Settings
About Us
Categories
Search
Archives
Links
Miscellany
When the president called to tell him that Osama was dead, George Bush says he was eating souffle.
I suspect this news must make John Kerry very mad. “I was labeled an effete snob because I ordered provolone on my cheese steak, but he gets to publicly talk about eating soufflé? SOUFFLÉ!!??”
Apollo posted this at 9:29 AM CDT on Friday, May 13th, 2011 as Amer-I-Can!, George Bush Rules!
Considering our president’s penchant for inviting people to his speeches and then insulting them or lying about them, I think W did the right thing here.
Apollo posted this at 9:19 PM CDT on Tuesday, May 3rd, 2011 as CHANGE!, George Bush Rules!
I cannot properly express how happy I am to see the hand of George W. Bush at work in Egypt, and I hope that post-revolution revelations show much, more more. In public, President Bush always offered some level of support for Mubarak, but this sort of behind-the-scenes activity is exactly what I expected and wanted the American government to be doing. I hope we’re doing it in every thugocracy on Earth.
For many of us who supported the invasion of Iraq, one of the biggest advantages to regime change was the chance to plant a seed of freedom in the Arab world. In Lebanon, Tunisia, and now in Egypt, what we planted is evolving in ways we cannot accurately predict, but which we can confidently state are better than the indigenous species.
The great virtue of democracy is that it is the only form of government that is consistently just: Everywhere and always, the citizens of a democracy have exactly the government they deserve.
I don’t know enough about Egypt, nor am I judgmental enough, to proclaim what sort of government the Egyptians deserve. But I look forward to welcoming them into the community of peoples who have accepted the honor, burden, and torment of self-government. And I hope that freedom, that most invasive of species, sinks its roots deep and soon spreads its branches from Rabat to Tehran.
Apollo posted this at 11:39 PM CDT on Saturday, January 29th, 2011 as George Bush Rules!
Yesterday, I wrote about what the “Ground Zero” mosque disaster reveals about the Republican Party. In short, it reveals that the Bush administration was a false dawn. Bush, for all his flaws, believed that the GOP should be a universalistic party based on traditional values, a big tent for “faith-based” conservatives of all races and creeds: Muslims, Hispanics, Mormons, African-Americans, whatever. Now it is clear that the post-Bush GOP is a far nastier creature: A party seething with hatred towards vulnerable religious and ethnic groups. Despite the pretense that the GOP’s anti-mosque crusade is based on what Imam Rauf and company believe, it has more to do with who they are. It’s telling that the people Republicans are turning to for their anti-mosque street cred are not “moderate, peace-loving” Muslims, since even Muslim Republicans are disgusted by their party’s actions. The GOP’s new heroes are former Muslims like Nonie Darwish and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. That’s one way to escape the new Republican bigotry. Maybe the folks the GOP wants to harass in Arizona should try becoming former Hispanics.
This a great example of two forms of liberal writings. First is the one that everyone who’s been to college will remember is the “People who disagree with me are bigots” genre. Second is the “Why aren’t conservatives today as cuddly as the reasonable conservatives of yore” genre. What’s impressive is that Beinhart a.) weaves these two together so well, and b.) has already lumped W. into the “cuddly conservatives of yore that today’s conservatives can’t live up to” category. That was fast.
But more importantly, Beinhart faults Republicans for siding with Ayaan Hirsi Ali against “vulnerable religious minorities.” When your definition of a “vulnerable minority” excludes a woman who’s had to flee two continents because of violent threats by religious fanatics but includes those fanatics’ coreligionists, methinks the moral compass is a bit off.
Apollo posted this at 4:04 PM CDT on Wednesday, August 18th, 2010 as George Bush Rules!, I don't know--but it's a Tradition, Veiled Threats
How stupid was McCartney’s Bush bashing?
After the last eight years, it’s great to have a President who knows what a library is.
Of all the possible idiotic Bush is Stupid comments, I think this is the most idiotic yet. Why? First, As Human Events points out, W had two degrees, which is exactly two more than McCartney. More fundamentally:
Not to mention Bush is married to a librarian.
P.S. At what point in the future will “the last eight years” not refer to the Bush presidency? W was only president for 6.5 of the last 8 years. And when discussing fault for current problems, it never dawns on anyone that Democrats have now been in control of Congress for almost four years. I suspect that in the mid-2020s we will still hear “the last eight years” used to describe the Bush presidency.
Apollo posted this at 9:37 PM CDT on Friday, June 4th, 2010 as George Bush Rules!, Pop Culture Is Filth
I once spoke to someone who had traveled extensively in Syria. His favorite part of the country? Their monuments to their smashing 1967 victory over Israel.
I think of that when I read this “threat” from Ahmadinejad to Obama:
If you set step in [President George] Bush’s path, the nations’ response would be the same tooth-breaking one as they gave Bush.
Ah yes, like that time when Iran lead a coalition of dozens of countries to invade America and overthrow George Bush. Or that time when Iranian airpower supported indigenous rebels to overthrow America’s Christianist government.
