How long before DU does an about face on Bush?

[whatchamacallit]

Given that we have accepted Bush's war on terror, adopted much of his apparatus, and are justifying and legitimizing radical measures similar to his, how long before he goes from zero to hero? The new found support for what we're doing almost makes Bush seem visionary.

[99th_Monkey]

1. .

[MotherPetrie]

2. But but but... IOKIYAD!!!!

[quinnox]

3. hopefully, when hell freezes over

[arthritisR_US]

21. +100

[IdaBriggs]

129. ^== This. NT

[maxsolomon]

4. How long before my aunt has balls?

Recognizing that Obama got painted into a corner on the WOT by President Cheney is NOT the same as lauding The Giggling Sociopath.

Every president "murders" (except Jimmy Carter), every president lies (including Jimmy Carter). It's part of the job description. We get to elect the least offensive liar to murder for us.

[whatchamacallit]

7. Sorry, from where I stand it looks like the same playbook for a different team.

[jazzimov]

8. Then you need to stand somewhere else, because

the playbooks are vastly different.

[sheshe2]

52. +1000

[SidDithers]

54. Well said...nt

Sid

[busterbrown]

36. Lets not get into a discussion on comparing administrations.....

If Bush/Chaney were still in office this planet would be truly fucked.

I just don’t get the fact that some don’t understand that If Obama did anything contrary to what the Military Complex wanted and there was an attack on our soil..Obama would have immediately turned into a lame duck POTUS. And our country would be overwhelmed with right wing elected officials.

[Blanks]

41. The federal government is a big ship...

And it doesn't turn on a dime.

That's what so many don't seem to understand. There is information that the president is privy to that presidential candidates aren't privy to.

You've hit the nail on the head. Some of the unpleasant policies can't be eliminated until we've gained more goodwill in the world.

I don't like it any more than anyone else, but the last thing it does is make Dubya look good.

[demwing]

102. So we sacrifice what's right

for what's expedient?

What's the line that we won't cross?

[busterbrown]

117. If you define expedient as a lame duck centrist democratic President for 4 years.

Than I say lets be expedient.... The example of Benghazi and what they are trying to pull off should be very unsettling to you. Could you imagine a scenario where Obama cancels the Drone flights and an attack on our soil follows. It would lead to Christian Fundamentalist right wing govt. for at least 2 presidential cycles...That is some scary stuff.

[libodem]

5. Never

And yes, I know I have adapted some level of, cognitive dissonance, to cope with the contradictions.

Yes, it is fucked up. I accept things about 'our' guy that made me furious about Bush. I wondered how his party was able to have a blind eye to the corruption, abuse, and lying, that came out of that sack of shit administration.

I have a better I idea, now, that I've turned into a hypocrite.

[Laelth]

152. Impressive honesty. n/t

-Laelth

[libodem]

156. Just keeping it real

Be careful what you ask for.

[RC]

6. Oh, you noticed that too, huh?

That day seems to be getting ever closer.

We need to redefine "Democrat" around here, as something better than the current "Not Republican".

[whatchamacallit]

13. Of course everyone still wants to blame shrub

but it's getting harder and harder to do. Crazy times...

[ProSense]

9. Here:

Remembering Bush, accurately
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022343435

That should help you clear up your confusion.

For what it's worth, I understand the attempts to avoid debate: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2353179

[whatchamacallit]

15. Hate to burst your bubble

but you muddle more often than clear.

[ProSense]

19. You posted: "Of course everyone still wants to blame shrub"

You're having a sad that Bush sanctioned terror and launched the illegal Iraq war, and no one is mad at the President for ending those policies.

[whatchamacallit]

23. Haha

no.

[cali]

10. grr. more gratuitous bullshit generalizations- and speak for yourself, sparky.

I don't support the war on terror. I don't support drone strikes. Neither do many other DUers.

[whatchamacallit]

14. Wasn't referring to people like you

[napoleon_in_rags]

11. No, I've had that realization.

Not that Bush is awesome, but the simple fact that a lot didn't change in regards with some policies tells me that the president exists in a unique situation, with unique pressures and information that aren't necessarily clear to the rest of us. So simply put, a lot of the bad things that seemed to start in the Bush administration are bigger and more complex than Bush himself, that's clear.

I don't think it has to be this mind blowing thing to realize that: Political reality is always larger, more complex, and involving more people than anything as simple as one leader.

[zipplewrath]

48. Trying to have it both ways?

"...the simple fact that a lot didn't change in regards with some policies tells me that the president exists in a unique situation, with unique pressures and information that aren't necessarily clear to the rest of us. So simply put, a lot of the bad things that seemed to start in the Bush administration are bigger and more complex than Bush himself, that's clear."

Um, I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that Bush wasn't as bad as we thought but that we mostly didn't understand the "unique pressures and information"? Or are you suggesting that Bush is bad for doing it, but Obama is okay even though he can't seem to stop?

