Middle East Scholar: Obama Considered ‘Weak, Feckless’, Bush ‘Feared’

October 2, 2012 at 11:03 am (Arab Spring, Benjamin Netanyahu, Brookings Institute, Foreign Policy, George W. Bush, Israel, Middle East, President Obama, Shadi Hamid)

Yea but … Obama killed Osama.  Hadn’t you heard?

Via Bloomberg: 

… all we have from Obama is passivity, which is a recurring theme in the administration’s approach to the Middle East. So is “aggressive hedging,” a term used by the Brookings Institution’s Shadi Hamid to describe Obama’s strange reluctance to clearly choose sides in the uprisings of the Arab Spring.

“There’s a widespread perception in the region that Obama is a weak, somewhat feckless president,” Hamid, who runs the Brookings Doha Center, told me. “Bush may have been hated, but he was also feared, and what we’ve learned in the Middle East is that fear, sometimes at least, can be a good thing. Obama’s aggressive hedging has alienated both sides of the Arab divide. Autocrats, particularly in the Gulf, think Obama naively supports Arab revolutionaries, while Arab protesters and revolutionaries seem to think the opposite.”

Leaders across the Middle East don’t take Obama’s threats seriously. Neither Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nor the Arab leaders of the Gulf countries believe he’ll act militarily against Iran’s nuclear program in his second term.

Not to fear, we don’t take it very seriously here either when the President pretends to be a tough foreign policy advocate.

When it comes to foreign policy, it looks like it was actually George Bush who had the big stick.

Advertisements

Permalink Leave a Comment

Obama Administration Blaming Deaths of U.S. Troops On … U.S. Troops

October 1, 2012 at 9:00 am (Afghanistan, Friendly Fire, George W. Bush, Islam, Martin Dempsey, Military, Pentagon, President Obama, Sensitivity Training, U.S. Troops)

In case you were wondering, according to the Pentagon, American troops would be killed far less frequently if only they would better understand the religious sensitivities of Afghan forces.

If you’re an ardent supporter of American media, then you probably missed the news that the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan rose to 2,000 this past weekend.

This of course, would have been the lead story on every news outlet in America had it occurred between the years 2000 and 2008.

But this is now Obama’s war, and there should be no reporting of significant milestones because … well … because he has put an end to these unjust wars.  And also, he’s the first black President.  Or something.

Regardless, here is the grim news as reported by the Huffington Post:

A firefight broke out between U.S. forces and their Afghan army allies in eastern Afghanistan Sunday, killing two Americans and three Afghan soldiers and pushing the number of U.S. troops killed in the long-running war 2,000.
The fighting started Saturday when what is believed to have been a mortar fired by insurgents struck a checkpoint set up by U.S. forces in Wardak province, said Shahidullah Shahid, a provincial government spokesman. He said the Americans thought they were under attack from a nearby Afghan army checkpoint and fired on it, prompting the Afghan soldiers to return fire.
The Afghan Defense Ministry said the gunbattle was the result of a “misunderstanding” between international forces and Afghan soldiers manning a checkpoint in the Sayd Abad district.

There is a debate as to whether or not this story holds true.  Were our soldiers killed as a result of a misunderstanding, or was it an attack from within?  Regardless of the motive, the 2,000th American soldier has died in Afghanistan.

Now, we know our readers are pretty good with math unlike liberals in the media, so we have a little mathematical riddle for you – If 630 U.S. troops were killed in 8 years during the war in Afghanistan under Bush, and 2,000 total troops have died during the entire length of that war, how many casualties have occurred under President Obama?

Here’s an even more astounding thing to ponder – the Obama administration is now blaming the ‘friendly fire’ attacks that have killed U.S. soldiers this year on troops that are not sensitive enough to the religion of Islam.

In other words, they had it coming.

