Archive for the Defense of George W. Bush Category

Next time somebody tries to tell you Bush and the Republicans…

Posted in Defense of George W. Bush, Demo-narcissists, Election-2010, Incompetence, Liberals, Obama, Press Bias on August 23, 2010 by johnmwilliams

Are responsible for doubling the deficit, take a look at where the deficit was just before the Dems took over in 2007 and thereafter:

You’ll note, as I have often, that the last year Bush and the Republicans controlled Congress and the White House, the deficit had been cut in half (from $400+ billion to $187 billion) just as GWB had promised in 2004.  Then those deficit hawks, the Democrats, took over and quickly spent more than Bush and the Republicans  had in the previous 4 years and in 2009, they spent more than the last four years of Bush/Republican spending–combined.

But don’t count on anybody in the MSM worrying about this fact.  It’s all about the narrative.  Bush spent like a drunk sailor and the Dems have been perfect stewards of our hard-earned tax money.  More leftist fantasy grist for the mill…

Where does a liberal go when he knows he’s in above his head?

Posted in Defense of George W. Bush, General, Incompetence, Obama, politics on August 3, 2010 by johnmwilliams

Ask President Obama:

Bush team attempts to preserve Bush administration’s success in Iraq

Wow–for a such a “moron,” GWB’s policies, and even people, are sure being employed on a regular basis by those who held them in such contempt.  Think maybe running the country is a bit too complicated for our “Constitutional Law Professor?”  But he is getting in the much needed R&R that GWB was lambasted for on the few occasions he managed to get away.  Hypocrites much?

Posted in Defense of George W. Bush, General, politics, Press Bias on November 11, 2008 by johnmwilliams

Whew. Libs are just blinded with hatred for Bush, aren’t they? I’ve never seen such irrational hatred by Americans (at least not since the days of desegregation). I thought we’d moved past that, but I guess it’s OK if somebody disagrees with you politically.

Bush has been anything but hyperpartisan. His two biggest failures were trying to remain in the middle and win over Dems and deciding not to sink to the depths of his critics and defend himself. It made him (and the party) look weak.

History is not judged by polls and headlines. And if this latest election has taught us anything, it’s that the press has given up all pretense to being a profession anymore and has assumed the role of the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party. That anyone could continue to believe the half-truths, insinuations, and outright fabrications about GWB the press has promulgated over the last 6 years after seeing their behavior in this election is beyond me. As soon as the fog of the MSM has lifted on this presidency, it will be judged as a successful presidency–certainly more substantial and historical than any since Reagan. And if liberals ever get their heads out of their hatefilled asshats and look at FACTS and not mythology ginned up by the far left and pushed by the MSM, they won’t look like such fools to their kids and grandkids when the real history emerges.

If anyone or anything has behaved dispicably over the last 7 years, it’s been the reporters/mainstream media who were supposed to be objective truth-tellers, and it’s they and their profession that will be villified by history.

Libs have harped on Bush’s halting style and language…

Posted in Defense of George W. Bush, General, politics on November 10, 2008 by johnmwilliams
never giving any thought to the idea that Bush might be measuring his speech and making sure his message was clear and concise because he realized that diplomacy requires specificity and that words can be as important as any military maneuver.  So while we were assured for years that Bush had lied without any evidence of said lie, Bush never once, to my knowledge, ever had to retract or deny having said anything to anyone of import. Obama’s already had two such situations–first, with the “Don’t do anything with Bush. Deal with me,” fiasco in Iraq and now he apparently implied (if he didn’t outright commit) that he would continue the missile deployment in Poland in a conversation with the Polish President. But after the Polish President relayed the conversation, Obama’s reps rushed out and said that he hadn’t said any such thing.

This is a far more serious issue for America’s allies than anything Bush has done. Something as critical to a country’s defense as a missile shield being used as a political football is not only foolish, but dangerous as well. Libs have taken extreme liberties with the truth in American politics–not least of which was playing fast and loose with the facts in order to try to discredit Bush. And Obama’s played both ends against the middle througout his political career. But we start playing those kind of games with our allies–or even our enemies–and we’ll look back with nostalgia at our current standing in the world a couple of years from now.

