Tag Archives: George Bush

SO…BUSH WAS AN IDIOT? – True Conservatives on Twitter

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and used AF One to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan’s holdings of GM stock by 90%and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVD ‘s, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent”Austrian language,” would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cin co de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the fourth of May (Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word advice would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush had authorized a “green” car that has absolutely no protective parts to it and holds only two people, and would be totally destroyed if in a wreck… would you have thought him a total idiot after all these years of trying to make cars protective?

If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11 and called him a total idiot!

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had 44 czars to run the White House and national security, none of them approved by Congress, and some turned out to be income tax evaders and self avowed communists…would you have thought him a total idiot?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years which is already putting our grandchildren in debt, would you approve or think he was a total idiot?

If George W. Bush had taken out the missile defense system in favor of a smaller one that does not have proof it will work…would you call him an idiot?

Taken from SO…BUSH WAS AN IDIOT? – True Conservatives on Twitter.


Obama’s Nuclear Cuts Could Prove Dangerous

Posted 05/08/2010 ET

The Department of Defense recently released the official figures of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile as of September 2009. Counting the strategic weapons we have now deployed—roughly 2,200—and the 500 tactical nuclear weapons we have—the United States has fewer overall nuclear weapons than at any time since the Eisenhower administration.

During the past 30 years, the United States has reduced its nuclear weapons by nearly 20,000, nearly ten times the total number of nuclear weapons we have deployed today. That is the extent of the progress we have made since President Reagan was inaugurated in January 1981.

President Bush 41 and President Bush 43 reduced nuclear weapons by over 16,000, following agreement on INF and START and the Moscow Treaty. And of course it was President Reagan, under a policy and strategy of “peace through strength”, that built-up America’s power and negotiated reductions in Soviet military power. It was that strength that made such nuclear weapons reductions possible.

Under Reagan’s leadership, the first treaty eliminating an entire class of nuclear weapons was signed—the Intermediate Forces Treaty or INF in 1987. Thousands of Soviet SS-20 warheads aimed at Western Europe and our East Asian allies, especially Japan, Taiwan and the Republic of Korea were eliminated.

But only after the United States, joined by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and supported by the Vatican, deployed hundreds of Pershing and ground-launched cruise missiles in Europe, over the violent protests of the Soviet Union and their $300 million nuclear-freeze campaign, did the Soviets cave.

Subsequently, the U.S. and the Soviet Union signed the first START treaty which reduced nuclear weapons from around 12,000 deployed weapons to 6,000. Although the START II treaty was signed by President Bush and Russian President Boris Yeltsin in 1992, it was never approved in the same form by the Russian Duma and the U.S. Senate, so it languished.

However, President Bush 43 created a flexible arms-control process with the treaty of Moscow or SORT, Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, which brought U.S. deployed weapons down to 2,200 but let us significant and flexible room for reconstitution should the security situation so require it.

And that is where we are today. For those critics who see the U.S. as having failed to “lead the way” toward reductions in nuclear weapons, the deployed and reserve weapons stockpile numbers are proof that the U.S. has, even before the new START treaty just signed by the U.S. and Russia is implemented, fulfilled its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT, which the countries of the world are meeting to discuss now in New York.

These figures confirm that President Bush 41 reduced our tactical nuclear weapons by over 90% at the end off the Cold War, and encouraged Russia to do the same. Moscow never complied with the terms off this “informal” agreement. Now the U.S. is faced with a Russia armed with over 5,000 tactical nuclear weapons, unconstrained by any treaty.

Unfortunately, like all the strategic nuclear-weapons reduction treaties before it, the New START treaty leaves unsettled the question of the huge Russian advantage in such weapons, which further calls into question the security of our European allies on whose soil many of these weapons are targeted. America’s stockpile has certainly been reduced sharply over the past 30 years, but there is no question that our robust, effective and strong nuclear deterrent led to the nuclear agreements we signed with the Soviets and then the Russians, and the resulting remaining force that was sufficient to maintain deterrence.

The secretary of Defense has rightly brought attention to the prospects the U.S. faces with respect to our nuclear forces of the future. As he has counseled, the U.S. will need to maintain a nuclear deterrent for many years, although at a lower level of weapons than those we possessed at the height of the Cold War. He was concerned that the cost of replacing the 12 current Trident submarines—which now carry slightly more than half our nuclear deterrent—will cost some $84 billion. This does not count the cost of the 16-20 missiles per boat that have to be produced as well.

Given this cost, compared to $7 billion-$10 billion which would refurbish all 450 Minuteman missiles spread out over thousands of square miles in five of our Western and Great Plains states, we need to adopt a sound plan for future deterrent before we make irreversible decisions that may be costly to our security.

For example, pathways to growth not constrained by the new treaty may allow Russian advantages in the future, while U.S. capability to respond has been circumscribed. Russia will have 600 missiles and bombers and are allowed 700-800. The U.S. has 880 and is allowed 700-800. But before we start hacking away at our nuclear deterrent, we should keep our powder dry and keep all 450 Minuteman land-based missiles and the 12-14 Trident submarines until we know the shape of an uncertain future.