[napoleon_in_rags]

118. What I'm saying is that the role of the president over estimated.

A lot of the problems we face are deep, systemic. When Bush was POTUS, I as many people over estimated his individual role in creating the problems we saw, and that led to me having some unrealistic expectations of Obama, which weren't fulfilled. Things are better and he has accomplished some huge things, but those were victories hard won - the POTUS isn't some kind of supreme ruler.

I think its hazardous to lay all the blame on one person, one one face, because we live in a system where the faces of leaders can change in an instant in an election, even when underlying problems do not. At some point we have to stop worrying about heroes and villains and start paying attention to those real core issues as standalone things, with a life of their own.

edit: It may be the most effective thing though IS to label Bush a war criminal though, as Abby Martin said tonight. Register profound disagreement with things like the Iraq war.

[zipplewrath]

124. I'm still confused though

Are you giving Bush a break and saying it wasn't all his fault and he was a victim of politics?

And how do you label Bush a war criminal, if he was just a vicitm of his situation? After all, there is so much about being president that we don't know and don't understand the choices they face.

[napoleon_in_rags]

145. I am saying it wasn't ALL Bush's fault... But I don't think he was a good president.

You can go back in history and look at all the bad stuff that happened under the watch of JFK for instance... JFK as an individual really wasn't responsible. The point is that the president doesn't have power over every aspect of our lives. For instance, Obama did a great job making clear what he wants tonight... $9 minimum wage, a bunch of other great things. Will we get them? We'll see, its only partially up to Obama. Once you realize he's not king, he's in their fighting for this stuff, Obama becomes a lot cooler.

As far as Bush though, the example that comes to mind in retrospect was the case where the intel supporting the Saddam getting WMD's was forged:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries
So there was this weird environment where the intelligence Bush was receiving was cherry picked and bizarre. Him wanting to attack Iraq was one thing, but the intelligence should have told him he was wrong. Instead, the whole world morphed to support the fantasy. That's really a remarkable thing, and it involved a whole lot more people than just Bush. That points to problematic phenomena way bigger than one person, and much of that machine is still in place, even though Bush is retired.

[zipplewrath]

159. Try running a ship aground

If you're a Navy captian, and the ship runs aground. You'll never be a captian of a ship again. You think the Captain actually has his hands on the wheel? There are navigators responsible for where the ship is and where is should sail. Commanders don't get to blame their problems on their subordinates. They are RESPONSIBLE for their subordinates. If Bush got bad info from his own people, and he ignored the German's cautions that his intel was bad, HE is responsible. And if he didn't fire them, or have them put on trial, he is even MORE responsible.

Obama is responsible for keeping Gates. Is it any surprise that Gates advised him to execute the SOFA agreement that Gates was involved in negotiating? Who is responsible for that?

[napoleon_in_rags]

169. I hear you, but the metaphor doesn't perfectly fit for POTUS.

The military is like a dictatorship, with a clear chain of command. Sometimes I WISH congress and others were under Obama's command, but they aren't. Many things in this system have a life of their own, and a president can't easily change them.

I am 100% against the stuff that went on in the Bush administration. Absolutely against it. But I guess the point I'm trying to make is, its bigger than just Bush. We simply can't ignore the smaller percentage of it that's still going on under Obama. I believe Obama is a cool guy, and if he had his say, it wouldn't be there. So that indicates that the power of the president is limited in many cases, and that also means the responsibility the president takes is limited: Responsibility is commensurate with power, and in the case of America, the power and responsibility are distributed, including to the people. Its empowering for us to realise this, but more comforting to deny it. One way to deny it is to place too much blame on one person, rather than looking at the full picture of what happened, at the phenomenon.

When at look at the ineffective sections of the right, the conversation is a who's who of good vs. evil. Vilains, monsters and the rest. Very little stand is made on the what works of substantial policies and discovering their direct observable effects. But I honestly believe that the most powerful political stance is to do just that, forget about individuals and focus on things of substance. Like with global warming: What the hell should we do??? That's the real question. You could set try setting up potential trials at the Hague down the road for people if non-action leads to disaster, but that doesn't answer that fundamental here and now question, which is 90% of the solution.

I know maybe it sounds like I am defending Bush, I'm not. I suffered terribly under that administration. What I'm doing is encouraging us to focus on the deep problems that led to that, not passing people.

[zipplewrath]

170. And this is the core

I believe Obama is a cool guy

Bush can be bad, but we need excuses for Obama because he is a "cool guy".

Cool guys can do wrong things. They should be just as wrong when the do them as when the "uncool" do.

If Bush felt mislead, forced, tricked, or trapped, he should have fired, dismissed, replaced. He was responsible and he should be treated as such. Making excuses for them only gives them the space to avoid that responsibility.

And that goes for "cool guys" too.

[RebelOne]

12. Not me. I hate the SOB and will always hate him.

I hate him mainly because of the unjustified war on Iraq and all the innocent people killed. They were not our enemy.