The New York Post reports (h/t Gateway Pundit):

Afghan security forces, our supposed allies, are slaughtering American troops. Thirty-three soldiers have been killed by “green on blue” attacks this year alone. The situation is so bad that the training of Afghan forces has been temporarily suspended.

How has the Pentagon responded?

By blaming our troops.

Top officials believe culturally offensive behavior is the motivation behind the killings, so it’s stepped up Islamic sensitivity training for our troops.

If you don’t want to be shot in the back by your Afghan training partners, the Pentagon advises, don’t offend their religious sensibilities. Don’t kick your feet up on a table, for instance, and never ask to see a picture of their wives and kids. “There’s a percentage [of attacks] which are cultural affronts,” Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said in a recent interview. Dempsey echoes the concerns of Gen. Sher Mohammad Karimi, the Afghan National Army’s chief of staff, who earlier this month argued both sides need to do more to “teach” foreign troops Islamic traditions and values to reduce the chance of violent reactions to cultural slights. “It is our duty to teach this to them. Our indifference about these issues causes the incident,” he said.

Of course, this fits in quite well with the President’s view that when it comes to soldiers and diplomats being killed abroad, everyone is to blame for their deaths except for the people who actually pull the trigger.

When do you suppose the Obama administration will start training Afghan troops to respect American traditions and values, and start blaming violence in the Middle East on those who have no values?

Permalink Leave a Comment

Man Who Called Bush Unpatriotic Says He’s Never Called His Opponents Unpatriotic

September 19, 2012 at 3:43 pm (David Letterman, Debt, Deficit, George W. Bush, President Obama, Unpatriotic)

Obama (2008):

The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”

Obama (2012):

“One thing I’ve never tried to do and I think none of us can do in public office is suggest that because someone doesn’t agree with me that they’re victims or they’re unpatriotic.”

Never tried to do?  Not only did you try, but you actually did.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Obama Sending Form Letters to Families of Fallen Soldiers – Signed By Electric Pen

August 29, 2012 at 4:34 pm (Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Electric Pen, Form Letter, George W. Bush, Navy SEALs, President Obama)

That letter to families of our fallen soldiers?  You didn’t write that.  Somebody else did that for you.

And then signed it with an electric pen.

Jim Host writes:

On August 6, 2011, 30 US service members were killed when a CH-47 Chinook helicopter they were being transported in crashed in Wardak province, Afghanistan. It was the deadliest single loss for U.S. forces in the decade-long war in Afghanistan. 17 members of the elite Navy SEALs were killed in the crash.

Yesterday, Karen and Billy Vaughn, parents of Aaron Carson Vaughn, spoke at the Defending the Defenders forum sponsored by the Tea Party Patriots outside the RNC Convention in Tampa. Karen brought a copy of the form letter they were sent following their son’s death.

It’s a form letter.

(Photo:  Gateway Pundit)

Something a touch more personal would be nice, considering these were members of the Navy SEALs who gave their lives at the direction of the Commander-in-Chief.

Well, at least the signature on those letters was a nice personal touch.

That’s not all.

Karen Vaughn reached out to the parents of the other SEALs killed in that crash. Their letters were all the same.

Form letters – signed by an electric pen.

It must be standard practice, right?  Surely the cold-hearted former President Bush only sent form letters to the families of our fallen soldiers.

From the Washington Times (2008):

For much of the past seven years, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have waged a clandestine operation inside the White House. It has involved thousands of military personnel, private presidential letters and meetings that were kept off their public calendars or sometimes left the news media in the dark.

Their mission: to comfort the families of soldiers who died fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and to lift the spirits of those wounded in the service of their country.

But the size and scope of Mr. Bush’s and Mr. Cheney’s private endeavors to meet with wounded soliders and families of the fallen far exceed anything that has been witnessed publicly, according to interviews with more than a dozen officials familiar with the effort.

“People say, ‘Why would you do that?’” the president said in an Oval Office interview with The Washington Times on Friday. “And the answer is: This is my duty. The president is commander in chief, but the president is often comforter in chief, as well. It is my duty to be – to try to comfort as best as I humanly can a loved one who is in anguish.”

