Obama blaming Bush for ISIS

Again Obama comes out to tell us the source of ISIS. Of course, it’s George Bush — could there be any other? That’s all anyone needs to know, right? And the ruse goes on.

Mr Obama said: “Two things: one is, Isis is a direct outgrowth of al-Qaeda in Iraq that grew out of our invasion. Which is an example of unintended consequences. Which is why we should generally aim before we shoot.

“We’ve got a 60 country coalition. We will slowly push back Isis out of Iraq”, he continued, adding: “I’m confident that will happen.”–Independent UK

ISIS was not a dot on the horizon when Bush was president, but it is his fault. More subtly, Obama actually blames America’s actions, foreign policy, and leadership (except for him) for the formation and evil of the Islamic State. By extension, those who elected Bush.

Obama is no different than Sen Chris Murphy who suggests the US is the cause of ISIS.
Even though he claimed he wasn’t blaming us for causing ISIS.

So the guy who cannot even mention the driving force behind this evil and the Islamic State, except by the Islamic acronym ISIL, can be taken seriously to define the original cause of “ISIL”? No, he isn’t kidding and neither am I. Does that make any sense?

The “underlying problem of disaffected Sunnis” is a fundamental issue in Iraq.
Wait, is he referencing some religious “sect” difference? No, that cannot be right!

Lets review:

  • Isis rose to significance under Obama
  • Isis grew organizationally and exponentially under Obama
  • ISIS invaded Iraq, and extended to Libya and Africa under Obama
  • He referred to them as the JV team.
  • They are driven and centered on Islam which he will not acknowledge.
  • They are armed with US equipment they got after we Obama pulled us out of Iraq — in a victory lap.
  • George Bush was no where in sight when ISIS spread into Iraq.
  • ISIS spawned when we got out of Iraq not when we went to Iraq.
  • Iran enters and deploys troops in Iraq under Obama. (delayed reaction from Bush)

Now lets consider his “aim before we shoot” philosophy:

  • Obama’s defiant support for Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
  • Obama’s unilateral adventure in Libya. (and his victory lap thereafter)
  • Look at the shape of Libya, ISIS ties, condition and terrorism there now.
  • Obama’s red line in Syria, getting bailed out by Vladamir Putin.
  • Obama’s cozy relationship with Castro
  • Obama inviting Iran into Syria. (it must have been Bush’s idea.)
  • A deal with Iran at any cost.
  • A policy of containment in Iran (even though they said it wasn’t)
  • A knee jerk reaction to boycott Netanyahu’s speech.
  • Obama’s campaign staff delving into Israel’s national election
  • Obama’s A team meddling in Canada’s election
  • Obama’s official promotion of gay marriage at State Dep as a priority.
  • Obama’s amnesty outreach to South America
  • Threatening border agents not to enforce the law.

We only have to look at the World, and Middle East in particular, to see all the fruits of unintended consequences Obama’s policies have wrought, including in the US. But we also suffer intended consequences of his policies. Egypt, Ukraine and Israel know those well.

He also telegraphed a message to young people that “you should be thinking about climate change, the economy, war and peace.” Yep, they should be talking and thinking “Climate Change” and climatology, since you know everything is related to climate change — except for what Bush caused!

How can any free person on this earth take anything this man said seriously? Kids this is why we Americans should not elect radicals — or faith-based candidates — to the Oval Office. It just isn’t a good idea.

Got that? Think about melting glacier ice, not ISIS cannibalizing the Mid East and Africa. Never mind either his stuck-in-the-mud policy of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama’s pass being revoked by card-carrying Leftists

…its sort of looking that way.

NPR Admits Opposition To Obama May Not Be Due To Racism But Because He’s Terrible

By Brian Anderson on May 13, 2014

We’ve been told over and over that opposing President Obama’s socialist anti-American agenda is due to deep-seated racism and not any conservative values one might hold. Now, the National Public Radio (NPR), of all media outlets, has posted a piece on their blog saying that there might be something more to disliking Obama than just racism. I know, I’m shocked too.

This refreshing revelation from a decidedly left-leaning news source starts out with a great premise:

There’s no question we’re living in a time of divisive politics, when roughly half the country is likely to hate the president, no matter whom he or she might be.