[Cleita]

17. Copy that for me.

Only Dick Cheney is a more odious human being than George W. Bush.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

24. Oh no...

Nixon was worse, so was Reagan.

[Cleita]

30. They were all bad but Bush and Cheney were the worst IMHO.

They really set a new benchmark for destroying what was once America.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

47. You may not know your history,

but you are, of course, entitled to your opinions.

[Cleita]

63. Well I give them sort of a pass because Reagan was really clueless and

he believed his drivel. Nixon actually had some progressive policies. Bush I and II are just evil except that Bush I wasn't as stupid has his son. So yeah, Bush II and his Veep get the prize for pure awfulness.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

73. Reagan was not clueless...

he knew exactly what he was doing most of the time. It's a meme created to absolve him from some pretty horrible policies. He didn't begin the destruction of the middle class, that began with WW II and the war powers act...unions never regained the power they had prior to that war. However, he got away with dismantling unions and he sold average Americans a bill of goods that was like selling a man the rope with which he hangs himself. Nixon was worse, including purposely prolonging the Vietnam war for political gain. By the time the Shrub came along the destruction was pretty much complete...he just had to cut taxes one more time.... to put the safety nets on the path to oblivion.

[HooptieWagon]

84. Union membership reached its peak a decade after WWII.

So I don't think its accurate to blame the War Powers Act.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

86. While membership increased,

the unions did not have the same power they had had... I should have also mentioned the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947...it gave us the notion of "the right to work"

[DisgustipatedinCA]

130. I know my history fairly well

And Nixon was a Sunday School teacher compared to GWB.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

131. Okay...that's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it.

[HangOnKids]

136. Love it!

What is happening here? GWB is now a country farmer painting savant and those of us paying attention just don't know the truth?

[arely staircase]

16. silly bullshit

eom

[nobodyspecial]

18. Yes, the GOP and Dems are just the same

What's Nader up to these days?

[whatchamacallit]

20. Don't know

The safekeeping of the Nader Straw Man is your job.

[libtodeath]

22. President Obama is forced to pick up all the pieces shrub managed to break

criticizing him for some things he does is looked at by some as terrible and not villifying him mercilessly just as bad by others.
Why does it have to be an either or?

[kenny blankenship]

25. He was a voice of conscience crying in the wilderness!

he was a prophet and doer of good works, but his own people knew him not!

[whatchamacallit]

27. LOL!

[BeyondGeography]

26. Fer cryin out loud

[whatchamacallit]

28. Hey someone just gave me another heart!

Thanks!

[quinnox]

29. lol

Why do you think I have been posting so many OPs lately?? The more exposure, the more hearts will come!

I kid. I kid.

[OldDem2012]

31. You must be REALLY bored to post this kind "stir-the-pot" nonsense. nt.

[Louisiana1976]

32. Never and here's why:

I will always remember Bush as the president why let New Orleans drown during Katrina.

[grasswire]

33. who is this "we" you speak of?

It ain't me.

[kestrel91316]

34. Needlessly divisive shitstirring

[GoCubsGo]

151. Yup.

[otohara]

35. PBO Busy Trying to Save American's From Gun Deaths

Did President Bush ever say a word about our gun problem and the thousand that die each year here?

[patrice]

37. Give some people credit for being able to tell the difference between 4 & 5 fingers, even if

you can't.

[baldguy]

38. How long before DU realizes we live in the world as it is rather than as we wish it was?

Next, you'll be demanding Obama produce his real birth certificate.

[zipplewrath]

49. So we

So we go to war with the army we have, not the army we want?

[baldguy]

80. The implication being that this isn't true?

The difference is, of course, the Rumsfeld didn't have to "go to war", but we still have to live in the world.

[zipplewrath]

88. So we "had" to triple the troops in Afghanistan?

We "had" to execute the SOFA? We "had" to keep Gates? We "had" to have 2 of the three Sec Defs be republicans?

[baldguy]

97. If we had followed the GOP agenda we would still be in Iraq, Afghanistan would not be winding down

And we would have attacked Iran by now, too.

Sorry to break it to you, but the Obama = Bush meme is a big FAIL right out of the gate, denies the facts of the situation & bears no resemblance to what's happening in the real world.

[Luminous Animal]

101. The Bush Admin set the agenda and timeling for withdrawal, signing an agreement with Iraq..

an agreement that Obama abided by almost to the day, leaving Iraq a violent poor shithole with millions starving, homeless, a destroyed infrastructure (water, electricity, sewers), a violent government that tortures its citizenry, rampant disease and illness and deformities. We will do the same for Afghanistan.

A decade or so down the road both will be a success for western businesses - Hey! Similar to Vietnam!

[zipplewrath]

122. Bush negotiated SOFA

Bush negotiated the SOFA that Obama executed. And unless Bush was going to be willing to accept our troops being subject to Iraqi courts, he would have left too. Remember, Clinton and Gates, amongst others, were still trying to get an agreement to allow us to remain, right up until the end.