As recommended by a bipartisan group of six U.S. senators in an April 30 letter to the President, “The United States must make absolutely certain that we do not make any destabilizing choices as we make reductions…in today’s world, the ICBM force takes on an even greater importance as we have drawn down our nuclear force. With that in mind, we strongly urge you to maintain a robust and-based strategic nuclear deterrent force with 450 single-warhead ICBMs.”

Mr. Huessy is President of GeoStrategic Analysis, a Potomac, Maryland national security consulting firm he founded in 1981. During the Reagan administration he worked to secure the deployment of the INF and Peacekeeper missiles, deploy missile defenses and defeat the communists in El Salvador and Nicaragua. He has been a guest lecturer at the Joint Military Intelligence College

Is There a Rhyme or Reason to U.S. Foreign Policy?

by [Victor Davis Hanson]

During the 2008 campaign, the Obama group argued that Bush & Co. were insensitive to allies and had acted in clumsy, unilateral fashion, permanently damaging our stature in the world. Given the first 15 months of foreign policy in the new administration, we can see now that Obama’s critique largely meant that we had damaged relations with supposed belligerents like Cuba, Iran, Russia, Syria, and Venezuela — inasmuch as right now, British, Colombian, Czech, German, Honduran, Indian, Israeli, Japanese, Polish, and South Korean leaders might privately prefer the good “bad” old days of the supposed cowboy Bush. All of which raises the question: Why Obama’s shift in foreign policy? I offer four alternatives, uncertain of the answer myself.

a) Obama in 2007 and 2008 created a campaign narrative of Bush the cowboy, and then found himself trapped by his own “reset button” rhetoric, which meant he could hardly credit his maligned predecessor by building on the multilateral work that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had established from 2006 onward (cf. the similar quandary of libeling Bush as a war-mongering anti-constitutionalist and then using new, kinder, gentler anti-terrorism euphemisms to mask the adoption of embracing Predators, tribunals, renditions, wiretaps, intercepts, and continuance in Iraq and Afghanistan);

b) Obama sincerely believes that states that were pro-American under Bush are now somewhat dubious, while other states’ anti-American rhetoric during 2001–08 was understandable and so rightfully now earns them empathy and attention as a reward;

c) Obama genuinely believes that those abroad who are more statist and voice rhetoric that dovetails with his own equality-of-result efforts at home are sympathetic, inasmuch as they too define “freedom” in holistic terms of state entitlements rather than individual liberty, free markets, and free expression — so to the degree a leader casts himself as a “revolutionary,” he finds resonance with an equally progressive Obama; or

d) Obama has no idea of what he is doing, and wings his way from one embarrassment to another, from snubbing Gordon Brown to gratuitously insulting Benjamin Netanyahu to abruptly changing the terms of commitments with the Czechs and Poles to constructing nonexistent Islamic historical achievements to browbeating Karzai to courting Putin to bowing to the Saudis, etc., all as he sees fit at any given moment — with an inexperienced but impulsive Hillary Clinton and gaffe-prone Joe Biden as catalysts rather than arresters of Obama’s own haphazardness.

Whatever the reasons, I think the seeds have been sown and the harvests will soon be upon us. Any initial delight that the world’s masses found in a post-national, post-racial, charismatic young American president will begin to be eclipsed by their leaders’ realpolitik calculations, both old friends and enemies — namely, that the U.S. will probably not assist (other than in soaring rhetorical cadences of empathy) any past ally in its hour of need, and will probably not oppose (other than in meaningless deadlines and melodramatic contextualization) any past enemy in its newfound efforts to readjust regional realities. (If only Obama treated Iran or Syria as he does Bush, Sarah Palin, and the top 10 percent of American taxpayers.)

So as the U.S. completes its metamorphosis into a much larger version of the EU, we should expect to see something of the following:

Karzai or Allawi will look more to Iran, which will soon become the regional and nuclear hegemon of the Middle East.

Eastern Europe and the former Soviet republics had better mend fences with Russia.

The EU should finally start on that much-ballyhooed all-European response force.

Taiwan, the Philippines, and South Korea should strengthen ties with China.

Buffer states in South America had better make amends with a dictatorial, armed, and aggressive Chavez.

Israel should accept that the U.S. no longer will provide support for it at the UN, chide the Arab states to cool their anti-Israeli proclamations, remind the Europeans not to overdo their popular anti-Israeli rhetoric, or warn radical Palestinians not to start another intifada. (In other words, it’s open season to say or do anything one wishes with Israel.)

As for bankrupt, wannabe national defaulters, don’t worry — we are rapidly catching up, and have neither the credibility nor the desire to lecture you about artificial constructs like “debt,” “bonds,” “trust,” and other archaic financial euphemisms manipulated to protect the international capital of an overseer class.

Sowing a new crop takes a while, but the sprouting has begun and the bitter, 1979-like harvests will soon be upon us.

From “W”

“Government does not create wealth.  The major roll for the government is to create an environment where the people take risks to expand the job rate in the United States.”

George W. Bush