And back it up with a good quote:

“If any white Democrat had pushed through a billion-dollar stimulus plan and a takeover of the health care industry, he would have been equally detested by conservatives and Republicans,” says Whit Ayres, a GOP pollster and consultant.

Continuing with this line of thought, the writer puts in a little historical context. Obama doesn’t have a trademark on being hated:

But modern presidents have all triggered strong negative reactions. John F. Kennedy met with rhetoric from the John Birch Society that in some ways mirrors Tea Party responses to Obama. Militia movements expanded and grew during the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, while George W. Bush’s presidency inspired hatred on the left and a novel fantasizing about his assassination.

“Bill Clinton was vilified and hated more, with more passion,” says David Carney, a Republican consultant. “It was much more personal and negative than anything about Obama.”

This is actually true. Clinton was impeached and Obama has not been even though he deserves it more.

More:  Downtrend.com

Now maybe they are finally catching on, after 5 and a half years. That’s something I questioned about Obama for years. First, why was he so passionate about running when he knew the consequences of being president? He wasted no time either, starting in ’06 right after getting elected Senator.

And why he expected he would be different from any of those, Democrats or Republicans? Right off the bat were his ties with Wright and a slew of other radicals, achem terrorists. That’s always an icebreaker with any crowd. Yea, the speech where he said “we are not a red America, we are not a blue America” to plead his case. Yea, a speech changes all that “history”– is that a derogatory word now? Then again in his “race speech” saying “words, just words?” Those were just words, to Obama anyway.

But no other president has been afforded the privilege of a built-in excuse he (or those around him) flaunted by playing the race card to explain any opposition to him. I predict no future president will have that same opportunity, given how Obama overused and abused it. He kept it in front of him as a shield ready to hoist against any critics. That is a shallow character who does that.

The main point was always: “Obama, have you noticed how just the last few presidents were treated?”

It wouldn’t even be as much of a contradiction or hypocrisy if Obama was not leading the charge in attacking the last president. He assumed the role in the Senate in ’05 . Then he ran against an outgoing president, not McCain, when Bush wasn’t even on the ballot. How none of this ever occurred to the minds of the Left is baffling. If he were anyone else, he would not have gotten that far. He would have been voted out of American Idol based on performance. And this guy who was granted such wide berth hasn’t even appreciated all that effort, including from the media. The media did not lock horns, it lock-stepped right down Obama’s path. Show me the precedent for that.

His disconnect with most of America is because of his own radical ideology and actions. What others think never was Obama’s real problem. No, he believed he was guaranteed the prize for being “present”, like his record in Illinois, despite any facts. Let’s not even mention the records, and zero experience at anything even in the Senate. Pitiful that only now some in the left media admit the “racism” charade. Now if they could find a way to justify what they’ve done for the last five years.

It may be just a start, as they didn’t throw “racism” completely out the window. Well, who wants to throw a perfectly good race card away? But the possibility of the race card as the sole explanation for opposition might be on life support.

RightRing | Bullright

Commies and their Marxist agenda don’t add up to Bush

First off, I have to say enough of the Bush and Obama comparisons. It doesn’t work. Sure Bush made a lot of mistakes, and the right took issue with things he did shortly after his first inaugural. But the left painted him a swashbuckling cowboy,(no offense to cowboys) with few intellectual credentials. The real brain trust behind him was evil Dick Cheney pulling the strings. This was the characterization the left created. We all know the narrative so well because they were so good at drumming it into us. So good, many accepted it.

Now they are quiet as church mice about Obama’s conniving adventures. The man can do nothing to earn the wrath of the Left. How come? That is a story in itself.

But for a moment think about the Bush years, the left painted him a dummy while crediting him with some of the worst evil this country has seen. Oops, don’t think they are both true. And they assert that Obama is just following those footsteps, much as he’d like to break the pattern.

obama photo: happy obama danceyobama.gif Even though Obama controlled all branches of the government for a stint, and still controls the Senate. Their narrative continues that Obama is a victim of circumstances — even if he victimized the entire country. However, you won’t get the Left to admit to playing the race or victim cards at every opportunity to defend him.

(Happy O photo)

Actually, Bush and Obama are very different. Bush could have been a lot of things but Obama is a radical Leftist weened on Communism. See there is a difference. What would you expect from a commie, or a radical Leftist these days? Well, they’re pretty much the same thing now. If they aren’t overt Marxists, and I don’ know that percentage, then they are useful idiots who pretty much go along with those who are. They are not the same.

