Monday, May 2, 2011

Osama part I

I've been reading a lot of blather about how the killing of Osama bin Laden will take away the Republican's talk about the President and his party being weak on defense.


What does any particular fact about Obama or the Democrats have to do with what Republicans say or believe?

1. The Republicans never disavowed the "birthers" and still haven't -- they've been using them as yet another tool in their arsenal, and will continue to do so (see my blog Taking his word).

2. They are still blaming Obama and the Democrats for the economic disaster of 2008 and the bailout, in spite of all the facts to the contrary.

3. Many Republicans state and may even believe that "Obamacare", as they derisively refer to it, is responsible for the deficits and high cost of medical services.

I predict that not one single Republican will in any way withdraw any criticism of Obama or the Democrats for being weak on national defense, and very few (if any) will give him credit for killing Osama bin Laden. I imagine there will be some who'll want to see the "long form" of the death certificate or the DNA test, or who will claim that the unit that found and killed him was actually set up by Bush. If I am wrong about this, you can write to me on this site.

Remember that it was Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who said, near the beginning of Obama's presidency, that: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” Apparently this was more important to McConnell and his party than employment, peace in the middle east, energy independence or national security. Their words and actions certainly don't belie that.

As long as people and the news media have a memory not exceeding 6 months, the Republicans can and will say anything that they want, and simply repeat it over and over until it wipes out any vestige of what is true or what actually happened.


  1. You're right. Republicans won't NEVER give Obama credit for killing Osama. Except that newspaper owned by Murdoch which is usually such an Obama supporter. Ha ha.

    And other people in the limelight like Mitt Romney would NEVER congratulate the President, would he? I know he's such a nut job.

    Oops. So it looks like the evil empire owned WSJ and some leading Presidential candidates are saying kudos to Obama. Sure other nutjobs will be silent on giving Obama credit. But they are nutjobs, so what would you expect?

    For you to make such blanket statements about what all Republicans won't do is pretty ridiculous.

  2. Here's what I said:

    "I predict that not one single Republican will in any way withdraw any criticism of Obama or the Democrats for being weak on national defense, and very few (if any) will give him credit for killing Osama bin Laden."

    First of all, I think it was clear that I meant nationally prominent Republicans: after all, who knows what any of millions of people who call themselves Republicans might do.

    Those few that did give Obama credit were careful to give George Bush equal billing. In a few months they will be very quiet about Osama and how he was taken down. They will, as I predicted, still be saying that Obama and the Dems are soft on terror and defense in general.

  3. I read what you said the first time, and it was bogus the first time and bogus when you wrote it again. I was only talking about nationally prominent sources. When I referred to "nutjobs" I meant people like Sara Palin and Donald Trump (although Trump actually praised Obama for this act). And just because some who gave credit to Obama also happened to give credit to the intelligence community and also Bush's efforts in no way diminishes the fact that they give Obama credit. But now of course you're qualifying your blanket statement even though not all who did give Obama credit also gave Bush "equal billing". You're off your rocker.

    Why don't you go back to smoking all that dope which makes you think that more taxes will somehow help the income inequality in the world. And that Teddy Roosevelt somehow supported the level of income and estate taxes we are suffering under today just because of some comments made when the rates were extremely low. And that somehow all Republicans are just "out to get" Obama. What a ultra-partisan view.

  4. I will try once again to give a polite reply.

    No Republican has yet qualified the Republican position that Obama and the Dems are soft or wishy-washy on defense. Also as I predicted, only a handful of Republicans gave Obama credit for capturing ObL, and then only while giving Bush credit, though Bush gave up on capturing him (as the YouTube video shows).

    The estate tax can only prevent huge concentrated wealth when it is imposed at a high level. A 10% to 20% tax doesn't cut much ice. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that those such as TR who supported it for that reason would support it at higher levels than were possible then. Why extol it's virtue of preventing vast inherited wealth if its level is ineffective at doing so?

    Of course all Republican are "out to get" Obama. Their leaders have said so explicitly, and their unanimous or near unanimous votes suggest the same.

    Without taxes and very strong unions, it is quite clear, from statistics we've both seen, that income inequality will only get worse. What possible motivation would businesses and the wealthy have for having it any other way? Taxes can be used to help people directly (protection against fraud, inspection of food, health care) thus extending the economic power of their income. Don't you understand how this social compact works? It's not exactly rocket science.

    Which reminds me: I'm neither off my rocker, nor do I smoke dope. In fact, I'm on my rocker, even as I write this, and while I don't personally smoke dope, I am in favor of its complete legalization.

  5. Ah yes, they're starting already. Andrew Card, Karl Rove, Rush -- backtracking on congratulating Obama, and giving more and more credit to Bush. After a few weeks the Big Lie will set in, and the Republican line will be (at least) equal credit for Bush. No Republican has retracted the charge that Obama and the Dems are weak on national defense. The chickens will come home to roost on their venerable, traditional and unalterable positions. To paraphrase Carl Sandburg:

    "Two years, ten years, and passengers ask the conductor:
    What place is this?
    Where are we now?"

    ... I am the the Republican revisionism, I cover all.

    [In fairness to a great American poet, here's the original:


    by: Carl Sandburg (1878-1967)

    Pile the bodies high at Austerlitz and Waterloo,
    Shovel them under and let me work--
    I am the grass; I cover all.

    And pile them high at Gettysburg
    And pile them high at Ypres and Verdun.
    Shovel them under and let me work.

    Two years, ten years, and passengers ask the conductor:
    What place is this?
    Where are we now?

    I am the grass.
    Let me work. ]

  6. Cheney congratulates Obama, Rumsfeld congratulates Obama, etc.

    But nobody is going to all of a sudden say that Obama handled other situations well, such as Egypt and Libya, just because he killed OBL. And why should they?