I'm dubious about Iran because Condi had been against that for years, along with most of the senior military advisers. Cheney even admits to having lost that battle within the White House.

No one is making the Bush=Obama arguement except you. This is about the policies that haven't changed much since then, and why they have not.

[demwing]

105. Ridiculous comment

we obviously live in the world as it is rather than as we wish it was. It's a world where Obama does great things, but not all of those great things are good things.

So you encourage that idea with one comment, and then with the next comment, deride those who take it up, but in a direction that's different than the one you intended?

Sounds as though you are the one wishing that the world were other than it is...

[Egalitarian Thug]

111. I'm just happy that I don't have to live in the world inside your head. n/t

[sibelian]

141. Well we do get to make *some* decisions about *some* of it.

*some* of the time. Best keep that little bit of freedom, says I.

[LanternWaste]

39. As soon as you see it that way...

"How long before DU does an about face on Bush?"

As with most opinions, as soon as you decide to perceive it that way...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. A hawk by any other name is still a hawk.

[Blanks]

42. It seems that most historians voted Dubya...

Worst president ever. Can we really expect this president to turn that around over-night.

Most of the problems Obama has had to face so far is because of inertia. A lot of things need turned around.

Just dealing with how much Dubya screwed up the economy is nearly impossible with the romper room mentality of the republican controlled house.

We aren't in any position to undue some of these national security problems until we've erased all of the bad will that Dubya spread throughout the world.

Dubya was the worst president ever - by any objective measure.

[libodem]

72. Absolutely

[Luminous Animal]

100. You do know that "throughout the world" people that royally pissed off about the drone campaigns

don't you? And that use INCREASES the number of terrorists not the opposite. So, just how is increasing the use of drones and spreading there use to other countries with which are not at war erasing all the bad will?

[Blanks]

134. It probably is spreading bad will.

I will grant you that. I am not in support of the expanded (or even continued) use of drones.

I'm merely stating that the president knows a lot more about why these kinds of things go on than even presidential candidates.

My personal preference when it comes to waging war (if we feel like we've got to) is to put troops on the ground. If we are going to be killing people; it should be a personal thing.

I can't get behind remote control killing. However, I don't know enough about what kind of threats there are to national security to say I would discontinue the drones.

It is different to continue a program than it is to start a program. In the long run it makes sense to pull troops out of the Middle East and by extension if we need to take some kind of military action - we may upset more people by mobilizing troops than we would to simply take a small action with a drone.

I don't know what the reasoning is, but the president also has to be careful about discontinuing programs that may create serious political backlash.

[DCBob]

43. Suggesting that Bush and Obama are the same is..

simply idiotic.

[DeeDeeNY]

70. + 1,000

[G_j]

123. The subject was specific policies

perhaps you missed that.

[DCBob]

135. Actually the subject was bashing Obama by using some idiotic comparisons to Bush.

perhaps you knew that.

[G_j]

137. Would you care to actually address the topic?

or avoid it?

[DCBob]

140. I think I did...

in a manner that the topic is worthy of being commented on.

[MzShellG]

44. Isn't he a war criminal?

He more than anyone else, besides Cheney shouldve been impeached and removed from office.

[liberalmuse]

45. Nevah!

If you only knew how much I and many here despised this man, you would not need to ask.

[stevenleser]

46. How many times do pro and anti Drone folks on DU have to have the same argument before you are happy

?

[demwing]

106. at least once more

as always.

[geek tragedy]

50. Oh look, another "Obama=Bush" post from the lazy generalization left!

Very clever and original.

[whatchamacallit]

53. It's more about us,

relativism, and the extents of our principles. Your interpretation of my post is a lazy generalization.

[geek tragedy]

79. Um, no. You're accusing this site's members of being ideologically in line

with Bush.

Which is purity trolling of the highest order.

[we can do it]

51. It won't happen with me. EVER

[Evergreen Emerald]

55. In a brazillion years

[Whisp]

56. bush is a mass murdering lieing dumb fuckshit

shame on you. really. wtf.

when the President lies us into a war of the scale Iraq was, and has Biden promote those very lies, and have minions in every corner of the government, like Powell shithead, do their bidding by lying to the public. Then you can talk, till then your message is full of stinkin' sheet.

[whatchamacallit]

60. And this administration has no

blood on it's hands?

[Whisp]

62. if you want a bloodless world

it is just not going to happen.

lessening the spilling is about as well as we can do.

[whatchamacallit]

66. Not sure how

directly causing = lessening, but ok. At what threshold does it become a war crime?

[ProSense]

64. The poster said: "bush is a mass murdering lieing dumb fuckshit"

You said: "And this administration has no blood on it's hands?"

I'm sure you weren't intentionally trying to defend Bush, but it looks like it.

[whatchamacallit]

69. Everything looks like that to you, Pro

cuz you want it to

[ProSense]

71. Apparently Obama looks like Bush to you.

So much so that you must deflect criticisms of Bush with "Obama does it too" claims.

