As the presidential election comes draws ever nearer, President Obama has his sycophants out lauding the “accomplishments” of Obama’s first term in office. The object is, of course, to say “look at all the good he has done! You have to vote for him again!”
It is a fair strategy and one that any sitting president would use.
The question is, “when listing ‘accomplishments, how much was ‘accomplished?’”
As our friend William Teach over at Pirate’s Cove points out, the tone of those pushing these alleged accomplishments borders upon messianic worship. In a April 17, 2012 campaign speech in Nashville, Michelle Obama spoke about her husband’s achievements:
First lady Michelle Obama hit the campaign trail in Nashville on Tuesday and told a packed crowd in a downtown office building that the campaign has an “amazing story to tell.”
“This President has brought us out of the dark and into the light,” she said. “But we need each and every one of you as fired up as you’ve been.”
The first lady made roughly the same stump speech of recent weeks, chronicling the acomplishments of her husband’s first term, from the auto industry rescue to health care reform, ending the war in Iraq and the killing of Osama bin Laden. In a roughly 26-minute speech to a crowd of about 450, she also appealed to women voters, highlighting her husband’s signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
This is not the first time (nor the last) we will hear this list of “accomplishments:”
1) auto industry rescue
2) health care reform
3) ending the war in Iraq
4) killing bin Laden
5) the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
We want to examine each of these “accomplishments” in a series of posts. We can’t give a timetable on when we will finish examining each of them, but it will be at least a five part continuing series here at Raised On Hoecakes.
The first accomplishment we wish to examine is “killing bin Laden.”
On April 29, 2011, at approximately 8:20 AM, President Obama allegedly orders the strike on a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan known to be bin Laden’s residence. Roughly midnight on May 1, local time, members of SEAL Team Six raided the compound with orders to capture bin Laden if possible. Upon entering the compound a firefight ensued and bin Laden was killed. bin Laden’s body was removed from the scene and according to the White House, was buried at sea.
The news of bin Laden’s death was met with great rejoicing in the US and other parts of the world. We can honestly say that while we are not thrilled at the death of any individual, we did not lose any sleep over the world being rid of the excrement that was bin Laden.
We will give credit to Obama for being the president when the raid took place. Yet if one wants to say that Obama “got” bin Laden, one has to examine all of the information surrounding the event. In doing so, we believe the death of bin Laden happened in spite of Obama, rather than because of him. (more…)
Jun 13, 2011
Posted by AAfterwit on Jun 13, 2011 | Comments Off
According toseveralsources, Bill Warren, who runs a California salvage company, is headed to the North Arabian Sea to search for bin Laden’s body.
‘We do this because we are patriotic Americans and feel that President Obama failed to provide the proof,’ he told TMZ.
Mr Warren added: ‘I do not trust my government or Obama.’
Although we agree with the sentiment on not trusting Obama, does Warren really expect to find a 6 foot long object that is, to put it delicately, “a block of fish and crab food?” In the Arabian Sea? Surrounded by Somalia, Yeman, Oma, Iran, Pakistan, UAE and India?
Good luck with that.
Personally, we believe that this is more of a publicity stunt than anything. But if ol’ Bill wants to spend the money to go over there, we support his decision. However, if Bill gets into trouble with the local governments, we are not sure that he should get the support of the US military to rescue him. He has to know the dangers of the area and if he wants to take that risk, that is his right.
He does not, however, have the right to have his actions result in others being at risk to get his waterlogged butt out of trouble.
Good luck to ya, Bill.
Jun 1, 2011
Posted by AAfterwit on Jun 1, 2011 | Comments Off
Just when you think the death of bin Laden would fade into the sunset like the end of a John Ford movie, comes the controversy over whether the United States should release the so called “death photos” of bin Laden. There doesn’t seem to be a consensus on the President’s decision not to release the photos. Sarah Palin tweeted:
Show photo as warning to others seeking America’s destruction. No pussy-footing around, no politicking, no drama; it’s part of the mission
“I respectfully disagree with President Obama’s decision not to release the photos. It’s a mistake,” Graham said in a statement. “The whole purpose of sending our soldiers into the compound, rather than an aerial bombardment, was to obtain indisputable proof of Bin Laden’s death. I know Bin Laden is dead. But the best way to protect and defend our interests overseas is to prove that fact to the rest of the world.
“I’m afraid the decision made today by President Obama will unnecessarily prolong this debate,” he added.
In the not so distant past, President George Bush was eviscerated by his detractors for acting on the intelligence concerning WMD’s in Iraq. Bush acted on the best intelligence he had. Despite the fact that WMD’s, proscribed weapons and delivery systems were in fact found in Iraq, Bush was hammered on the issue. Even today, people on the left still try to hammer the idea that Bush lied on the issue of WMD’s in Iraq.
What was missing from the intelligence estimates on Iraq was not the actual presence of WMD’s, but the quantity that was found. The lack of large volumes of WMD’s in Iraq illustrate one unchangable fact:
Nothing is ever a “sure thing” in the intelligence world.
To illustrate the in-exact “science” of intelligence gathering and inherent danger in acting on what is never a 100% “sure thing,” John Hawkins over at Right Wing News put together a list of quotes on WMD’s in Iraq by those who later charged that “Bush lied.”
A sampling from the list includes:
“I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.” — Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” — Bob Graham, December 2002
“Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction.” — Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002 (more…)
May 4, 2011
Posted by AAfterwit on May 4, 2011 | Comments Off
In the wake of the bin Laden operation, we have seen several points come to the forefront. We have seen Obama and his operatives take credit for the operation which was based on intelligence streams and intelligence gathering methods begun under the Bush administration. These techniques and streams were condemned by candidate Obama, and that condemnation found favor amongst his supporters. Now that he used the same intelligence sources and techniques, no one is casting an eye back because of the results. I won’t condemn Obama for using the same intelligence gathering sources that were advocated by President Bush and conservatives. I will condemn him for not having the guts to come out and say “Bush was right.”