Their beloved Obama studied at the feet of card carrying commies, and actively sought them out. He worked for them, even his doctor is a communist. Does that sound like a victim of circumstances…. beyond his control? Hardly. Say what you will about Bush, that was not one of his attributes. And he didn’t have media and people eating out of his hand no matter what he did.

Maybe we should dispense with another creative notion. The left declares themselves the champions of civil rights and the watchdog for the little guy, the defender of gays or any fashionable group that pops up, including radical Islamists. But that’s only part of their program, it’s the sales brochure to bring them on board. Then, no one leaves the plantation. It isn’t them or their issues they care about but their support. The kicker is many of those “groups” don’t even know or understand what they are supporting.

I can’t forget to mention the liberal Christians and clergy co-opted by commies over the years. (Remember Hill and Obama courted Christians) Even some of them don’t know what agenda they are really supporting. Leftist leaders and pols tell Christians its about their issues and agenda but nothing could be further from reality. It has always been about the commies’ agenda. Not seeing that seems ignorantly naive to us, but just the way it is.

Chock them up to useful idiots.(useful idiots know more about truth than they do) My patience has expired for these people. Their ignorance is not for a lack of being told. So if they were duped it was by their own free will. For Christians, it has been decades in the making. As Hillary said, that “requires their willing suspension of disbelief” — which they quite willingly provide. So we are dealing with Marxist communists, nothing less.

Shortest rise to power since the phone booth.

Photo: Coincidence ; (Happy O photo); Wanted ; Bush Pre-release ; CPUSA

Illegal alliens and Libs to channel Bush

…just an experienced prediction

In a rare mention of current politics, George Bush weighed in — dipped his toe is more like it — on the “immigration” debate. (the problem is illegal aliens…not immigration)

He said he hopes for a “benevolent spirit”. Well, I’d hoped for a benevolent spirit in Washington for a long time, but to no avail. What’s that mean anyway?

1 – a : marked by or disposed to doing good
b : organized for the purpose of doing good
2 : marked by or suggestive of goodwill

Here’s the quote:

“I don’t intend to get involved in the politics or the specifics of policy, but I do hope there’s a positive resolution to the debate,” he said. “And I hope, during the debate, we keep a benevolent spirit in mind, and we understand the contributions immigrants make to our country.”

So by the time the 6 o’clock rolls around, liberals will be on their perches lecturing Repubs to heed the advice of George Bush and jump on their amnesty scheme. Just what you want to do if you have an illegal immigration problem, give them amnesty. But somehow Bush (and libs) should be granted wide berth using words like benevolent as a euphemism for amnesty, but they will scream about calling anything “amnesty”.

But wouldn’t following laws and enforcing borders actually be a form of goodwill for Americans? Wouldn’t upholding the Constitution be a goo-ood thing? Wouldn’t the government actually doing its job be considered a benevolent spirit? Wouldn’t dispensing with all the cute political tricks, and sneaky tactics be considered a benevolent work? And wouldn’t a good deed be to stop demonizing the American people for believing in a nation of laws, not men? I think it would.

And, on the subject, why is it our legislators and government stomp all over the benevolence of the people at every opportunity?

If George does not “intend” to get involved….why is he? What say George about the current Pres acting like king to grant amnesty for illegals? No comment on that but he sticks his nose in the tent now — with no intentions of course. Tell the Dems and libs not to use your bubbling thoughts to attack conservatives and Americans.

Here’s more of what he said:

In his comments, Bush noted the importance of upholding current immigration laws. “We’re also a nation of laws. And we must enforce our laws. America can be a lawful society and a welcoming society at the same time,” he said.

“We can uphold our tradition of assimilating immigrants, and honoring our heritage of our nation built on the rule of law. But we have a problem. The laws governing the immigration system aren’t working; the system is broken,” Bush said.

Much of that will be ignored anyway, he supplied the necessary soundbite. I liked the quiet former pres better. George, I’m glad you helped them out with their talking points.

So what shall we name any new policy?
I know, how about “Leave no illegal immigrant behind”? Sound like a plan, W?

Ref: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/10/george-w-bush-immigration_n_3573229.html?icid=maing-grid7