Friday, March 27, 2009


I have heard a lot of liberals say that like peace, they gave George W. Bush a "chance" when he was "sort of" elected in 2000. I am waving a HUGE WHITE FLAG WITH A HUGE BLACK BS on it. No way. After 9/11 George enjoyed amazing approval ratings, which at one time was at 91% according to some polls. I believe this was NOT because liberals were supporting George the election stealer. This overwhelming support was because the nation had rallied together at a time of great despair and it brought a feeling of good will for our President and our nation. It was not because they supported his policies or his Presidency. I also believe this was the beginning of the end for President Bush. Many can argue policy under his administration. How nice for you and for us all but its all moot at this point. The point I am disputing is the outcry from the lefties that us righties are horrible because we are not giving President Obama a "chance" when they were more than accommodating to President Bush. Whatever. Sleeping dogs lie.
With popularity comes great power. Mandates are given and all the politicos and their representatives support your policies. The left grew tired, weary and most of all, scared of Geroge's political power through his extreme popularity. How would they ever defeat the extremely popular George W. Bush? Destroy his popularity. Now seriously, DB, please do not give me your Bush worship comments as though I am having 4 hour Cialis sex with DUBYA. I am not saying George was perfect, infallible or even a good President, I am making a point. So please try to separate yourself from the Obasm vs. the Bushasm, OK? Thank you, I just wanted to make that disclaimer before I continue.
In this day and age, President Bush was really the first President to serve under such a wealth of information coming from the internet. Back in the day information came through News papers and the evening news. Just like video killed the radio star, the internet and cable TV killed the evening news outlet. Now we have enormous loads of information at our fingertips that we can dissect any Presidency to death. Gone are the days of knowing only some of the happenings in the White House. Now we know all the dealings and under such scrutiny comes much to criticize. Its the nature of the beast in this the 21st century. Obama and Bush were and are under a 24 hour a day micro-scope that really was non-existent before them. Clinton had it to a degree, but he did not face the media mountain that exists today. How can any President sustain the perfection that is demanded by the couch potato Presidents? I would venture to say that our wealth of information though good, is also a catalist for the self-appointed hyper-active critic. We have indeed created monsters of political sophistry.
So now I ask the question, which policy was it that the left embraced and or supported under the Bush administration? And are you all saying that you never wanted President Bush to "fail"? Of course you did you little hypocritical liars! I am begging, begging, begging for one lib, dem, lefty, donkey, ass, communist...tard, to admit just once that they were just as shallow, just as nit-picky, just as ridiculous as we repugs are! I will go on an Obama diet for one week if just one of you admits to suffering from Bush derangement syndrome. I am suffering from MANIC OBAMA DEPRESSION, I ADMIT IT!! I am throwing down the gauntlet! I think your scaredy cat minds pushed you into Bush schizo land where you all were fluent in IHATEBUSHESE. You lived there and you died there. And NOW you are shaking in your shoes because Obama is not gettin' any love from us pissed off phants. DAMN STRAIGHT! Now Let's hear your Bush love...


sue said...

OK, for me personally, believe it or not I never said I wanted Bush to fail. I was scared of his warmongering, of those around him like Cheney, I felt his incompetence, and that all made me want the 8 years to go by as fast as they could with no World War 3 breaking out! Yes I hated his policies, and I even said I hated him, but to fail would have been a disaster so I didn't say that. I'm just glad those years are over and I only can hope for better times to come.

Chuck said...

I think Obama set himself up to fail with his pathological lying during the campaign. I have gotten to the point to where I do not even listen to what he says, you just have to wait around and see what he actually does.

Funny that the left, reading the comment above, said they hated him, he was a warmonger, blah, blah, blah. What you don't hear, at least from the few that are honset, is that he did not stand by his priniciples. Like him or hate him, Bush stood by his word. I dare a lib to say that about Clinton or Obama.

sue said...

Chuck, Bush standing by his word doesn't mean a pile of shit. His principles were screwed up! He thought he could change the world, that was just assinine thinking..

Nikki said...