Yes, it’s true, the nations of the world certainly got the better of George W. Bush. Obama has much to fear, indeed.
Apollo posted this at 12:30 PM CDT on Wednesday, April 7th, 2010 as George Bush Rules!, Mullah Mullah--whoa baby let my people go
W. calling out Rush for being a douche?
For all the snarkiness I throw President Bush’s way its always good to remember that he is a gentleman and, in the end, truly presidential.
Of course I expect Mr. Levin et al to now patiently explain to me why Rush isn’t a Real Conservative™.
Jamie posted this at 6:58 PM CDT on Monday, January 18th, 2010 as George Bush Rules!
Just to keep everyone updated on Obama’s use of the dread signing statements:
Legal scholars said the administration’s new approach, which avoids repeating claims of executive power that the White House has previously voiced, could avoid setting off fights with lawmakers. But the approach will make it harder to keep track of which statutes the White House believes it can disregard, or to compare the number of laws challenged by President Obama with former President George W. Bush’s record.
Yes, that’s right, rather than telling us what portions of laws it thinks are unconstitutional as the Bush administration did, Obama notes what portions are unconstitutional and then keeps that information under wraps, reserving the right not to enforce certain sections of the laws without telling the public as much.
Lots of us defended signing statements as little more than the administration’s public pronouncement of its opinion of the finer points of certain legislation. “Tyranny!” came the response. “Abuse of executive privilege!” “Like George III all over again!”
I ask you, which executive abuses its authority: the one who gives to the public its opinion on the law, or the one who doesn’t and merely lets the public guess? Signing statements were a step forward for executive transparency, but those who spent 8 years decrying them as the spearpoint of Caesarism have gotten their way. Perhaps it’ll be better to sit in the dark surrounded by unseen cockroaches rather than to turn on the lights and see the filth.
Apollo posted this at 4:55 PM CDT on Sunday, January 10th, 2010 as CHANGE!, George Bush Rules!, We don't need no stinkin' Constitution
One imagines that if George W. Bush had accused Democrats of bearing false witness, there’d have been much rending of garments and gnashing of teeth. It seems as though President Obama is not as wise as his predecessor and has blundered that trap:
Repeatedly invoking the Bible, President Obama yesterday told religious leaders that health-care critics are “bearing false witness” against his plan.The fire-and-brimstone president declared holy war in a telephone call with thousands of religious leaders around the country as he sought to breathe life into his plan for a system overhaul.
Without naming anyone specifically in the 10-minute conference call, Obama said opponents had been spreading lies.
“I know that there’s been a lot of misinformation in this debate and there are some folks out there who are, frankly, bearing false witness,” Obama said.
“I need you to spread the facts and speak the truth.”
(H/T)
As Charles Francis Adams once said about another Democrat, Obama “is in one sense scripturally formidable, for he is unquestionably armed with the jawbone of an ass.”
Hubbard posted this at 12:35 PM CDT on Thursday, August 20th, 2009 as Barack Obama Couldn't Persuade a Bear to Crap in the Woods, Excruciatingly Correct Behavior, George Bush Rules!
Dorothy Rabinowitz today is well worth reading.
The president has a problem. For, despite a great election victory, Mr. Obama, it becomes ever clearer, knows little about Americans. He knows the crowds—he is at home with those. He is a stranger to the country’s heart and character.
He seems unable to grasp what runs counter to its nature. That Americans don’t take well, for instance, to bullying, especially of the moralizing kind, implicit in those speeches on health care for everybody. Neither do they wish to be taken where they don’t know they want to go and being told it’s good for them.
Who would have believed that this politician celebrated, above all, for his eloquence and capacity to connect with voters would end up as president proving so profoundly tone deaf? A great many people is the answer—the same who listened to those speeches of his during the campaign, searching for their meaning.
I’ve complained numerous times (e.g.) that, for all the hubub about what a great speaker Obama is, the only thing he has ever persuaded anyone of is that he’s a great speaker. I can’ t say I’m surprised in the least that he cannot sell health care.
Let me be a little provacative: When Obama speaks, Americans say, “What a clever man is Obama.” When George Bush spoke, Americans said, “Let us march on Bagdhad.”
This is, of course, a gross oversimplication. But it’s also true. George Bush, for all his supposed inability to speak and all his supposed stupidity, was able to approach the American people with an originally unpopular idea and convince them that he was right. His argument wasn’t “Listen to me because I’m George Bush;” instead, it was “listen to me because overthrowing Saddam is the right thing to do.” The failure of George Bush’s second term rests largely on his decision, conscious or not, to stop trying to persuade his fellow Americans of the correctness of his ideas.
Obama’s argument, mostly, is that we should listen to him because he’s Obama. But no one in America has that sort of inate political power. We’re a spirited people who don’t take kindly to being told what to do. Obama’s inability to persuade, despite the supposed cleverness of his speeches, will continue to be the signal weakness of his presidency. And we will not again have a successful president until someone appears on the political stage with the ability and desire to persuade us that he’s correct.