I don’t get it.  For eight straight years, we were told that George W. Bush was eeee-vil, while President Obama was the compassionate savior.

No matter, bottom line is that more American troops were killed in Afghanistan under Bush’s watch than Mr. Nobel Peace Prize.

CNS News:

Although President Obama has only served 39 months in office, 69 percent of the U.S. military fatalities in the more than 10-year-old war in Afghanistan have occurred on his watch.

Through April 30, the Defense Department had reported that 1,844 U.S. military personnel have been killed in and around Afghanistan while deployed in Operation Enduring Freedom, which was launched in October 2001 after al Qaeda terrorists attacked the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon.

According to CNSNews.com’s comprehensive database on Afghan war casualties, at least 1,275 of the 1,844 U.S. troops killed in the Afghanistan conflict have been killed since Jan. 20, 2009, when Barack Obama was inaugurated as president.

Wait, what?

Could it be that the media has lied to us?  That the portrayals of these two men have been wrong?

Nah…

Permalink Leave a Comment

Albright: Bush Derangement Syndrome Will Never End

August 21, 2012 at 10:58 am (Bush Derangement Syndrome, Bush's Fault, Economy, George W. Bush, Madeline Albright, President Obama, Secretary of State)

It’s been a common question amongst critics of President Obama – When will you start taking credit for what ails the country, and when will you stop blaming Bush?

If former Secretary of State and current Obama surrogate, Madeline Albright is to be believed, you can stop holding your breath.

The Bush Derangement Syndrome will never end.

Obama surrogate and Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright has finally revealed when they’ll stop blaming current conditions on Former President Bush. Never. At a campaign rally in Highlands Ranch, Colorado last week Albright told an anecdote: “All of a sudden this man gets up and says, ‘How long are you people going to blame the previous administration?’ and I said, ‘Forever.’”

I would assume that, if by some miracle the economy does start to improve despite the President’s best efforts to destroy it, that the good fortune will also have to be blamed on Bush, correct?

Won’t hold my breath on that either.

Watch Albright’s statements below…

Permalink Leave a Comment

Romney Got Off Easy – Bush Was Accused of the "Niggerization of the American People"

August 16, 2012 at 10:08 pm (9/11, C-Span, CNN, Cornel West, George W. Bush, Kira Davis, Mitt Romney, MSNBC, Niggerization, Niggerization of America, PBS, President Bush, President Obama, Racism, Toure)

There is, understandably, plenty of outrage today after hearing MSNBC host Touré accuse Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney of what he called the “niggerization” of President Obama.

MSNBC’s Touré has now declared that Mitt Romney is engaged in the “niggerization” of Barack Obama. What exactly did Romney do to earn this reprehensible slur? He said that Obama, whose campaign has already called Romney a racist, a sexist, a felon, and a murderer, should “take [his] campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago.”

Why, precisely, did this comment constitute “niggerization,” and what did that vile word mean? Why was Touré invoking one of the most egregious slurs ever to enter the language? Well, let Touré explain:

“That really bothered me. You notice he said anger twice. He’s really trying to use racial coding and access some really deep stereotypes about the angry black man. This is part of the playbook against Obama, the ‘otherization,’ he’s not like us.

“I know it’s a heavy thing, I don’t say it lightly, but this is ‘niggerization.’ You are not one of us, you are like the scary black man who we’ve been trained to fear.”

Appropriately, the level of disgust for such an outrageous slander has been great.  But there is one person who may believe Romney got off relatively easy for being accused of the “niggerization” of one man.

George W. Bush wasn’t similarly slandered for his actions towards any one person rather, he was accused of the “niggerization” of the entire “American people”.  And it wasn’t just that he was smeared with such a disgusting term, but that he was accused of using the events of 9/11 to achieve that goal.

So was it some hack blogger on the left who used such terminology?  Nay.