[whatchamacallit]

74. The OP is a riff on liberal hypocrisy, not Obama = Bush

but you know that.

[ProSense]

76. The OP is bullshit false equivalency

It's an attempt to say that if you don't disagree with Obama you will soon agree with Bush.

It's simplistic nonsense.

[zipplewrath]

171. Actually

It's suggesting that it is getting harder and harder to agree with Obama, on a narrow set of issues, and simultaneously disagree with Bush. But some of you have very sharp razors and can split very thin hairs.

[Fuddnik]

57. How fast can you clear some brush?

Or hide from a horse?

[Glimmer of Hope]

58. Never ever ever ever. Like ever.

[Bonobo]

59. His policies would be happily accepted if proposed by a Democrat, but...

As long as he is Bush, even if he put out a Progressive policy, it would be rejected.

That, although an exaggeration, is closer to the phenomena you are trying to describe.

[Iggo]

61. Whatchu mean we?

[War Horse]

65. There's legitimate criticism against Obama's drone policies

And then there's equating this admin to the Bush one.

One is not like the other.

[sheshe2]

67. Are you Serious?! nt

[Terra Alta]

68. Obama is NOT Bush.

Let me repeat it for you -- Obama is NOT Bush.

Bush started the wars, and it is solely his fault we are in the mess that we are in. Obama is trying his damnedest to fix things but it will take a long time to fix eight years of Bushit; I doubt Obama will even fix it in his eight years, it will take another four to eight years of a Warren or Grayson Presidency to fix things, and even then we might never fully recover from the Dumbya administration.

Is Obama perfect? No, but who is. Yes, there are some things I disagree with the President on but I'd rather have him at the helm than a President McCain, a President Romney, or (God help us) a President Palin.

[Ian David]

75. You know who else bombed people?

OMG, Obama is just like Hitler!

[Cary]

77. So vote your conscience and vote Republican.

There you go.

[whatchamacallit]

82. Seems that what we get

no matter how we vote.

[Cary]

83. Speak for yourself.

No matter how you vote.

[sibelian]

142. Yeeeeeah.

Not really helping anything with that suggestion. It's very well observed, but... it doesn't actually help.

[Cary]

143. Oh well

I don't pretend that I can "actually help." I don't have any such power.

What I can do, though, is mock.

And I can observe well.

The good news is that the people who would vote Republican are fewer in number so at this point even if I could "actually help" it is pretty much irrelevant.

[sibelian]

144. Ya ok

It's just, ya no, saying "vote pub, then loserboy" when dems do right wing things is a bit frustrating. Cos you're saying "suck it up". Which, given that RW crap is being blown about by both sides, is depressing. It would be nicer if we didn't suck it up but made it go away.

Which MIGHT be possible. Yerneverno.

Anyway, I don't even live in the States so I've no right to make any observations at all.

[Cary]

149. You're saying that I'm saying "suck it up."

You have every right to make any observation you wish to make within the rule here. I'm sorry you're depressed. I suggest you keep this in context, which is that it's only an internet discussion board. No one here gets hurt. No one's livelihood is at stake. Things are said and that's pretty much it; this too shall pass.

Since you don't live here you probably haven't noticed that President Obama is very popular. If the economy were better he'd be even more popular in the polling, and the economy is getting better as we speak. I don't think whining about this or that is going to do anything.

[sibelian]

161. It's ok, I'm not depressed.

What you're SAYING is depressing, but I'm not depressed. What I'M doing is suggesting that change can be effected when very often it just easier to think that it can't.

I've noticed his popularity, for sure. It's hard to miss.

[Cary]

166. What's the difference?

What's the difference between saying "what you're saying is depressing" and "I'm depressed?" If you're depressed because of something I said, then you are depressed.

Of course you're allowing me to have way too much power over you. I shouldn't be able to cause you to be depressed. There's something wrong about that.

Change is being effected. I am telling you that most of us are satisfied with the pace of that change, given the hurdles we need to overcome.

[msanthrope]

78. I'd have been fucking happy if Bush had done his godamn job and drone struck

Osama Bin Laden at Tora Bora. If he'd drone struck the leadership of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, I'd have been just fine with that military action.

Drones used in 2001-2002 would have negated the 'need' for the Iraq invasion.

So now, when a Democratic President is doing his job--I won't hamstring him. I elected a person I trust to oversee national security. I prefer drones to ground military action, and I elected a President smart enough to know when one is needed over the other.

If you think Obama is the same as Bush, well--that's your opinion. There's a 2014 election coming up. Who are are going to help elect?

[treestar]

81. Like when we told the conservatives that not supporting the war did not mean we were

enemies of the troops, or disagreed with their using guns or anything else against an enemy, we are also allowed to accept the fact that the war does exist and let the military do what it has to do. It's in essence the same thing. And the same type of argument you are making. Conflate support of the war with support of the troops or the tools of war.

[Agnosticsherbet]

85. I for one approve of his change in career, from Pesident...

to nude model for self portraits.