Apollo posted this at 9:15 PM CDT on Tuesday, August 11th, 2009 as Amer-I-Can!, Barack Obama Couldn't Persuade a Bear to Crap in the Woods, George Bush Rules!, George Bush Sucks!
Here is an interesting and informed post regarding North Korea’s imminent missile launch. It’s amazing how, these days, we have a missile defense system and can reasonably expect it to work. This wasn’t the case that long ago, and for those of us with extraordinarily long memories might remember back in 2000, whether or not to fund missile defense research was a controversial campaign issue. Al Gore and the serious people of the world pooh-poohed the idea, regarding it as fanciful that we could ever do such a thing, thus research then was just wasted money.
George Bush, though, and some of us fellow knuckle-draggers thought in more simplistic terms. “Government should defend the people. Shooting down other countries missiles is better than letting them hit us. If we never fund this research, then we’ll never develop the technology to do this.” Those were my thoughts at the time.
Well well well. Here we are in the distant future of 2009. We don’t yet have flying cars, but we do have the ability to shoot down another country’s missiles. And, whadyaknow, one of those “rogue states” the idiot Bush talked about in 2000, a member of that “axis of evil” the moron Bush talked about in 2002, appears now to have the ability to make an atom bomb, and appears ready to launch a long-range missile over one of our closest allies toward us.
I remember back in 2000 being simply flabbergasted that some people opposed investment in missile defense. I hope some of those people will now look back and realize where they went wrong in their thinking.
P.S. Do also remember that missile defense only came to pass because the unilateralist cowboy Bush abandoned the ABM treaty, something that brought about much outrage from the left but seemed fairly commonsensical to many of us.
Apollo posted this at 5:00 PM CDT on Thursday, March 26th, 2009 as George Bush Rules!
The Journal says Obama is vindicating Bush on Iraq. It quotes the president at the end:
We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein’s regime — and you got the job done. We kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government — and you got the job done. And we will leave the Iraqi people with a hard-earned opportunity to live a better life — that is your achievement; that is the prospect that you have made possible.
He opposed the first two, and if it were up to him the third would not have been possible. I haven’t read the text, but I’m going to presume he didn’t note as much in the speech. Perhaps, when the best selling Speeches of President Obama is published, it will have a footnote: “Personally, I’d rather have Hans Blix still playing cat and mouse with Saddam, and the Iraqi people suffering under severe sanctions.” Perhaps.
When the actual history of this war is written – not the myopic journalism that has passed for history thus far, but real history written with the perspective of knowing how things turned out – it will be noted that a leader of great foresight and courage led this country to war, freed a nation from oppression, and created an ally in a hostile region, and that he did so over the opposition of villains and clowns. That his success was so overwhelming that even the election of one of those clowns – running on an anti-war platform – to succeed him could not reverse it, will add more to our former president’s reputation than to his successor’s.
Apollo posted this at 1:53 PM CDT on Saturday, February 28th, 2009 as George Bush Rules!, Iraq
Fact 1: Oliver Stone keeps making movies that cover topics I’m interested in. See 1, 2, 3, 4.
Fact 2: Oliver Stone keeps making movies that bore me to death. See 1, 2, 3, 4. See again 1.
Fact 3: The previews for W. make it look interesting.
Fact 4: The previews for Alexander made it look interesting.
Fact 5: There is a fantastic movie to be made about George W. Bush. And it may include a [tiny] part of the left’s weird insistence that the last 8 years are best understood as a mediocre son trying to outdo his heroic father.
Fact 6: That movie will not be made by Oliver Stone.
Existential Whine 1: Why must the Hollywood director whose interests most closely correspond to mine be an unrepentant Communist?
Apollo posted this at 7:47 PM CDT on Monday, October 13th, 2008 as Film Rants, George Bush Rules!, George Bush Sucks!, Ourselves
Dr. Krauthammer is on the record as not being a fan of Sarah Palin. So it’s telling that he now comes to her defense:
There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.
He asked Palin, “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”
She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, “In what respect, Charlie?”
Sensing his “gotcha” moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine “is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.”
Wrong.
I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, “The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,” I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.
Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” This “with us or against us” policy regarding terror — first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan — became the essence of the Bush doctrine.
Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.
It’s not. It’s the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush’s second inaugural address: “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”
For what little it’s worth, the first, second, and third Bush doctrines still seem reasonable to me. It’s the fourth that’s problematic, since a majority of the people can be wrong a majority of the time.
Hubbard posted this at 10:04 AM CDT on Saturday, September 13th, 2008 as George Bush Rules!, George Bush Sucks!, Kraut-hammered
Gerald Posner, on those destroyed CIA tapes.
Apollo posted this at 1:52 PM CDT on Friday, December 7th, 2007 as George Bush Rules!, Journalism