Bush was accused of promoting the “niggerization of the American people” by frequent guest of the Bill Maher Show, host on CNN, C-Span and PBS, and esteemed Professor at the University of Princeton, Cornel West.

In a piece for the Atlantic, West wrote:

Since the ugly events of 9/11, we have witnessed the attempt of the Bush administration—with elites in support and populists complacent—to promote the niggerization of the American people. Like the myopic white greed, fear, and hatred that fueled the niggerization of black people, right-wing greed, fear, and hatred have made all of us feel intimidated, fearful, and helpless in the face of the terrorist attacks. And, as in the 19th century, we’ve almost lost our democracy.

Additionally, West can be seen in this video comparing the backdrop of the Attica Rebellion to attitudes fostered by the ruling government party after 9/11.

West:  The Attica Rebellion was a counter move in that direction – I call it the “niggerization” of a people.  Not just black people because America been “niggerized” since 9/11.

Is it any wonder that Touré has referred to Professor West as a “genius”?

In the end, there’s nothing new to see here.  Just as it was acceptable for George Bush to be accused by liberals of “niggerizing” America, so too will it be acceptable for liberals to state that Mitt Romney is “niggerizing” Obama.

But let there be no doubt which side of the aisle the true racists sit.

Update:  Kira Davis provides a great video response to Toure.  The YouTube description:

Toure says Romney’s tactics are the “niggerization” of Obama. I take HUGE issue with that term and accusation, as someone with intimate knowledge of racism.

Permalink Leave a Comment

The Only Way to See Positives in Obama’s Economy is to Kill Expectations

August 3, 2012 at 1:00 pm (2012 Elections, George W. Bush, Job Reports, Jobs, Jobs Created, Lowered Expectations, Obama Economy, President Obama, Unemployment)

With today’s jobs report indicating an increase in unemployment to 8.3%, the Obama campaign is sure to draw attention away from the number 8.3 and instead focus on the number of jobs created, 163,000.

It will be celebrated as progress, a step in the right direction, and proof that the private sector is doing fine.

But the only way anyone can possibly believe that is to have been barraged for four years of repeatedly lowered expectations.

Jonathan Collegio of American Crossroads writes:

In short: It is impossible to celebrate 163,000 new jobs as an accomplishment three years into a recovery – unless you have lowered expectations to the point that you do not expect to get folks back to work. Today’s jobs report only exceeds expectations if the president has exceedingly low expectations for America.

Proof of that can be found in the President’s own words.  Surely he had higher expectations when George W. Bush was in office, based on this statement criticizing the number of jobs created in a 2004 report.  Then Senator Barack Obama blasted President Bush on the state of the economy in a radio address to fellow Democrats:

“For the past few weeks, President Bush and members of his administration have traveled the nation to celebrate recent improved economic statistics. Well, I’ve been traveling too, all over this large and diverse state. In cities and suburbs, downstate and upstate, I’ve heard from people who say it’s way too early to claim victory when it comes to our economy,” Obama says in the Democrats’ radio address from June 26, 2004.

“After three dismal years of job-loss, we all welcome encouraging statistics,” Obama acknowledges in the 2004 address. “But for most Americans, the health of our economy is measured in a different and more personal way: If I lose my job, where will I find one that pays as well and offers real benefits? Can I afford health-care coverage on my own, or the cost of sending my children to college? Will I ever be able to save and retire with dignity and security? These are the questions I hear hardworking people asking. For them, the basic rewards of a middle-class life, rewards that we once took for granted, have become an elusive dream.”

The numbers Obama blasted?  310,000 jobs created, and 5.6% unemployment.  Somebody should be making a campaign video right now with those very same words, referring to today’s economic outlook under the President.