Of course, if Obama follows through on his announced plans for the country, we’ll probably end up there anyway.  But it will be a much shorter trip if Obama continues to “bs” and “shoot the bull” with foreign leaders only to tell them that he really didn’t mean what he said.  “I was just joshin'” doesn’t cut it in diplomatic speak.

My contribution to the Bush Administration…

Posted in Defense of George W. Bush, General with tags , , , on August 7, 2008 by johnmwilliams

I’m sure you saw the flap over the Scott McClellan book, “What Happened,” when it was released on May 28 of this year.  Once I heard that it was a hit piece on the Administration, I decided to do some research about the people behind the book (having watched Scott as Press Secretary, I knew he couldn’t have penned a book alone).  I started investigating and sent the results to several conservative blogs, the most visible of which is “Little Green Footballs.”  Charles Johnson rushed it to his blog within minutes after I sent it to him and it found its way to several other blogs including “Stop the ACLU” and “Newsbusters” which published and/or used the research as well.  Within the week, almost every conservative talk show host, editor, and opinion broadcaster I listen to announced the links I’d found, from Peter Osnos, a well-known leftwing ideologue all the way back to George Soros:

 http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30118_The_Soros-McClellan_Connection

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/05/29/mcclellan-book-connected-to-soros/

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/05/29/mcclennans-publisher-liberal-advances-soros-slams-limbaugh

The “vast right wing conspiracy” has some way to go to catch up to the “vast left-wing conspiracy.”

The reasons I investigated?  How would an agent that has all of five books to his credit pick up a book from the former Press Secretary for a hit piece on the most maligned President of the last four decades?  How would such a book end up under what amounts to a “boutique” publisher?  It all smelled fishy-and I found out why.  George Soros is now funding Barack Obama.  It’s scary how much power he’s amassed in the media and Washington, D.C.  If Obama’s elected, the alleged “culture of corruption” under the Republicans will look mild in comparison–assuming the truth ever makes its way to the light of day.

In sparring with liberal friends…

Posted in Defense of George W. Bush, General on July 22, 2008 by johnmwilliams

I ran across the argument that while Saddam certainly had “bad thoughts,” he had no ability to act on those bad thoughts (“bad thoughts” was the phrase used to try to downplay the threat of action, no doubt).  My argument was:

I think firing on our planes was a bit more than “bad thoughts.” I think Saddam’s attempts to circumvent and undermine the sanctions were more than bad thoughts. I think his use of poison gas and development of biological warfare agents was more than “bad thoughts.” You speak of a man that has a big mouth and no intent of ever following through–someone like Hugo Chavez. Saddam was not a rabble rowser like Hugo. He’d used chemical agents with no braggadocio or strutting. In fact, his history was repleat with “plausible deniability.” You’re trying to project traits on the man that don’t hold up historically.  And he had proven that he wanted revenge on the US no matter what the consequences.  

Saddam was a psychopath with the intent, the wealth, and the connections to make him an imminent threat overnight. Your choosing to ignore his history doesn’t change those facts.

Three days and counting for a response…

Myth 1: WMD were the primary reason we went to war in Iraq

Posted in Defense of George W. Bush on June 11, 2008 by johnmwilliams

FACT:  George W. Bush mentioned WMD only as an item we could not afford for Saddam to obtain.  The illusion that the Bush Administration harped on WMD was created wholly by the press.  Did the Bush Administration talk a lot about WMD?  Yes-because it was all the press was interested in discussing.  Transcripts of press conferences show that the press didn’t give one whit about democracy or a free Iraq.  They were obsessed with WMD-and asked question after question after question focused solely on the WMD threat from Iraq.  But any time the President spoke, his message was far more concerned with freeing Iraq and establishing a country to lead the Middle East out of the culture that was breeding the radical Islamists like those who carried out 9/11.  You don’t believe me?  See George W. Bush’s speech to the American Enterprise Institute in February, 2003 (immediately following the invasion earlier that month):  http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030226-11.html  It’s quite typical of the speeches he was giving at the time.  You can see that all the “moving goalposts” and other propaganda from the media (trying to cover its primary role in convincing the public that Saddam possessed WMD) are built on myths the media conjured up to try to avoid taking responsibility for its role of exaggerating the threat of WMD for the sake of readership and audience share.