Obama Should Blame Bush Again

Barack Obama has taken every opportunity to blame George Bush for anything that goes wrong. Obama blames the economy on Bush and since he was president when it happened he has some of the blame but there is plenty to go around and a lot of it goes to the Democratic Congress and those who allowed people to borrow money when they had no hope in hell of paying it back.

Obama made a promise to close Gitmo and he will likely not be able to keep that promise so he, you guessed it, blamed it on Bush. It seems that Bush never told him how hard it would be or did not keep good records or [fill in the blank] just as long as you know it is Bush’s fault.

There is one thing that Obama should blame on Bush and that is the recent arrests of terrorists who were well on their way to perpetrating the biggest terror attack on American soil since 9/11. Yes Bush is to blame because of the Patriot Act that he signed into law. That Act allowed the terrorists to be caught on the roving wiretaps. That Act allowed the FBI to track Najibullah Zazi when he went to Pakistan and received instructions on making a bomb.**

Yes, Barack Obama and the United States owe a debt of gratitude to George Bush for the Patriot Act and those who complained about it should be thankful that the attack was thwarted despite their opposition.

Obama and his people should think carefully before they dismantle the Patriot Act and they should think long and hard before deciding on another course of action.

When it comes to this incident of capturing terrorists before they could execute their evil plan I have one thing to say.

It is Bush’s fault they were caught.

Washington Examiner

**Commenter Darrel note they were able to do this before the patriot Act. Upon further review, I was not clear as to how the Patriot Act assisted. The linked article indicates; “Nine pages of handwritten formulas for homemade explosives, fuses and detonators were later found on his laptop, e-mailed from an Internet account originating in Pakistan, court documents charge. This is exactly the kind of foreign communications the Patriot Act was designed to intercept..”

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

51 Responses to “Obama Should Blame Bush Again”

  1. Darrel says:

    [That Act allowed the FBI to track Najibullah Zazi when he went to Pakistan]

    They were able to do that before the Patriot Act.

  2. Blake says:

    Then why couldn’t they track Hussein when he went on that mysterious trip to Pakistan right after college? Is that when he was radicalized? Or was it when he talked with Billy Ayers and Jerimiah Wright?

    • Adam says:

      Isn’t your crazy bus starting to run out of fuel yet, Blake?

      • Blake says:

        Just pointing out a strange trip- after all, Pakistan is not your general Club Med- more a Club Dead- and there were no ties to the country, like going back to the motherland for a nostalgic visit- add to that the paucity of info related to it, and I am asking questions.
        Scared of the questions? Or the answers?

      • Adam says:

        But I do admire the irony of a man with such an inability to deal with logic or reason pretending to be offended when I speak to you on the level you exist at.

        • Blake says:

          Here is a true liberal- soooooo elitist, so uninformed, so wedded to the party line that all else to him is illogical.
          You make no argument that makes sense- after all, I am asking questions- the fact that Hussein seems so intent on keeping that a secret raises these questions.
          Didi he go there for terrorist training?
          Did he go there to bring back some heroin to finance his political career?
          Was it an innocent trip?
          We do not know, and that is the only fact that we DO know.
          But you do not even want the questions asked, much less know the answers, and that troubles me, because you are symptomatic of the liberal wing of the Democrat party, and you should be asking these questions.
          It would be a blow to your side if it was found by other sources that there was an ulterior motive, perhaps an impeachable one- after all, that wold make two Democrats that were impeached in a row.
          That would not be a stellar record, now would it?

        • Blake says:

          The level I exist at? Please- I am not the one hurling insults simply because you have no arguable point.
          can look down on you from MY level.
          Try arguing without the vitriol.

        • Adam says:

          Maybe Obama went to Pakistan to dine on cat liver in private! Maybe he went there to hunt human beings in the wild! Maybe he went there to burn his birth certificate! Maybe he went there to get his mission to overthrow the United States from within! We don’t know! We can neither confirm nor deny these accusations because he will not say!

          I guess it’s better to not say anything at all maybe. There’s sure no rational response to your irrationality.

        • Blake says:

          Those are all legit hypotheses, until the question is answered- thanks for the query input. All questions are in bounds.

        • Blake says:

          You call them accusations, I do not- I call them questions- there IS a difference.

        • Adam says:

          Only in wing nut world would people think that. But then again you did say it’s OK to suggest Ted Kennedy was drunk since there was no evidence to say either way. I guess that’s how logic works for you. Sad really…

          • Big Dog says:

            No evidence except all the people there who said how much he had been drinking.

            • Adam says:

              There’s nothing there really. There is very little detail about what these people even said let alone enough to substantiate their claims. There is no evidence Ted Kennedy was drunk when he was driving that car.

            • Blake says:

              Teddie was a habitual drunk- he was drunk driving the car- hell, he KNEW the roads, had been on those roads since he was a child. Why did he run off the road if he WASN’T impaired?
              You are so partisan that you are blind to reality.

            • Adam says:

              You have no evidence to back up your claim and you admit this. In reality…that’s called lying. Stop lying.

            • Blake says:

              You have no evidence to refute my claim- stop trying to protect and enable his legacy.

            • Adam says:

              Sorry, buddy. Logic just doesn’t work that way. One again you get caught living outside the realm of logic…

            • Adam says:

              That is in response to Blake: “You have no evidence to refute my claim- stop trying to protect and enable his legacy.”

