Conservative talking head Michelle Malkin was in Livingston County Wednesday whining that George Bush hasn't been given enough credit for things that President Obama has done.
OK. Let's give him more credit.
Let's give George Bush full credit for the economic meltdown that started in 2008 and from which the nation has had to recover during the first two years of President Obama's administration. Every single ounce of credit. Would that make Malkin happy? We'll give him credit for the hundreds of thousands of jobs lost, the near death of Michigan's auto industry, the millions of homes foreclosed on, the billions of dollars of wealth Americans lost in the values of their homes and their retirement plants, and the shrinking of not just the U.S. economy, but the entire world economy.
George Bush, I hereby promise that I will always give you 100 percent credit for that. Not "joint credit," which is what Malkin wants for the successful raid authorized by Obama that killed terrorist Osama bin Laden.
No, I will give George Bush 100 percent pure and unadulterated credit.
Feel better?
I doubt it. People like Malkin and the Bush administration minions that appeared on Sunday talk shows demanding that George Bush get credit for bin Laden's death only want credit for things that go right after they leave office. They want credit, not responsibility, which means accepting blame when things go wrong.
Here's what I mean.
Suppose information that was key to Obama's decision to launch the raid that killed bin Laden had actually been developed under Bush's administration. (It wasn't, but let's pretend that it was.) And let's pretend that President Obama authorized the raid, knowing that there was only a 55 percent chance that the information was correct. (Which there was.)
And let's say that the intelligence turned out to be wrong. It wasn't bin Laden in that compound at all. It was some Saudi prince who had the compound built as a hide-away. And instead of killing bin Laden, the Navy SEALS killed the Saudi prince and a huge international incident resulted that threatened U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia and our oil supplies.
The nation would be in crisis.President Obama would be in major trouble. But since the faulty intelligence that led to the raid was developed under Bush's administration, George Bush and members of his administration would step forward to claim "joint credit" with President Obama for the fiasco.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure they would. I'm pretty sure Malkin would come to Livingston County and demand, yes demand, that George Bush be given "joint credit" for the fiasco.
I'd pay money to see that.
Showing posts with label Terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Terrorism. Show all posts
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Five Things We Have Learned About President Obama
The daring raid that resulted in the U.S. putting a bullet in the head of 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden will be analyzed and re-analyzed, hashed over in newspaper columns, written about in books, studied in the military academies, and made into movies. In coming days, its political significance will be debated as well. But based on what we know right now, we have learned at least five key things about President Obama's governing style and leadership abilities.
1. President Obama is not afraid to take huge risks. Success on a mission such as this is no guarantee, no matter how precise the intelligence, how skilled the combatants, how careful the planning. Failure could have taken many forms -- many Pakistani civilians killed by accident, a leak that tipped off Pakistani military who might have fired on U.S. helicoptors, an escape by bin Laden, the shooting down of U.S. helicoptors even as they made their escape. Look at what happened to President Carter's image in 1979 after a helicoptor sent to rescue Iranian hostages crashed. Despite the high stakes, Obama was willing to take that gamble, knowing the future of his presidency, the prestige of the United States, and the lives of American military personnel were on the line. That takes guts.
2. President Obama can multi-task. Over the last several months, President Obama has participated in nine secret meetings reviewing the intelligence that made the raid possible and deciding on the exact plan for the raid. At the same time, he was negotiating over the budget, trying to prevent Republican extremists from shutting down the government, reviewing tornado damage in the southeastern United States, attending a planned shuttle launch with Tucson shooting victim U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, and answering critics about his birth certificate. Yet he remained focused on this key goal without waivering from it.
3. President Obama and his administration can keep a secret. Nobody outside a handful of people had any inkling this was going on. Such secrecy was crucial to the mission's success and Obama and his people kept a really big secret for a long time, no small feat in this age of instaneous communication in a town full of journalists dedicated to ferreting out secrets.