[Camballo]

154. Ha! Thank you so much

I was masochistically reading all the replies to this post when yours made me smile and realize I have got to get out of here and try to find joy again somewhere.

Also, remarkably, someone gave me a heart and I wanted to say thank you, but it seems unlikely he or she will see it here. But just in case, thanks very much.

[Agnosticsherbet]

158. Someone also gave me a heart, for which I am very thankful.

DU is great, but sometmes we all need to get out and do something else.

[upi402]

87. so true

idiot lackeys have spread like cancer into dominating both parties

[TheKentuckian]

89. Probably won't directly happen though the "we don't know what the President knows" defense

is closer than most will admit.

What happens now is a steady move to paint peace advocates as "the fringe", pacifists as "whackadoodle, un-serious unicorn riders", civil libertarians as "right wing", anti-drone proliferation folks as "luddites" and conspiracy theorists, and anyone else will be painted as "anti-Obama" which will seamlessly segway into anti-Democratic party and "anti" whatever corporate knob polisher the foist on us next, especially if the anointed is Hillary Clinton.

Many Democrats particularly the self described "centrists" have been stung by the "weak on defense" garbage and are pleased as punch to be the bin Laden killing Merry Dronesters, even if it permanently destroys the rule of law. With some folks the short term benefit beats any and all long term harm because of the "we'll fix it later" logic rules as an inarguable defense for any harm.

[whatchamacallit]

90. Colorful

and true.

[Catherina]

99. Very well said

and about "we'll fix it later". I wish I still had the page up but sure enough, there it was in a reader responses to an article about this. "We'll fix it later"

[TheKentuckian]

104. "We'll fix it later" is the ace in the hole cop out.

Despite never fixing about anything later. Folks will point back to adding on to Social Security (never mind both being yesteryear and not having to reform the base section other than expanding access to more occupations) and some will even resort to Part D to get more current, I guess.

You know because though "it isn't perfect" it helps people.

[Poll_Blind]

91. Nah, that'd be too easy to spot. Take the healthcare legislation or wiretapping or...

...any of those current-ish issues. The Obama Administration for whatever reason (LOL!) decides to push GOP/Heritage/Conservative...whatever...and then it's time to "revisit" the idea and "reconsider" the various facets of it, yadda yadda. They're not going to come right out and say "Oh, you know what? Bush/Heritage Foundation/GOP proposed the exact same thing. Now that Obama's pushing that same legislation, maybe Bush/etc. weren't so bad!"

You've got a healthcare law literally designed by the Heritage Foundation and AHA, warrantless wiretaps and especially warrantless data gathering up the ass and all anyone's going to get from them is "Oh, so I suppose drones are the new boogeyman this week?"

The most interesting thing about this is I talk to a shitload of different kinds of people, all walks of life, just about everywhere across the political spectrum. Know what? Nobody talks like the people do on DU. Because the people who are doing this on DU are putting a shot over on ya, it's not real.

If you talk to anyone who's actually in politics, any kind of representative, you don't get the nasty "Why don't you just vote for the Republicans you whiny crybaby!" attitude/bullshit.

Think about that. Think about how people talk to people here versus in real life, especially if you have ever worked with anyone in politics or given them feedback. Almost none of the things that happen here reflect anything you're going to experience dealing with actual politicians or actual politically-involved people.

It's like one of those Japanese theme bars in Tokyo where all the Japanese businessmen go after work, putting on their cowboy clothes and spurs and spend a few hours smoking hand-rolled cigarettes and listening to a player piano. No real cowboys every stop by, if you get my meaning. An unfortunately long time ago, real politicians did stop by DU and post, interact. That's years and years ago. This place is a Democratic Party Theme Bar now. Last time anything remotely real happened here it involved the great interview one of the admins did with Mudcat Saunders. I salute the DU Admins trying to get the place on track, but it's tough to imagine what they could do to actually re-invest this place with the kind of feeling it once had.

PB

[whatchamacallit]

95. "Democratic Party Theme Bar"

Ha, spot on!

[jazzimov]

92. You obviously don't understand...

well... anything.

[Zoeisright]

93. What, are you nuts?

President Obama isn't even in the same universe as Bush.

Christ on a crutch.

[Poll_Blind]

96. Unless it's the universe of privatization, corporatism, security issues, social programs, etc. nt

PB

[woo me with science]

119. And free trade, and the drug wars, and education policy, and driling, and ...

There's just no comparison.


