Category Archives: Bush

Obama, Palin and the real change

Obama is young, eloquent, good looking, gives excellent speeches and doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills”. He is definitely making history by that. I do agree. But, guess what ? Now, there is a new person in the race. This person is younger, better looking , more eloquent than Obama and making speeches which Obama can just dream about. This person does not look like those presidents on the dollar bills either. Considering that color of a dollar bill is green ( not white and black ) this person look even less like those presidents on the dollar bills than Obama, because she is a women !

This person is Sarah Palin! And she is making history today !  She is authentic, she is  real, and she represents the  change which Obama trying to pretend  to be.

4 Comments

Filed under 2008 vote, 2008 voter, Analysis, Barack Obama, Biden, Bush, democrats, GOP, Joe Biden, McCain, Obama, Palin, politic, Sara Palin, Sarah Palin, United States, USA

Palin’s daughter punished by a baby?

OK, Palin’s daughter is pregnant.
Would we know about that if she would have an abortion? We would not. So in eyes of democrats Palin ‘s daughter is “punished by a baby”
as their messiah defined that.
We need real not corrupted honest politicians and guess what? All of them are real mortal people. I would rather accept VPs daughter not planed pregnancy than I would accept my potential president who voluntarily for all life of his daughters kept them in a racist church.
Obama raised his daughters under a guidance of Jeremiah Right ! Tell me who is better parent , Palin whose daughter pregnant or Obama who raised her daughters feeding them poisonous ideas of certified racist?
Understood , they will not leave Palin alone, but at least admit that if it would be Obama’s daughter a baby would be already slaughtered without a noise to avoid a “punishment by a baby”.

1 Comment

Filed under 2008 vote, 2008 voter, Analysis, Bush, GOP, McCain, news, Obama, Palin, politic, United States, USA, voter

Romney, McCain and timetable

according to CNN

“The sharpest exchange in the debate came when Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was asked about the McCain campaign’s charge that he once said he favored a strict timetable for removing troops from Iraq.

Romney has consistently denied ever having backed a timetable and said McCain was taking a small portion of a quote out of context.

“It’s simply wrong,” Romney said. “By the way, raising it a few days before the Florida primary, when there was very little time for me to correct the record, falls in the kind of dirty tricks that Ronald Reagan would have found reprehensible.” But McCain, the Arizona senator who has strongly backed President Bush’s Iraq policy, accused Romney of hedging after public support for the war waned.”

OK, if it is so why state talker McCain would not say in a few days before the Florida primary that “Romney of hedging after public support for the war waned” instead of lying about Romney embracing a timetable foe withdraw ?

 McCain may be right that Romney should support surge back then in more clear words. I would agree with McCain in that.

But I am troubled by the fact that instead of criticizing Romney for not clear enough supporting the surge  , McCain start making stories about Romney accepting a timetable. Why in order to make a legitimate point McCain has to lie?

Is it the high moral ground on which McCain is making gains?

Leave a comment

Filed under 2008 vote, 2008 voter, Bush, CNN, debate, debates, Florida Republican primary, GOP, Iraq, Massachusetts, McCain, Mitt Romney, politic, President Bush, republican TV debates, Republicans, United States, USA, war, withdrawal

Fox TV debates

OK debates are over. Whom do I like?

None of them! All of them said smart things occasionally (even Paul: about not sending money to Arabs). But none of them have an articulated position which would make me sure that they are ready for dealing with today’s problems.

I will have to vote for one of them because on the other side (democrats) are certified demagogues with no practical experience at all.

Is it not funny how Democrats are picking on the record of Rudy Giuliani and/or Mike Huckabee? Democrats are in excellent position to criticize. They themselves made no mistakes because they never did anything. What Obama or Edwards accomplished other than speeches? Speech about two Americas, Speech about change in America, Speech about two changes in one America, Speech about multiple Americas with many changes… you pick, your choice. But what other than speeches? OK, Obama you are asking for change. Is not a time to change a tune, Obama?

I would say republicans suppose they have an easy target. Against them are a bunch of well trained certified demagogues with no accomplishments and experience. But republicans seem not ready to get this target. Not yet. I start looking on Romney, since “my guy” Duncan Hunter is out.

This guy at least has a proven economic/business accomplishments.

Leave a comment

Filed under 2008 vote, 2008 voter, Barack Obama, Bush, Duncan Hunter, GOP, Huckabee, McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Obama, Republicans, Ron Paul, two Americas

Obama.Variations on topics of populism: part one ” undo the war”

Listening to Barack Obama’s recent speech in Manchester New Hampshire (CSPN-2) :

Incredibly populist speech. He can beat even Edwards with his blatant populism.

If I will have time I will go point by point: education, healthcare , global warming; all accessories of populism are in place. Nothing really new in this populist talk.