Collegio is correct, the only way anyone can look at the economic reports coming out of the Obama administration and see a positive outlook, is to have bought the lowered expectations.
We need a President who will raise Americans expectations, not lower them to make himself look better.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Navy SEALs to Obama: Stop Taking Credit for Killing Bin Laden

May 1, 2012 at 10:05 am (Bill Clinton, Death, George W. Bush, Iraq, Mitt Romney, Navy SEALs, Osama Bin laden, President Obama, Saddam Hussein)

President Obama wants you to believe he’s tough on terror by exploiting Osama Bin Laden’s death.  The administration wants you to believe Obama made a ‘gutsy call’ that only he in all his courageous glory could have made.  But the facts simply don’t support this.

First, the ‘gutsy call’ had a fallback plan if it backfired.  The gutsy call was actually made by an Admiral McRaven, the true hero in greenlighting this operation, and the blame, if necessary, would be shouldered by him as well – not the President.

Via Breitbart:

… Time magazine got hold of a memo written by then-CIA head Leon Panetta after he received orders from Barack Obama’s team to greenlight the bin Laden mission…

… Only the memo doesn’t show a gutsy call. It doesn’t show a president willing to take the blame for a mission gone wrong. It shows a CYA maneuver by the White House.

The memo puts all control in the hands of Admiral McRaven – the “timing, operational decision making and control” are all up to McRaven. So the notion that Obama and his team were walking through every stage of the operation is incorrect. The hero here was McRaven, not Obama. And had the mission gone wrong, McRaven surely would have been thrown under the bus.

The memo is crystal clear on that point.

And now, several members of the elite Navy SEALs have taken umbrage to the President’s attempts to take credit for the kill.

Via the Daily Mail:

Serving and former US Navy SEALs have slammed President Barack Obama for taking the credit for killing Osama bin Laden and accused him of using Special Forces operators as ‘ammunition’ for his re-election campaign.

The SEALs spoke out to MailOnline after the Obama campaign released an ad entitled ‘One Chance’.

In it President Bill Clinton is featured saying that Mr Obama took ‘the harder and the more honourable path’ in ordering that bin Laden be killed. The words ‘Which path would Mitt Romney have taken?’ are then displayed.

Here is a sampling of what the SEALs had to say regarding Obama’s role:

Ryan Zinke, a former Commander in the US Navy who spent 23 years as a SEAL and led a SEAL Team 6 assault unit, said: ‘The decision was a no brainer. I applaud him for making it but I would not overly pat myself on the back for making the right call.

A serving SEAL Team member said: ‘Obama wasn’t in the field, at risk, carrying a gun. As president, at every turn he should be thanking the guys who put their lives on the line to do this. He does so in his official speeches because his speechwriters are smart.”

And then there is this…

Chris Kyle, a former SEAL sniper with 160 confirmed and another 95 unconfirmed kills to his credit, said: ‘The operation itself was great and the nation felt immense pride. It was great that we did it.’

‘But bin Laden was just a figurehead. The war on terror continues. Taking him out didn’t really change anything as far as the war on terror is concerned and using it as a political attack is a cheap shot.

‘In years to come there is going to be information that will come out that Obama was not the man who made the call. He can say he did and the people who really know what happened are inside the Pentagon, are in the military and the military isn’t allowed to speak out against the commander- in-chief so his secret is safe.’

It is clear that the man who once refused to ‘spike the football’ on the bin Laden killing, is now doing an endzone celebration in an attempt to divert America’s eyes away from the economy, away from the debt, and away from his failures as a President.

Worse, Obama is taking an event that should galvanize the nation in their pride, that demonstrates our military’s strength and resolve in avenging the tragedy of 9/11, and making it all about him.

But that’s what narcissists do.

Real leaders?  This is what a real leader does…

Credit Ace of Spades:

Here is a summary of Obama’s speech in announcing the death of bin Laden.  See if you can spot a theme…

“Tonight, I can report . . . And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta . . . I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden . . . I met repeatedly with my national security team . . . I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action. . . . Today, at my direction . . . I’ve made clear . . . Over the years, I’ve repeatedly made clear . . . Tonight, I called President Zardari . . . and my team has also spoken. . .These efforts weigh on me every time I, as Commander-in-Chief . . . Finally, let me say to the families . . . I know that it has, at times, frayed. . . .”