4. President Obama is one cool customer. The president authorized this mission on Friday. On Saturday night, he went to the White House Correspondents Association dinner and cracked jokes about his birth certificate and Donald Trump's decision-making. What must have been going through the president's mind when he delivered the dig to Trump about the heavy decisions Trump makes on "Celebrity Apprentice," such as whom to fire when the steaks aren't cooked right? Those are the decisions that keep me awake at night, Obama said without a hint of irony, a day after making a decision that would bring a mass-murderer of Americans to justice at last.
5. President Obama is very patient. In 2009 President Obama made getting Osama bin Laden the nation's top national security priority. He did not bluster about it and make idle threats, but just kept the focus on a top priority. Nor did he strike back at critics who called him weak, but merely bided his time and let the professionals do their planning.
This is a set of leadership traits that has served Michiganians and all Americans well.
1. President Obama is not afraid to take huge risks. Success on a mission such as this is no guarantee, no matter how precise the intelligence, how skilled the combatants, how careful the planning. Failure could have taken many forms -- many Pakistani civilians killed by accident, a leak that tipped off Pakistani military who might have fired on U.S. helicoptors, an escape by bin Laden, the shooting down of U.S. helicoptors even as they made their escape. Look at what happened to President Carter's image in 1979 after a helicoptor sent to rescue Iranian hostages crashed. Despite the high stakes, Obama was willing to take that gamble, knowing the future of his presidency, the prestige of the United States, and the lives of American military personnel were on the line. That takes guts.
2. President Obama can multi-task. Over the last several months, President Obama has participated in nine secret meetings reviewing the intelligence that made the raid possible and deciding on the exact plan for the raid. At the same time, he was negotiating over the budget, trying to prevent Republican extremists from shutting down the government, reviewing tornado damage in the southeastern United States, attending a planned shuttle launch with Tucson shooting victim U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, and answering critics about his birth certificate. Yet he remained focused on this key goal without waivering from it.
3. President Obama and his administration can keep a secret. Nobody outside a handful of people had any inkling this was going on. Such secrecy was crucial to the mission's success and Obama and his people kept a really big secret for a long time, no small feat in this age of instaneous communication in a town full of journalists dedicated to ferreting out secrets.
4. President Obama is one cool customer. The president authorized this mission on Friday. On Saturday night, he went to the White House Correspondents Association dinner and cracked jokes about his birth certificate and Donald Trump's decision-making. What must have been going through the president's mind when he delivered the dig to Trump about the heavy decisions Trump makes on "Celebrity Apprentice," such as whom to fire when the steaks aren't cooked right? Those are the decisions that keep me awake at night, Obama said without a hint of irony, a day after making a decision that would bring a mass-murderer of Americans to justice at last.
5. President Obama is very patient. In 2009 President Obama made getting Osama bin Laden the nation's top national security priority. He did not bluster about it and make idle threats, but just kept the focus on a top priority. Nor did he strike back at critics who called him weak, but merely bided his time and let the professionals do their planning.
This is a set of leadership traits that has served Michiganians and all Americans well.
Monday, May 2, 2011
USA! USA! USA!
What a great moment to celebrate and come together as a nation!
President Obama's announcement that U.S. forces killed Osama bin Laden may at last bring some closure to the families of the victims of 9/11 and give meaning to the deaths and injuries of the thousands of our members of the military since then.
And maybe, just maybe, we can all be just Americans for a little while, not Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives, just Americans who are glad that justice has at last been served.
President Obama's announcement that U.S. forces killed Osama bin Laden may at last bring some closure to the families of the victims of 9/11 and give meaning to the deaths and injuries of the thousands of our members of the military since then.
And maybe, just maybe, we can all be just Americans for a little while, not Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives, just Americans who are glad that justice has at last been served.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Mike Rogers Shares Embarassment for Failure of Patriot Act Renewal
Michigan Republican Rep. Mike Rogers has been crowing about being head of the House Intelligence Committee, which sort of makes him partly responsible for preventing terrorist attacks against the U.S.