History knows only two forms of implementation of populism: communism and fascism. Those who like populism have to choose on those above because there are no other historical options available.

 

Let me focus only on his favorite aspect : anti war ( or to be precise pro-defeat) position. His anti-war vote is essentially only thing that separates him from Clinton who is essentially same populist position in terms of universal healthcare and feeding money to educational system.

So let us see what Obama is saying about the war:

1.

undo the war” slogan

He reminds us again and again that he was one who was against the war.

You were against war? OK! Let us for the sake of argument accept that you were right then. It does not mean that you are right now. Things changed between then and now. You cannot stay in the past .You have to adjust your political mind to new reality. You do not like this reality? So do I. But if you do not like a reality it does not mean that you can ignore a reality: there is no “UNDO” button on “ political computer”. You were against the war it does not mean that you can “undo“ that war. And this is what Obama essentially is saying: “I was against the war then , war was wrong then , and if you will elect me I will end the war ( read “ I will capitulate”)”.

He presumes, for some reason, that after he will surrender everything will be like it was before the war. He presumes that the war will be undone by electing him as a president. Very misleading and deceitful message.

2.

price of withdrawal: misleading out of the war versus misleading in the war

If Obama indeed is honest as he claims (the main message of Obama’s is that he is honest outsider unlike other candidates who are dishonest insiders ) he has to talk right now with his constituency about price of withdrawal which will be huge. But he is not talking about price of capitulation, he is talking only about how correct he was back then when he was against the war. ( his glorious moment as he thinks)

He either does not understand what he is talking about or he is disingenuous in order to just to be elected. Why he his not talking with constituency about the price of withdrawal ( capitulation)? He is saying that if he is a president he will talk honestly about problems. So talk to us about the price of capitulation! Repercussions of capitulation will be catastrophic or at least they serious enough to talk about if you are really honest, of course . Capitulation means broken commitments, slaughtered allies, forever brokent trust in USA as word worthy partner.

So my question to Obama is : OK we got your message , you were right then does it mean that you have an alibi for being wrong now?

3.

personal vanity of Bush versus personal vanity of Obama;

May be starting the war was caused by personal vanity of Bush. May be so . But it looks like that loosing the war is a goal dedicated to personal vanity of Obama. Just because he voted against war, war has to be lost . Otherwise … he was wrong! So hurry up Obama , obstruct American efforts to win the war! If the USA will win this war it iwill prove that you were wrong back then voting against the war! You cannot afford it personally , so you have to “ stop Bush” in his efforts to win the war.

We are paying price for mistakes of Bush . I agree with that .Many things were done wrong. But why anybody would think that “ ending the war “ ( read capitulation) just because Obama voted back then against the war, will solve any of our problems? Would capitulation be a monument to Obama’s vanity?

9 Comments

Filed under 2008 vote, 2008 voter, Analysis, anti-war, Barack Obama, Bush, CSPN, CSPN-2, democrats, Edwards, Iraq, Iraq war, Manchester, Manchester New Hampshire, New Hampshire, Obama, politic, populism, propaganda, United States, USA, voter, war, withdrawal

Are Democrats palying like Bolsheviks ?

Democrats are calling for withdraw of troops. Democrats are OK with defeat in Iraq because the military defeat of the USA in Iraq means a political defeat of Bush, and, by proxy, defeat of GOP. So, military defeat of USA in Iraq will be a political victory for Democrats. Democrats have capitalized on anti-war sentiment in 2006, and they are going to bet on anti-war mood and general apathy of public during 2008 campaign. I do not blame Democrats for using anti-war demagoguery as a main tool in 2008 elections. After all, they have nothing else what separates them from GOP. They are similarly corrupted. And similarly incapable to achieve anything in Congress. So Democrats   rely solemnly on ending the war and on winning political power by ending the war. It is exactly what Lenin and Bolsheviks did during WWI: he used the national tragedy as an instrument of grabbing the power.

 

2 Comments

Filed under Analysis, anti-war, Bolsheviks, Bush, GOP, Iraq, Lenin, Leninism, middle east, politic, Republicans, USA, war, withdrawal

Levinism as the new Leninism

This is how the  future of democratic party looks

There is new political doctrine around. Its called Levinism after senator Levin!

As similarly sounding and ideologically related Leninism of Russia, Levinism is looking for the defeat of its own country in a war in order to gain a political advantages for own party .

Levin Urges Republicans to Back His Troop Withdrawal Plan. He said :”If those Republicans who say they want a change in course in Iraq will vote for one, we can start bringing our troops home and force the Iraqi political leaders to take responsibility for their own country,” (source)The question is what then??? According to the doctrine of levinism it will be peace and all of the USA will live happily ever after !!!