              It’s so hilarious to me every time you pull this crap. In the real world you make an assertion based on some form of evidence, not a lack of evidence. Stop lying.

            • Blake says:

              I am sorry, but not surprised that you follow the standard libtard response to an attack on one of your beloved drunken icons- teddye can make his peace with Mary Jo and atone for his crime in Hell now, so that is where you will find him.

            • Blake says:

              There is no evidence that he was not.

            • Darrel says:

              Hey Blake, can you show that Glen Beck didn’t rape and murder a girl in 1990? Let’s see your evidence.


            • Big Dog says:

              The origin of the website is an Internet meme that came into being on Fark.com. The premise of the rape and murder charge comes from a Gilbert Gottfried routine performed during a Comedy Central roast of comedian Bob Saget. During Gottfried’s act, he keeps repeating that there are rumors that Bob Saget raped and killed a girl in 1990 and pretends to admonish the audience to stop spreading the until-now-non-existent rumor.

              Picking up on a perceived similarity between Beck’s rhetorical style and the Gottfried routine, a Fark user posted this comment in late August: “Why haven’t we had an official response to the rumor that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990?” The joke caught on immediately, and, according to Mediaite, the Farkers took the meme and plastered it all over the web.

              Close enough for ya?

            • Darrel says:

              Bigd: The premise of the rape and murder charge comes from…>>

              So you’ve shown the progeny of this important little logic lesson but it’s not clear you *get it* yourself. It’s not a joke.

              Where’s your evidence disproving the claim claim about Glen Beck, or do you acknowledge, in contrast to Blake’s inane mutterings, that the one who asserts has the burden of supporting their claim?


            • Darrel says:

              Blake clearly doesn’t get the lesson.

              The correct answer is, the one who asserts must support, if not prove, their claim. It’s not the responsibility of others to disprove it. The Glen Beck charge is an extraordinary claim with no supporting evidence.

            • Blake says:

              The Glenn Beck charge was a photoshop deal that deserves no response.

            • Blake says:

              I don’t have to- that is up to the authorities- if they aren’t bought off by a Kennedy, as they were with teddie boy, D- can you show without a doubt that teddie was sober that night, and didn’t murder Mary Jo?
              I think he did- what is more, I think it was deliberate.

        • Blake says:

          If someone is a junkie then the assumption can be made that he was drugging- if someone who is a known lush, as Kennnedy was, AND is at a party where there is both booze and women, it is safe to assume, when he runs his car off a bridge later that night, that he was drunk when it was done.
          Only an idiot thinks he was truly sober.

        • Adam says:

          Only an idiot keeps insisting something is true based on…well…well…because you say so! Who needs evidence before smearing a man? Not you! It was common sense!

          It’s a sad cycle here with you and things like this. Always so sure you’re right, but always lacking sufficient evidence. In your head that is OK though. Logic is for losers!

  3. Big Dog says:

    I don’t care why he went there. I want to know how he did so at a time when Americans were not allowed in. Where was his passport from and how did he get in.

    Why is irrelevant, how is quite the opposite.

  4. Adam says:

    How is not a question. It’s a myth that Americans could not travel to Pakistan in 1981 when Obama claims to have been there. This is birther nonsense.

    • Blake says:

      I would just want to know the reason- true, the reason might be benign- or might not- you cannot say with certainty, Adam, neither can I.
      But at least I ask the questions.
      You just assume the best scenario.
      Don’t assume.

    • Big Dog says:

      Yes, looks like it is a travel advisory and not a ban. This does not explain how a guy adopted by an Indonesian would travel on an American Passport though.

  5. Adam says:

    And again you’re caught smearing Obama over a trip to Pakistan based on myths about passports and travel bans and imaginary dark sinister reasons behind the travel. Get real. The reality based community would like you to rejoin our ranks. We miss you…

    • Blake says:

      We are not smearing anyone Adam- that is your moronic libtard paranoid world – we are just asking the question, because the Resident, who ran on the pledge of TRANSPARENCY, is anything but transparent- so that pledge is a lie, and we would like to know what else is a lie.
      I think those are fair questions- I am sorry that you do not.

  6. Big Dog says:

    The evidence is that several people there said that he was drinking and he only stated he was not intoxicated, not that he had not been drinking.

    There is evidence, it is called eye witness evidence but you ignore that.

  7. Big Dog says:

    From the above:

    The site contains a disclaimer at the top of the page: “Notice: This website is 100% parody” with a link to a full disclaimer at the bottom of the page:

    Notice: This site is parody/satire. We assume Glenn Beck did not rape and murder a young girl in 1990, although we haven’t yet seen proof that he didn’t. But we think Glenn Beck definitely uses tactics like this to spread lies and misinformation.

    Read the last sentence again. That’s the point. Read it a third time and ignore the name of the site itself, because anyone who believes that we’re trying to actually get people to believe Glenn Beck raped and/or murdered is *whoosh* missing the entire point. So don’t be dumb like a lot of people are. I greatly expanded this text because so many people *read* it, and *still* didn’t understand.

  8. Adam says:

    That Glenn Beck site is hilarious.

  9. Big Dog says:

    Certainly when one asserts he has the burden of proof in those things that are not obvious.

    The issue is with Kennedy and having been drinking when Mary Jo died. The people who were with him said he was drinking. Without evidence to the contrary, we must conclude that the eye witnesses were correct.