic Presidents engage in. Prove me wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What the hell am I doing allowing myself to get sucked into this old song and dance routine? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good debate, but this ain't it! This kind of bickering is to a debate as checkers is to chess. You owe it to your readers and to yourself to be more thought provoking than this.

    Here's something... during your blog absence we spoke about Battlestar Galactica, and in particular Gaeta's coup which you said you were for. I'm guessing that there's something political behind that, and I would be fascinated to hear about it. Are the Cylons supposed to be Democrats or Palestinians? This would be far more more intriguing than all of this he-said, she-said partisan game playing. I know you've got it in you to be interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jason,

    I'll do BSG after it concludes, Gaeta's Mutiny and all. This post follows up on the last one.

    I just need help undrstanding this, if Rush is wrong, then you can point to me something Liberals and Democrats said or did after Saddam fell and the Mission Accomplished banner was put away that shows one thing:

    Did the Democrats do anything to support President Bush in Iraq? I've Googled and searched, and nothing came up.

    Jason, can you, or someone here enlighten me to how the Democrats helped President Bush?

    If not, Rush is right. Game, set, match.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wow! I don't even know where to begin here. I think of Rush as even less than an entertainer. I've never really had any respect for him or his ideology, but then again difference isn't always a bad thing especially when it comes to the relationships I have with people. I personally wish they would make Rush shut up, but I understand freedom of speech should be given to even those that I don't care for and I agree with Rush that I have the right not to listen to the crap he wants to say.

    On the other hand Rush and the Republicans should all think before they speak. Now, this is true for the Democrats as well. People need to think before they speak and before they support things or not. I think though that it's dangerous to let entertainers become spokesmen. I know lots of Republicans that are not Rush fans, I know the party is fairly diverse. This is one of the main reasons I left the party it was becoming too much of a Rush like party for my liking.

    I'm glad to see you back at it again.

    ReplyDelete
  8. JSF, I'm not really sure if you're missing my point or intentionally dodging it, so I'll spell it out, again. Not supporting a president's policies or decisions is not the same as publicly wishing for them to fail, no matter how much you really really want it to be the same thing. There's plenty of dumb, wrongheaded, and evil stuff that comes out of the mouths of individual liberals. One side's asshattery is not an excuse for the other side to be an asshat. You either disagree with that kind of behavior across the board or you're a hypocrite. And sure, human nature to be a little bit of a hypocrite. George W. Bush actually said it best in his brilliant cameo role in Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay when he asks Kumar if he likes giving handjobs. Kumar does not. But he likes getting them, and that makes him a hypocrite. But going out of your way to be a hypocrite is kind of lame. And I know you're smarter than that.

    As for BSG, I won't be seeing it until Sat or Sun, so let's talk next week. They showed it in a movie theater with a bunch of the cast in attendance in NYC earlier in the week and I hear it's going to be very satisfying.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jason,

    This post and the last post tie together -- I would have forgiven and moved on, hut you guys ARE STILL hating on President Bush.

    Turning the other cheek? It seems that was tried the last eight years. Guess what? It didn't stop the Asshattery. Did any Democrat say "This is going over the line,"

    NO.

    If the Democrats cannot corral their folks, why should I try keeping myself in check when a Democrat is in office? What happened over the Plauge year sort of comfirmed my suspecians about Modern Liberalism -- They mouth the words but do not act on them.

    But they are available to hate a Republican faster then giving him any benefit of the doubt.

    The protests against Bush started before he became President and continued into Inauguration 2008 -- why should I turn the other cheek at this date? You had 8 years.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Nathan Zimmermann8:52 AM PDT

    JSF,

    I disagree with the following statement:

    Wait, I'm wrong -- Democrats and Liberals only support wars that Democratic Presidents engage in. Prove me wrong.

    During the 81st and 82nd Congresses the United States Senate oppposed Truman's involvement of the United States in Korea that is why no Declartion of war was requested from Congress.

    Also, The Supreme Court opposed his attempt to nationalize the steel industry in 1952 during the height of the conflict.

    ReplyDelete
  11. JSF, when are you going to realize that Bush was fairly unique as far as the levels of hate towards him? It goes beyond the silly partisan games you play. He really touched people in a way that gave a more visceral reaction than any president in modern history.

    But more importantly, where's the BSG post?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Don't give up Mr. Hopey Changy still has 3 1/2 more years to become worst than Carter.

    ReplyDelete

Welcome to the Valley! Please comment about the post and keep to the subject.

There is only one person (JSF) keeping track of comments, so as long as what you write is civil and close to the purpose of the post, you will see it.

Keep this in mind: Politics should not be Personal; then you have a place here.

Write! History will remember your words!

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...