Let us for the sake of argument presume that Iraq invasion was a mistake. Can Dems due to their anti republican paranoia not see that withdrawal , as they see, it will be even bigger mistake? Granted, war is not going well. So what ? The normal thinking would be how to change the situation and to win. But they even do not want to think about winning. Why? Because winning in Iraq will make republicans stronger.

It is surreal to me but the fact: Pelosi cannot meet Petraeus but she found time to visit Bashar Al-ASSAD!

This is the real face of democratic party today . Party which has same demands as our enemy. In fact all those demands by Democrats to “ stop the war” are identical to demands of Taliban , Al-qaida, Iran and others.

 

The problem is that with no leadership from white house (and Bush provides none) they got a huge opening to exercise virtually unchallenged demagoguery . Liberal press is spinning everything in vacuum left by Bush’s inability to articulate a position of the USA in this global war.

We are facing the new Revolutionary Defeatism coming form the left

Levin said :

 

“It would require the President to begin reducing U.S. forces in Iraq within 120 days”

I bet al-quaida and Iran second this motion . Any doubts??

    • “It would limit the mission of our remaining troops to protecting our service-members and diplomats; training Iraqi security forces; and conducting operations against al-Qaeda; with the transition to those missions to be completed by next April”

Limit mission of troops by self protection? How about to limit mission of police on the dangerous neighborhoods by self-protection? Conducting operations against al-Qaeda? Like what ? How? What are priorities? Self-protection of troops or conducting operations?

    • “It would require a comprehensive diplomatic, political and economic effort to help create and sustain stability in the region.”

This is hilarious! Any examples of “comprehensive diplomatic, political and economic effort to help create and sustain stability in the region”? Oslo? Oil for food program? Levin sounds sometimes like Lenin, sometimes like Chamberlain. Very odd combination.

Situation is that: We are fighting a new type of war. War without rules with enemy with no face. It is difficult to figure out how to fight this war and therefore we are loosing precious lives of our troops. Leadership is bad or rather there is no leadership at all.

Solution how democrats see it: run away .They suggest us to forget everything and pretend it never happened. Let us pretend that USA was not attacked on 9/11and let us hope that the world will love us again after we retreat. Sounds silly? May be if you would remember that defeat in Iraq is inevitably a political defeat of Bush and by proxy defeat of GOP it is not that silly for Democrats . They see their gains on anti war sentiment in 2006 . After all they have nothing else what separates them from GOP. They are similarly corrupted. And similarly incapable to achieve anything in congress. So they rely solemnly on ending the war and by ending the war winning political power. It is exactly what Lenin did during WW1: he used the national tragedy as an instrument of grabbing the power.

May be Bush must be impeached but not for starting the war, but for not fighting the war he started. He must be impeached for not winning the war and wasting precious lives of our troops, not by not letting them fight. But Levin definitely must be called for what he is , traitor and defeatist-demagogue .

He calls for accepting a defeat and then negotiating a victory!!!

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Al-qaida, Analysis, Bashar Al-ASSAD, Bush, GOP, impeachment, Iran, Iraq, Lenin, Leninism, Levin, middle east, Pelosi, politic, Republicans, Taliban, Uncategorized, United States, USA, war

Why we attacked Iraq? Why we attacked Nazi Germany? pacifism as aggressive wishful thinking

Why we attacked Iraq? Why we attacked Nazi Germany?

It never attacked the USA. Japan did , not Germany ! Why after Perl Harbor we invaded … Normandy??? Following the logic of today’s antiwar people we had to go after Japan , even not after Japan but after admiral Yamamoto ,personally . We supposed to find him and sue him.

Should war be a last resort? Why? To save lies? Does really refusal to go to war saving lives? If Hitler would be attacked in 1938 it would be an aggression, but it would save millions of lives . Pacifism historically killed more people than militarism because pacifism is inviting violence by ignoring first signs of violence. Our main problem is not on the battlefield but at home with those who want to be safe but who want to do nothing in order to be safe .

Pacifism is not an ideology of kindness it is essentially ideology of indifference and laziness . French in 1939 believed that it is better occupation than a war . They did survive nicely WW2 . Why? Because their refusal to fight for themselves was compensated by Englishmen , Russians and Americans who rescued them paying bloody price .They, not French did a dirty job bombing and killing , why ? in part to rescue French. But guess what , nobody going to rescue the USA if it will need help. It is already more than obvious . So if even we would like to hang around as French did in WW2 it is not an option for us . Who will rescue us ? French? Russians? Nobody going to help to the USA as USA did help others during WW2

The war is in trouble, there is no doubt about that

But we are in big trouble on the battle field not because we are fighting war but because we are trying to fight POLITICALLY CORRECT WAR.