Sue, no offense but you just proved my point beautifully! Are you kidding me...Bush thought HE could "change" the world? Are you smoking crack?

friedmsw said...

sue, what did Obama campaign on? CHANGE! Nikki, brilliant post!!

It's Me said...

Uhhhh....I don't really give a rat's ass who is popular or who is not or who voted for whom...not high on my list of priorities. I want America to prosper and I don't care whose administration it is under. I don't ponder this shit all day long and it's scary to think that some people do!! My money is safe right now, my stocks are in gambling mode, I feel safe from any terroristic threats, and I have a job, home, and loving family. I really don't care who loves or hates Bush or who loves or hates our newly elect president. There's my 2 cents.

sue said...

you are the smart one It's ME! When I said Bush wanted to change the world I meant by making countries such as Iraq, into little America. Obama ran on change so he could fix OUR COUNTRY after the disasterous Bush years. At least Obama is concentrating on US, and he's doing a pretty good job so far! OH, and I'll leave the crack smoking to you all!

namaste said...

does my vote count? i am recovering from bush derangement syndrome myself. i admit i was powerless over my illness. and i learned how to accept the things i cannot change.... or some serenity crap like that.

as for obama, that man is killing me slowly. i just keep telling myself, hang in there, there's just 45 months left to go.

nik you're right. i don't recall hearing my fellow dems rallying to support the president after they finished all their griping. and i certainly never heard them talk about the importance of putting country first during the bush administration, myself included. the libs are just plain hateful and they're a bunch of lying liars.

great post!

Nikki said...

Maria your vote absolutely counts and I also want to say that these dems are not only lying liars, but they smell like beef and cheese!! THEY SIT ON A THRONE OF LIES! LOL...:)N

Chuck said...

Sue, what else does matter more than a President standing by his word? Can you trust one who does not? Of course someone who supports Obama and likely Clinton would not understand principles so you keep your Hope and Change.

ba and the boys said...

on a throne of lies...perfect nik!
i think obama is too busy trying to make friends with the world to pay attention to the usa.
he shouldnt have been elected because he 'speaks well' (thank you vp biden for that one!). too bad not enough people were reading niks blog for the past 2 years.

Mike said...

Bush mistakes were many.
Bush accomplishments were many.
Bush had a philosophy, made his choices and stuck to them.

Obama is making mistakes
Obama has yet to accomplish anything (we'll give him some more time on this one)
Obama has no apparent philosophy, engages in enormous platitudes and has yet to stick to any promise he has made.

There was some satisfaction in knowing how the President would actually react to any given its a day to day crap shoot.

Nikki said...

Mike great comment! Its what we choose to focus on...and as for me I will focus on Obama's mistakes because that is the path taught to me so well by the opposition. Because liberals are such control freaks, they actually think the President can stick a broom up his ass, sweep the floor and make life rosy for each and every now that is what I expect. They raised the bar so to speak so its time for Obama to deliver! :)N

EDGE said...

Yah, they supported him alright... right off a cliff they supported him.


DB said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DB said...

The right is just as obsessed with Obama as the left is. The way I see it, Obamabots and conservative Obamabots are obsessed with every little thing Obama does, and we see all the posts as such. You guys can't stop talking about him just as much as the lefties. In any case, the righties now are no different than the left was during Bush and they now justify it because of how the left treated Bush. You know, two wrongs make it right kind of thing.

To address your topic, I honestly don't give a shit about how the right treats Obama, it is only making them look bad. Fair or not, that is the reality. The left luckily never got into the topic of whether they wanted Bush to fail (regardless if they did or not). Limbaugh said something stupid, it is short enough to survive the American attention span and has become a line that conservatives have been forced to defend. It is a pointless political battle, but it is pure politics and it won't change anytime soon.

I don't defend Obama (like you imply by using my name...thanks I think), rather I defend some of his policies against idiots, for instance, those who claim that Bush made us safer and Obama makes us less safe. That is complete bullshit. Even so, I agree with most of what Obama is doing and the stuff I don't agree with him on I call him out on, unlike the free pass conservatives gave Bush for 8 years. You can look through the nearly year and a half of my blog and see I barely even mentioned Bush...hardly the percentage people mention Obama. So, please don't try and use a straw man argument against me. Hell, I (sadly) voted for Bush. Please don't lecture me (or use me as an example) when asking if liberals ever supported Bush.