By contrast, take a look at the speech given by George W. Bush regarding the capture of Saddam Hussein.

Good afternoon. Yesterday, December the 13th, at around 8:30 p.m. Baghdad time, United States military forces captured Saddam Hussein alive. He was found near a farmhouse outside the city of Tikrit, in a swift raid conducted without casualties. And now the former dictator of Iraq will face the justice he denied to millions.

The capture of this man was crucial to the rise of a free Iraq. It marks the end of the road for him, and for all who bullied and killed in his name. For the Baathist holdouts largely responsible for the current violence, there will be no return to the corrupt power and privilege they once held. For the vast majority of Iraqi citizens who wish to live as free men and women, this event brings further assurance that the torture chambers and the secret police are gone forever.

And this afternoon, I have a message for the Iraqi people: You will not have to fear the rule of Saddam Hussein ever again. All Iraqis who take the side of freedom have taken the winning side. The goals of our coalition are the same as your goals — sovereignty for your country, dignity for your great culture, and for every Iraqi citizen, the opportunity for a better life.

In the history of Iraq, a dark and painful era is over. A hopeful day has arrived. All Iraqis can now come together and reject violence and build a new Iraq.

The success of yesterday’s mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq. The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator’s footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate ’em.

I also have a message for all Americans: The capture of Saddam Hussein does not mean the end of violence in Iraq. We still face terrorists who would rather go on killing the innocent than accept the rise of liberty in the heart of the Middle East. Such men are a direct threat to the American people, and they will be defeated.

We’ve come to this moment through patience and resolve and focused action. And that is our strategy moving forward. The war on terror is a different kind of war, waged capture by capture, cell by cell, and victory by victory. Our security is assured by our perseverance and by our sure belief in the success of liberty. And the United States of America will not relent until this war is won.

May God bless the people of Iraq, and may God bless America.

Thank you.

A speech about Iraq and America, but not about him.

Perhaps it’s these character issues which make the military respect Bush infinitely more than they respect Obama.

Permalink Leave a Comment

British Member of Parliament Puts $16 Million Bounty on President Obama, George Bush

April 16, 2012 at 11:00 am (Britain, George W. Bush, Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, Lord Nazir Ahmed, Muslims, Parliament, President Obama, Radical Islam)

And herein lies the reason London is slowly turning into Londonistan…

Via the Express Tribune:

In an expression of solidarity with Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) Chief Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, British parliamentarian of Kashmiri origin Lord Nazir Ahmed has announced a reward for the captor of US President Barack Obama and his predecessor George W Bush.
He made the announcement at a reception arranged in his honour by the business community of Haripur on Friday. Former foreign minister Goher Ayub Khan, Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl’s (JUI-F) central leader Hafiz Hussain Ahmed and provincial Minister for Education Qazi Muhammad Asad were also present on the occasion.
Lord Nazir said that the bounty placed on Saeed was an insult to all Muslims and by doing so President Obama has challenged the dignity of the Muslim Ummah.
“If the US can announce a reward of $10 million for the captor of Hafiz Saeed, I can announce a bounty of 10 million pounds on President Obama and his predecessor George Bush,” Lord Nazir said, adding that he would arrange the bounty at any cost even if he was left with the option of selling all his personal assets, including his house.
Criticising the bureaucracy in Pakistan for its alleged corruption, he said a number of British investors had been mulling investment in Pakistan but the deep-seated culture of corruption had turned them off.

Atlas Shrugs adds the details:

Once again, devout Muslims show us whose side they are on in the war on the West. Lord Nazir Ahmed has announced a reward for the captor of US President Barack Obama and his predecessor George W Bush…

Atlas readers know this lord of the Nazis well. He is the jihadi who threatened the House of Lords with protests and demonstrations if they did not cancel their invitation to Geert Wilders to screen FITNA. Lord of the nazis called for the arrest of British Jews who fought in the IDF.  