Bush has no guts to do what he should do, to let our army fight it . Instead he tried to be a diplomatic with moronic pretences for war (WMD) and with stupid talk about spread of democracy as our goal. Our goal is to be safe and preventive actions against states like Iraq were needed. It is like to tell police you cannot stop violence on the street with violence, you have to treat criminals like people ( and they are people) and try to persuade them to change their behavior, to win hearts and minds of criminals. Our main problem is mind set of people in the USA who are anti-war because they want everything to be nice and everybody to be nice and they are very upset when it is not happening. I would call that aggressive wishful thinking

6 Comments

Filed under Bush, France, Germany, Iraq, Japan, Nazi, Nazi Germany, Pacifism, Perl Harbor, Russia, United States, USA, war, WW2

Bush and Putin project a united front? Too good to be true?

“President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin projected a united front Monday against Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program.” (read)

Considering that according to this “when addressing All-Russia’s Conference of Public Science Professors, President Vladimir Putin cautioned against allowing to inflict the feeling of guilt on Russia”, it is hard to predict what is good relations with USA in Russian terms. However, on the record Putin “ said that democracy will be the method of Russia’s state organization,”

If indeed Russia and USA will find some common denominator in politics, it will change the world as we speak.

Alliance of Russia and USA is possible and rewarding for both sides, however, it is hard to predict how deeply anti–American sentiment corroded psyche of Russian people. Years of anti-American propaganda sponsored by the state shaped already a generation of young Russians who grew up with the idea that USA is the enemy. The input of USA in building of understanding between Russia and USA may be even less impressive. So, the question is: even if leaders want to join their efforts, are people of Russia and USA really ready for that?

Maybe both countries proved to themselves that they cannot accomplish too much one without the other?

Maybe some poor Czechoslovakia was sacrificed yesterday?

Leave a comment

Filed under Bush, news, politic, Putin, Russia, USA

Is Carter running for Palestinian presidency? Mr. Carter could be excellent Palestinian president.

Carter’s position on the takeover by HAMAS in Gaza is obviously immoral because he praises killing of political opponents (Hamas did kill Fattah people, did it?). Besides, it is grossly illogical as well.

1.

“Bush administration’s refusal to accept Hamas‘ 2006 election victory was ‘criminal’.”

Why is that Bush did refuse to accept Hamas’ 2006 election victory? He never did!

He made his choice to not collaborate with Hamas but he never refuse to accept Hamas‘ 2006 election victory. Nobody in the White House ever denied legitimacy of Hamas’ 2006 election victory. But it was Palestinians who elected Hamas. Palestinian voters have no power over White House decision making. May be Mr. Carter could be excellent Palestinian president, but so far Bush is the president of USA and he can choose with whom to collaborate and with whom to not collaborate. For Mr. Carter commitment of Hamas to destroy Israel is not an obstacle to collaboration, which is quite strange for such a peaceful person. For Bush it is an obstacle. Let us presume that a party committed to destroy France would win in German election. Would USA collaborate with such government ? I doubt it. So why Jews have to be inferior to Germans? Blunted anti-Semitism and liberal demagoguery are mixed in Carter head in very strange mixture. He failed to differentiate not collaborating with blood thirsty terrorists with refusing to accept the fact of Hamas‘ 2006 election victory. Hamas did win election , nobody denies that. But it imposes no obligation on USA to collaborate with party denying right to exists to state created by UN just because it wins its country election. Palestinians voted for Hamas and it means everything for Palestinians and nothing for anybody else.

2.

“Carter said Hamas, besides winning a fair and democratic mandate that should have entitled it to lead the Palestinian government, had proven itself to be far more organized in its political and military showdowns with Abbas’ moderate Fatah movement.” Source :

“Winning a fair and Democratic mandate…that should have entitled HAMAS to lead the Palestinian government.” Abbas did win his election as well, as far as I understand winning election by Hamas gave Hamas only the majority of parliament, but did not override the power of the President, who won his “fair and Democratic” elections. Do Democrats in US by winning 2006 elections and getting majority in parliament got the right for military coup as Hamas did? What kind of logic is that ? How a politician ( even with such bad reputation, proven plagiarist and supporter of all anti American forces in the world dictatorship including open dictatorships as Cuba ) could justify killing of political opponents ? And this guy once won Peace Nobel Price? Hamas looted Garter’s partner for Nobel peace Arafat and stole his medal. Is that the sign of discipline of Hamas which so impressed Mr. Carter? Hamas did loot everything it could, is that in eyes of Carter a sign of discipline? Source

3.

Let us say Hamas is as disciplined as Carter see it. So what ? Many gangs around the world are highly disciplined and proficient in what they do, does that make them morally right? Since when USA chooses to collaborate not with the most righteous but with most disciplined force? Colombian narco-cartels are very disciplined too. Are they appealing to Mr. Carter as potential political partners?

2 Comments

Filed under anti-Semitism, Bush, Carter, Fatah, Gaza, Hamas, Israel, liberal