I didn't vote for Obama per se, rather liberal policies. I don't give a crap who leads the fight as long as they fight for my views. Most of the country agrees with me, evident by the election. No one is surprised that Obama is repealing Bush's anti-science and abortion laws...he said all of that was coming BEFORE the election. He promised the Freedom of Choice these half ass efforts he has made towards that aren't anything shocking.

Sorry, sloppy and quick response...I'm in a hurry and I promised you I would respond lol.

PS. Had to edit a word...

Nikki said...

DB, I didn't really talk about how awesome Bush was either, I didn't have a blog until 2007 and even then it was about fake boobs and my favorite Will Ferrell movies. Obama is a topic for political blogs that's the political world we live in...what else is there to blog about? I also want to mention that I prefer the term Obamatron to Obamabot. It sounds so much more 2009! Thanks for the response! :)N

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure that either Democrats or Republicans supported George Burns .. he's been dead for a while . .

Mike H said...

Hey, Nikki.

For the record, I never supported Bush. I thought he was a lousy governor and feared he would be an awful president. Little did I know how right I was. The thing I disliked most about Bush was that he was hell-bent on destroying our form of government (separation of powers, constitutional rights, separation of church and state, Miranda, etc.)

Anyway, Obama came into office and the first thing he did was instruct government agencies to halt any implementation of Bush's executive orders, and he lifted the gag rule, and he restored federal funding for stem cell research. Plus, now he's halted the Justice Department raids on legal medical marijuana distributors.

Have I been entirely pleased with everything he's done? No. But the louder the right cries about how they hope he fails, the more I know he's doing things right. :P

And for all you Bush lovers who think he was a man of his word, remember when he lied about getting warrants for eavesdropping even though he had authorized illegal warrantless wiretapping? Or how he said he wanted to find "the leaker" who outed Valarie Plame? Or how he said Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in? Or how he lied about having no advanced warning of Hurricane Katrina?

Nikki said...

Mike Holm the Pluribus Driver!? Well hells bells...its great to hear from you!!! :)N

sue said...

Mike H is very smart! Ya know what I sense here, is just talk with no substance. Coming from the liberal blogs which are intelligent and truthful, these rethug blogs are so childish in their rantings and Obama lying. Just childish...

Nikki said...

Sue no piggy back riding on other peoples substantive comments...please try to come up with your own comments other than whine whine whine. Its just a rule I have for libtrolls. :)N

Larry T. Durham said...

The "wiretapping", the "warmongering"
the "outing of Valerie Plame" (lol - now there's a watershed moment in American History).

Oh the humanity!!!

El Cerdo Ignatius said...

The "outing" of Valerie Plame? Well, we know now whodunnit - Richard Armitage to Robert Novak. But let's add this terrific quote from Bill Bennett, writing about Valerie Plame's husband, Joe Wilson:

"If your spouse’s position is of such a classified nature that disclosure of her position would put her job in jeopardy, then don’t write a political op-ed in the New York Times that has implications for what your spouse did to put you in a position to write that op-ed."

But you're right, Mike: it must be all Bush's fault.

Mike H said...

El Cerdo, I guess you're right. Joe Wilson should have assumed that the Bush administration was composed of such vindictive thugs that they would willingly jeopardize national security in order to exact revenge on someone for exposing their lies. He should be glad he wasn't simply "disappeared."

And if the leak went from Armitage to Novak, why did Libby go to prison for it? Why didn't Bush pardon him?

Sandi said...

Man, here I thought I had supported Bush for awhile after 911, but now you've convinced me that I didn't!

It's Me said...

Enlightening responses. Obama does indeed seem to be more popular these days with Repubs. Ya gotta give a rat's ass to "showcase" someone on a daily basis! Keep up the good work, it makes me smile, smile, smile!!!

(but then again....I'm always smiling!)

Chuck said...

Mike H, do you just make this stuff up as you go along?

Or how he said Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in? Or how he lied about having no advanced warning of Hurricane Katrina?