Corporate and bank-cozy appointments, over and over again
Bailouts and settlements for corrupt banks (with personal pressure from Obama to attorneys general to approve them),
Refusal to prosecute even huge, egregious examples of bank fraud (i.e, HSBC)
NDAA to allow indefinite detention,
"Kill lists" and claiming of the right to assassinate even American citizens without trial
Maintaining Guantanamo Bay and the Patriot Act
Rendition and torture
Expansion of wars into several new countries
A renewed public support for the concept of preemptive war
Drone campaigns in multiple countries with whom we are not at war
Proliferation of military drones in our skies
Federal targeting of Occupy for surveillance and militarized response to peaceful protesters
Fighting all the way to the Supreme Court for warrantless surveillance
Fighting all the way to the Supreme Court for strip searches for any arrestee
Increase of media consolidation into the hands of corporate giants
Internet-censoring and privacy-violating measures like ACTA and the new CISPA-like executive order
Support for corporate groping and naked scanning of Americans seeking to travel
A new, massive spy center for warrantless access to Americans' phone calls, emails, and internet use
Support of legislation to legalize such spying
Militarized police departments, through federal grants
Marijuana users and medical marijuana clinics under assault,
Skyrocketing of the budget for prisons.
Supporting a bipartisan vote in Congress to gut more financial regulations.
Passionate speeches and press conferences promoting austerity for Americans, while the
Bush tax cuts were extended for billionaires.
Support for the payroll tax holiday, tying SS to the general fund
Support for the vicious chained CPI cut in Social Security and benefits for the disabled
Social security, Medicare, and Medicaid offered up as bargaining chips in budget negotiations, with no mention of cutting corporate welfare or the military budget
Multiple new free trade agreements, including The Trans-Pacific, otherwise known as "NAFTA on steroids."
Growth of the power of lobbyists to prevent government regulation of corporations.
Support of drilling, pipelines, and selling off portions of the Gulf of Mexico
Expansion of military support into Mali
Corporate education policy including high stakes corporate testing and closures of public schools

In every major policy area that interests the one percent (i.e., that can be translated into profits), this administration has fought aggressively for an agenda and an overall direction that would make George W. Bush proud.

[WhoIsNumberNone]

94. Speak for yourself

I still consider Bush an idiot and a scumbag. It's my opinion of Obama that's deteriorating.

[Arctic Dave]

98. Shit, let's go all in. How long before the US does an about face on Bin Laden.

If he would had waited until after everyone found out Wall Street was stealing their money and selling them down the river, I think everyone would have been OK with a strike on them.

If he would have waited until everyone found out how much the MIC is stealing from the people of this country, I think people would have been OK with a strike on them.

Up is down. Right is wrong. etc., etc, etc.

[jazzimov]

107. Given that... Nope, Nope, Nope,

basically, all of your "Obama=Bush" arguments are completely wrong.

Which means that your entire premise is wrong.

WRONG.

[one_voice]

108. Some days when reading...

shit on here I feel like I fell down a fucking rabbit hole.

[Egalitarian Thug]

115. You should have been feeling like that for about 30 years now.

[one_voice]

121. Yeah, I was more worried about..

who was going skating on Friday night 30 years ago.

Maybe the last 20 years I should have been feeling like that...

[Le Taz Hot]

109. No, you're not gettin' it here.

Bush has an "R" next to his name representing a political affiliation with the Republican party and any policies espoused by people with an "R" next to their names must be opposed. HOWEVER, when a "D" is listed next to the name, this represents "Democrat," which means those same policies must now be supported.

Let me know if I can clear anything else up for you.

[woo me with science]

110. No, you gotta remember the goal here.

which is to keep us divided and circling the wagons, so the policies can continue. That would never happen, because Bush is a Republican.

The Blue Team rules for this game require that all Republicans are always evil, and all Democrats are always good, even if they have a history of pushing the exact same policies.

The goal of the game is not to achieve logic or consistency with regard to the policies we support, but rather to make sure we rabidly and reflexively defend ANYTHING our party does when our guy is in office...and that the other side does the exact same thing.

So when a corporate Republican is in office and advances the neocon corporate agenda that harms all of us, steals our money, reduces our standard of living, shreds our civil liberties, and commits bloodshed across the world in our name, our side will get upset, but the Republicans will circle the wagons and make sure the policies are defended. Then, when a corporate Democrat gets into office the next term and continues the exact same corporate neocon agenda, the one percent can count on our side to take up the defense and ensure they can keep right on doing what they are doing.

Back and forth it goes, and we will never be able to unite to stop them.

We have always been at war with Eurasia. And our side will justify the drones and the extrajudicial slaughter and the shredding of our Constitution and the obscene parade of corporate theft and betrayals.... until a Republican is in office again, and it is time for their sheep to circle the wagons for a little while.

[Egalitarian Thug]

112. Naw, couldn't be. Here?

[woo me with science]

114. Now, see, there you go...

Last edited Tue Feb 12, 2013, 08:03 PM - Edit history (1)

emphasizing words I didn't even bold...

[just1voice]

113. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Powell: WMD liars, torturers and felons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_on_the_Record_Report

This report contains 237 claims for specific misleading statements made by:

* Colin Powell
* Donald Rumsfeld
* Condoleezza Rice
* George W. Bush
* Dick Cheney

[Rex]

116. So I should be comparing BP to LIHOP?

Do you realize the stretch of the imagination you are perpetrating in this scenario? I suppose Biden gets to play Dick Cheney? Series...that is some BS.