Weasel Zippers has now announced that Ahmed has been suspended saying, “Even the Brits have their limits.”


Via Daily Mail:

A Labour peer was suspended last night after allegedly claiming he would put up a £10million bounty for the capture of Barack Obama.
Lord Ahmed of Rotherham is reported to have made the gesture after the U.S. announced a $10million bounty for Hafiz Muhammed Saeed, whom it blames for orchestrating the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks.
He is said to have described the bounty on Mr Saeed, who founded banned militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), as an ‘insult to all Muslims’.

How long until this suspension is decried as Islamophobic?

Permalink Leave a Comment

Chris Christie: Nation Becoming ‘People Sitting on a Couch Waiting for Their Next Government Check’

April 11, 2012 at 7:00 am (Chris Christie, Compromise, Democrats, George Bush, George W. Bush, Governor, Henry Kissinger, New Jersey, President Obama, Republican)

Is there anyone who can deny the transformation of our country into an entitlement society?  President Food Stamps seen proudly nodding in approval…

Via NJ.com:

Christie spent most of his 30-minute speech on New Jersey budget issues, but brought up national policy toward the end. He said it is the least optimistic period he’s ever seen for the nation.
“It’s because government’s now telling them, stop dreaming, stop striving, we’ll take care of you. We’re turning into a paternalistic entitlement society. That will not just bankrupt us financially, it will bankrupt us morally,” Christie told Bush, Henry Kissinger and an assortment of Republican governors in a theater at the New York Historical Society.
“When the American people no longer believe that this is a place where only their willingness to work hard and to act with honor and integrity and ingenuity determines their success in life, then we’ll have a bunch of people sitting on a couch waiting for their next government check,” Christie said.
Christie never mentioned President Obama by name, but in the past has spoken about the need to reign in entitlement spending for programs like for Social Security and Medicare.

Tina Korbe at Hot Air adds:

Christie wasn’t content to merely point out the negative, though: He launched rapidly into an articulation of an alternate vision, the vision he’s implemented in the state of New Jersey. He cited his recent veto of a millionaire’s tax and his current push for a 10 percent income tax cut as examples of pro-growth policies.

He also had interesting words about the importance of in-person interaction with those with whom we disagree. ”We developed relationships with the other side of the aisle that allowed them to trust us. And that doesn’t happen overnight,” he said.”Day after day after day you have to sit with our colleagues and convince them of the goodness of your spirit and of the understanding that compromise is not a dirty word.”

Here’s where I have to disagree with the Governor.  Isn’t compromise what took place in 2006 when Democrats took over in Congress?  Isn’t compromise what led George W. Bush to abandon his free market principles, leading us down the economic path we’ve been on for several years now?  Here’s an idea – stand on principle.  Don’t compromise for the sake of saying ‘I reached across the aisle’.  Do what’s right.

Bush himself spoke at the conference, refusing to – as he called it – undermine the current President.

Via Weasel Zippers:

Bush said the topic of the conference is how to grow the private sector. He introduced Christie by complimenting his “enormous personality” and “belief in the individual,” saying even Texans had taken note of the governor.
“We admire the courageous stance you take,” said Bush, who nominated Christie to be U.S. Attorney.
“I was a proud member of the Bush administration for seven years,” Christie said, later adding that Bush “inspired a whole new generation of conservative Republican leaders.” […]
“I have decided to stay out of the limelight,” Bush said. “I don’t think it’s good, frankly, for our country to undermine the president and I don’t intend to do so. But I do intend to remain involved in areas that I’m interested in.”

Isn’t it remarkable to see the former President afford Obama a fundamental courtesy that he was never granted during his term?  All class…

Permalink Leave a Comment

Next page »