What are your sources on this? Hussein was blocking inspectors, he was playing a game of chicken. Quote on Bush saying he got no advance warning on Katrina?

why did Libby go to prison for it?

Scooter Libby did not go to prison.

El Cerdo Ignatius said...

Ah, Mike H - great to see someone actually engage the Plame subject a little bit. But you twist my words (or Bill Bennett's words): I said that Joe Wilson was partially responsible for blowing his wife's cover, by writing an article in the NY Times that left a trail of clues leading to his wife's position at the CIA. I didn't say that the Bush administration was composed of vindictive thugs, and that Wilson should have taken this into account. Maybe it was and maybe he should have, but one should never assume vindictiveness or evil when the more probable cause of "incompetence" is available.

And if the leak went from Armitage to Novak, why did Libby go to prison for it? Why didn't Bush pardon him?

Scooter Libby did not go to prison for divulging Valerie Plame's classified employment with the CIA. (He didn't go to prison at all, but I know that's not your question.) You seem to be under the impression that Libby was convicted of divulging Plame's classified status. But no one was convicted for that. No one was even indicted for it. Patrick Fitzgerald, the US Attorney investigating the case, determined that although Plame's cover had been blown (via Armitage to Novak), no crime had been committed. For the matter to be a crime, the following would have to be true:
- the information divulged has to identify the classified officer, directly or indirectly (i.e. the name doesn't have be used if enough other facts are offered which would permit identification).
- the information is divulged by someone who knows the officer's employment is classified.
- the information is given to someone not entitled under the law to know this information (e.g., someone not working for the government, or a government employee without the proper security clearances).
Richard Armitage believed (wrongly) that Valerie Plame's employment with the CIA was not classified. So he leaked the info, but did not commit a crime.

Scooter Libby got into hot water because he was angry about Joe Wilson's NY Times column, which led him to discuss with other government officials his suspicions that classified information had been leaked, possibly by Wilson's wife or someone close to her. But then when Plame's cover was blown in July 2003, Libby got nervous, thinking that his complaining about Plame (with other government officials with appropriate security clearances, which is legal) would be seen as a "smoking gun" to implicate him in a criminal investigation. He had discussed Valerie Plame numerous times during the months of June and July 2003, prior to the Novak column, with government colleagues, but that's not what he told the FBI. Libby told the FBI (and later the grand jury in 2004) that he learned of Valerie Plame's employment at the CIA from Tim Russert, and that they had spoken about the matter as if it were common knowledge among reporters. That way, he thought, he could distance himself from his (classified) complaining about Valerie Plame over the previous weeks. But a ton of evidence was discovered to contest Libby's version.

So in the end, Scooter Libby was not indicted for leaking classified information, but for lying to the FBI and committing perjury in front of the grand jury, plus the overarching indictment of obstruction of justice.

As for why President Bush didn't pardon him, I don't really know, except to say that maybe he thought the convictions were a serious enough matter that Libby didn't deserve a pardon. Bush obviously thought the prison sentence (on top a fine of $250,000, plus disbarment and all the other things that go with being a felon) was excessive, which is why he commuted it. I agree with the commution and think Bush was right to do it, but I'm glad Libby didn't get a pardon.

Mustang said...

Here’s our problem, as I see it. Our political system gave us a choice between Bush I and Clinton, Dole and Clinton, Bush II and Gore, Bush II and Kerry, and McCain vs. Obama. To parrot an earlier election quip, “Where’s the beef?” On the one hand, no one in their right mind even wants to become president, and this leaves us to the mercy of everyone who is not in their right mind. But there is a tragic flaw in how our political system has evolved, and it is that the filth of the American body politik is such that no one with less than the perfection of Christ, or one who can marshal an overwhelming disinformation campaign, has any chance surviving the kind of vetting our fourth estate subjects our presidential candidates to.

I want to support our president, no matter what party he identifies with. I want to believe that whether democrat or republican, we are all Americans. I want to believe that we can still disagree about important issues, but find a common ground over which we can proceed. I also want to believe in Santa Claus. Not only do we have serious flaws in our political system, the electorate is equally deficient. We can thank our socialist educational system for that problem; there is no other way to explain America’s lack of critical thinking skills.