So why is it we haven't heard a peep out of Rogers after the House failed to approve extending the Patriot Act this week? Especially since he was a co-sponsor of the measure that went down to defeat?
Can you imagine the attacks impugning the patriotism of Democrats had they been in charge when the Patriot Act came up for renewal and was defeated?
It's not as if Rogers has been too busy to talk to anybody. He had time to send out an email Wednesday (February 9, 2011) touting a hearing he is going to have on terrorism. Not a word about the Patriot Act going down to defeat, though. Isn't he outraged? If not, why not?
Has the local media asked Rogers for his reaction to the defeat, asked him to explain why it lost and whether it means that House Republicans are soft on terror? What did Mike Rogers do to round up votes for the measure? Isn't it sort of important to his committee? Did Rogers even lift a finger to help this bill pass? If not, why not? As he likes to remind us so much, Rogers is the chair of the House Intelligence Committee.
On his website, Rogers makes it sound like he wrote the Patriot Act originally. His biography says:
"In Congress, in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Mike’s expertise was sought out during development of the USA PATRIOT Act, which gives law enforcement the tools necessary for tracking terrorists with today’s technology. Mike’s expertise proved invaluable in understanding how wiretaps are obtained and used, the complex checks and balances that prevent abuse of wire taps, and why the rules based on 1970s technology were no longer applicable in the day of cell phones and the Internet."
So Rogers obviously thinks the Patriot Act is important. Yet when members of his own party reject the renewal of the act, Rogers says nothing. He's not worried about the nation having "the tools necessary for tracking terrorists with today's technology"?
There are legitimate concerns about the provisions of the act and its impact on Americans' freedom. (Yes, freedom means more than just not paying taxes.)
But Rogers and his leadership brought the bill he co-sponsored to the floor without having the votes lined up and that's a reflection on his competence. If he and the rest of the House leadership can't count votes, how can he keep us safe?
So why is it we haven't heard a peep out of Rogers after the House failed to approve extending the Patriot Act this week? Especially since he was a co-sponsor of the measure that went down to defeat?
Can you imagine the attacks impugning the patriotism of Democrats had they been in charge when the Patriot Act came up for renewal and was defeated?
It's not as if Rogers has been too busy to talk to anybody. He had time to send out an email Wednesday (February 9, 2011) touting a hearing he is going to have on terrorism. Not a word about the Patriot Act going down to defeat, though. Isn't he outraged? If not, why not?
Has the local media asked Rogers for his reaction to the defeat, asked him to explain why it lost and whether it means that House Republicans are soft on terror? What did Mike Rogers do to round up votes for the measure? Isn't it sort of important to his committee? Did Rogers even lift a finger to help this bill pass? If not, why not? As he likes to remind us so much, Rogers is the chair of the House Intelligence Committee.
On his website, Rogers makes it sound like he wrote the Patriot Act originally. His biography says:
"In Congress, in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Mike’s expertise was sought out during development of the USA PATRIOT Act, which gives law enforcement the tools necessary for tracking terrorists with today’s technology. Mike’s expertise proved invaluable in understanding how wiretaps are obtained and used, the complex checks and balances that prevent abuse of wire taps, and why the rules based on 1970s technology were no longer applicable in the day of cell phones and the Internet."
So Rogers obviously thinks the Patriot Act is important. Yet when members of his own party reject the renewal of the act, Rogers says nothing. He's not worried about the nation having "the tools necessary for tracking terrorists with today's technology"?
There are legitimate concerns about the provisions of the act and its impact on Americans' freedom. (Yes, freedom means more than just not paying taxes.)
But Rogers and his leadership brought the bill he co-sponsored to the floor without having the votes lined up and that's a reflection on his competence. If he and the rest of the House leadership can't count votes, how can he keep us safe?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)