I bet they get PPRd. SOME (lurkers) come forward and test this theory!!

Who wants to take bets?

[BlueCheese]

120. The neat thing about American politics these days...

... is that we can praise our party and criticize the other one even when they do the same things.

Remember the Affordable Care Act was a GOP idea, and was first implemented in Massachusetts under Mitt Romney. We used to hate the idea, and now we like it. The Republicans used to like it, now they hate it.

Same with individual rights in the never-ending war on terror. Bush tossed aside the Geneva Conventions and asserted the right to hold American citizens indefinitely without charge. Obama says he can have American citizens killed without first charging them or trying them. We used to be outraged, but now we support enhanced executive power. The Republicans used to support it, and now-- well, actually, they still support it.

So we can carry on the indefinite war on terror, and implement all the same overreaching policies, but still think that what we're doing is right and what they did is wrong. Rather convenient when you think about it.

[Zorra]

125. Yep. How long before the "Bush Wasn't So Bad" OP's appear?

We've already seen some "Reagan Wasn't So Bad" Op's and posts.

[kenny blankenship]

128. I can hardly wait for the photos of W, Big Dog, and 'Bam hanging out

and doing guy stuff together. Maybe at the Kennebunkport family compound.

[Summer Hathaway]

126. That is bound to happen

as soon as the right-wing trolls outnumber the Dems on DU - which, at the rate things are going, shouldn't be too long now.

[NYC Liberal]

127. Maybe YOU only disagreed with Bush on one specific issue, but some of us don't like him for

a multitude of different reasons -- from the economy to social issues to health care, etc.

[xiamiam]

132. to the point..you're gonna get hammered for this but i find it refreshingly honest and observant

[CJCRANE]

133. There is no "DU" opinion. There are DUers with a multitude of opinions.

As can be seen in this thread.

Some DUers are consistent, some are inconsistent.

I think it's something you need to tackle on a case-by-case basis.

[NCTraveler]

138. We are not even close to where we would be if....

the shrub was still in office. The fact that there are a few on this board so politically inept that they think Obama=Bush says a lot.

"how long before he goes from zero to hero?" There is so much fail in this with respect to du it is not even worth addressing.

[Mr Dixon]

139. SMH

[Marr]

146. NEVER-- that's the one line the Party First crowd will never cross.

They'll rationalize all of his actual *policies*, but they'll never say the guy from the other team was ok.

It's exactly the same as the Republican hypocrites who call Obama a socialist, even when he's pushing their own policies.

[DevonRex]

147. Are you saying Obama is just like Bush?

Just as bad or even worse? Put your cards on the table. Stop bullshitting around. Say it straight out.

[whatchamacallit]

148. Maybe I should provide a Venn diagram for the logic challenged

On certain issues it could be said Obama is as bad as Bush.

[leveymg]

153. That's one of the better responses I've seen. May I borrow it?

[DCBob]

155. For the common sense challenged..

The overlap is so small no one in their right mind would somehow start viewing Bush as a "hero" based on that.

[DevonRex]

160. Still being cagey I see. Scared to say what you really mean. Instead you insinuate about others.

That tactic says a lot about you but nothing about anybody else.

[whatchamacallit]

164. I said what I really mean

your simplistic efforts to get me to say what you mean fall flat.

[Freddie Stubbs]

163. 75% of Americans agree "on certain issues"

[OldDem2012]

150. Tired of seeing this bs post hover near the top of my DU screen.....trashing. nt.

[JoePhilly]

157. Stroke, stroke, stroke.

Insert preferred hand gesture here.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

162. It's not that they disagree with Bush's"Smoke 'em out", "Bring it on" policies but....

because he doesn't have a (D) after his name which would render them not just acceptable but embraceable.

[whatchamacallit]

165. Exactly. n/t

[Demo_Chris]

167. Never! Note the difference: (D) vs (R)

Bush, for example, provided a direct cash money payout to the people in order to spur the economy. That was his idea of stimulus. Bush, that senior hating bastard, fought for the biggest expansion of medicare in a half century. I could go on, but I wont, because I still hate that fucker.

Bush was, in my opinion, one of the worst Presidents in our history, and his daddy ranks up there as well. I have ZERO support for that bastard and never will, but I am bothered by partisan party bullshit and self delusion, and I am always annoyed when someone looks first to see WHO did something as a measure of how worthwhile that something was. Republicans do this as well. Look at Obamacare. It's a GOP plan and a horrible piece of legislation, it will be a fucking nightmare down the road, but because Obama passed it, we love it and they hate it. It's kindergarten games.

The two parties are virtually identical on everything except social issues -- and even there the differences are more show than substance at the national level. Nor should this surprise anyone. Both parties are funded by the exact same people and corporations, both represent the wealthy, and there are basically just as many wealthy Democrats as Republicans.

[liberal_at_heart]

168. Race to the Top=No Child Left Behind

[LWolf]

172. on steroids. nt