So when we have a president who is, with terrifying speed and agility, dismantling our most important institutions in the name of progressivism, I am opposed to that person as a matter of principle. We did not found our country, nor can it proceed in a manner consistent with our traditional values, based on such foreign concepts as trans-national socialism. We cannot allow anyone to supplant our Constitution by a purely idiotic notion that we are somehow obliged to incorporate Shar’ia compliant legislation or jurisprudence. We cannot realistically think that we solve our problem of dwindling wealth through expansive spending, or reduce our debt through increased debt. Such attitudes defy common sense. I am a historian; we have never had a perfect president. We are not likely to find one, either. But for as long as we continue to delude ourselves by transforming a presidential race into a popularity contest . . . as opposed to thinking critically about the suitability of candidates to lead a great nation, and about the likely consequences of one policy over another, we will continue to have the Clinton’s, the Bush’s and Obama’s.

There is no greater challenge for Americans than this. We are at a critical junction in our progress as a freedom loving society. If we do not soon wake up to the real issues at stake, America will cease to be the nation we were born into; once we’ve lost it, there will be no way to get it back again.

Mike H said...


I made up most of my stuff a long time ago. I just refer back to it now. :P

RE: Inspectors in Iraq, from the UN report on UNMOVIC (found here - :

"After November 2002, with the resumption of monitoring and verification activities in Iraq, UNMOVIC was able to deploy rapidly a large number of inspection teams to Iraq drawing on inspectors from its Headquarters and the roster. As of the end of February 2003, UNMOVIC core staff in the professional grades at Headquarters included 75 persons of 30 nationalities while the number of UNMOVIC personnel in Iraq reached a total of over 200 staff."

Saddam had kicked the inspectors out before, but was complying at the time that Bush wanted to go to war. Hans Blix on January 27, 2003 (available here -

"While the inspection is not built on the premise of confidence, but may lead to confidence if it is successful, there must nevertheless be a measure of mutual confidence from the very beginning in running the operation of inspection. Iraq has, on the whole, cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field.

"The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect. And with one exception, it has been [without] problems."

So inspectors were in Iraq and Saddam was cooperating with them.

As for Katrina, I may have misspoken. Bush didn't say he had no advanced warning. What he said was, "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees." Which was the lie I was talking about. The US Army Corps of Engineers had wanted to build stronger levees and a better draining system for years, but the Bush administration kept cutting their funding.

As for the Libby thing, I stand corrected.

Mike H said...

El Cerdo,

Wow, info dump. :P Thanks for clearing that up. I'm not inclined to believe that Armitage was acting without orders from higher up, but then I do have a tendency to assume the worst about the Bush administration.

Also, I wasn't intentionally twisting your words, I just missed your point the first time through.

Chuck said...

I concede your point on Iraq and the inspectors but he was not cooperating with them. If you recall, one monent he would cooperate and the next he would not. Also, he did not give them open access to the country.

As far as the levies, this pre-dated Bush. Bush was responsible but it could be argued that they should have been fixed before he came into office.

Nikki said...

Mike, I am so glad you are back, you are adding some spice to my blog for sure! What is up with your blog? I would love to link back up to you... :)N

Larry T. Durham said...

Where is Valerie Plame these days? Pole dancing? Waiting tables at Denny's?

I suppose that pesky "outing" ruined her shot a double O status.

El Cerdo Ignatius said...

Y'know, Larry, we ate at (Reginald) Denny's a couple of weeks ago in Florida, and the waitress did look like Valerie Plame. Bit surly, I must say.

Mike H said...

Nikki, I'm trying to find time to post on the Pluribus Driver. If I do, I'll let you know. :)

Larry and El Cerdo, what I don't get is how conservatives claim that the war on terror is so important and yet are glib over the fact that Valarie Plame's career was ruined and her contacts / front companies all jeopardized. Her job (as I understand it) was to track the proliferation of WMDs in the Middle East. Isn't that important to the so-called war on terror? Shouldn't conservatives have been upset that the war effort suffered such an unnecessary setback?