Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Thursday, April 25, 2013

President Obama Shoveled Some World-Class Shit at George W. Bush's Library Today

Posted by on Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:01 AM

From the transcript of President Obama's speech at the Bush library today:

So we know President Bush the man. And what President Clinton said is absolutely true — to know the man is to like the man, because he’s comfortable in his own skin. He knows who he is. He doesn’t put on any pretenses. He takes his job seriously, but he doesn’t take himself too seriously. He is a good man.

But we also know something about George Bush the leader. As we walk through this library, obviously we’re reminded of the incredible strength and resolve that came through that bullhorn as he stood amid the rubble and the ruins of Ground Zero, promising to deliver justice to those who had sought to destroy our way of life.

Baaaaaaaaaaaarf. Go read the whole thing, if you can, at Swampland.


Comments (71) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Obama is nothing if not diplomatic. Sometimes I think his first term would have gone better if he'd been Secretary of State and Hillary had been President.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on April 25, 2013 at 11:13 AM · Report this
Oh come on, nothing he said was false. Bush is a likeable guy and yes in the days after 9/11 he showed some real leadership.
Posted by Seattle14 on April 25, 2013 at 11:14 AM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 3
Pretending Iraq sponsored terror attacks on us and had WMDs was pretentious. Oh... and and remember the whole patrician New Englander Harvard Skull and Bones man pretending to be a Texas cowboy? A rancher even? Pretentious.

Not that Obama has anything to gain by kicking an irrelevant ex-President. Bush isn't important and influential like Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton, after all.

Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn on April 25, 2013 at 11:18 AM · Report this
reverend dr dj riz 4
i need a gif with michelle's side eyeroll right about now..
Posted by reverend dr dj riz on April 25, 2013 at 11:33 AM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 5
@2: If only he had shown any kind of leadership before, or a month or so after.

Posted by Theodore Gorath on April 25, 2013 at 11:33 AM · Report this
He was crossing his fingers behind his back.
Posted by Timothy on April 25, 2013 at 11:37 AM · Report this
dnt trust me 7
I agree, namely with your second sentence. However, I would placed the word "almost" twice in two fairly random spots of your sentence. Not enjoying the rhythm of a repetitive word in a sentence, I'm actually close to being at a loss as how to express myself. So, if commenters are listening I recommend reactions to Ken Mehlman, and not to me.
Posted by dnt trust me on April 25, 2013 at 11:38 AM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 8
George W. Bush is the kindest, warmest, bravest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on April 25, 2013 at 11:40 AM · Report this
but they did destroy our way of life...
Posted by myr on April 25, 2013 at 11:41 AM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 10

He really didn't. Leadership would have been telling people what they didn't want to hear. Telling the American people there would be sacrifices. Burdens. Like a draft. Like tax increases.

Instead he told everyone to go shopping while he spent money we didn't have and threw away lives on wars we didn't need. And ballooning the government's surveillance apparatus. Claiming we were winning in Iraq and Afghanistan, when the painful truth is that we were losing. It's hard to look anybody in the eye and admit losing. Easy to just pretend.

Leadership is about doing what's hard, not what's easy.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn on April 25, 2013 at 11:47 AM · Report this
seatackled 11
Bet he needed a teleprompter.
Posted by seatackled on April 25, 2013 at 11:50 AM · Report this
@8 FTW
Posted by Clayton on April 25, 2013 at 11:55 AM · Report this
eastcoastreader 13
you don't get to become President without mastering the art of bullshit
Posted by eastcoastreader on April 25, 2013 at 11:55 AM · Report this
dnt trust me 14
If you put it like that, I have no chance of being a leader. I spend too much time doing easy shit like reading and commenting on Slog.
Posted by dnt trust me on April 25, 2013 at 11:56 AM · Report this
Bauhaus I 15
The NYT has an article today about how hard it is - in some cases - to be diplomatic with a former president at the opening of his presidential library. It's not really the time to rag on him, but when you oppose everything he stood for - well, a man with any sense of integrity would find it hard, I think. The paper mentions Reagan at Carter's and Clinton at G.H.W. Bush's. Obama played it right. All he can do is talk about Bush's efforts to end AIDS in Africa and about Bush being true to himself (whatever that means).
Posted by Bauhaus I on April 25, 2013 at 12:00 PM · Report this
Nobody gets to be President without possessing a skill for pretending to like people they detest when the situation calls for it.
Posted by Proteus on April 25, 2013 at 12:12 PM · Report this
Knat 17
I was hoping for a distinctly different flavor of shit based on your headline. I guess Obama has to play the polite statesman when referring to his predecessor's legacy, though. Though I really hope Obama doesn't believe a word of what he said.
Posted by Knat on April 25, 2013 at 12:20 PM · Report this
This is pure "sucking up" to curry favor with the Republican caucus in the Congress.

It won't work.
Posted by Brooklyn Reader on April 25, 2013 at 12:32 PM · Report this
Cato the Younger Younger 19
Oh come on..I'm sure Bush would be a great guy to hang out with drink some brews and do a few lines of coke with. Just not someone who should have been trusted with the keys to the country. And there is that entire issue with him being an untried war criminal.

I forgot..don't let Laura Bush drive you anywhere.. *wink wink*

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on April 25, 2013 at 12:36 PM · Report this
DOUG. 20
He doesn't put on pretenses? Bush's whole fake cowboy rancher act is a big fucking pretense. "Wanted dead or alive," he snarls in a phony Texas twang, as he lands on an aircraft carrier in a ridiculously bulging flight suit.

Bush's entire eight years in office was a goddamn caricature of a presidency. I'd laugh at it if there weren't so many dead people.
Posted by DOUG. on April 25, 2013 at 12:41 PM · Report this
I knew who I was voting for last November when I voted for Barack Obama. None of this changes my opinion of him, because unlike many of you, I knew I was voting for a center-right technocrat and not the Great Progressive Hope (there was no such candidate, and those of you laboring under the delusion we're anything but a two-party system with your mewling chants of 'Jill Stein! Jill Stein!' voted Republican, so I hope you're proud of yourselves) I counted on my vote helping to push off the collapse of the US by a few months, rather than immediately after inauguration.

As Hunter S Thompson once said of Bill Clinton, another center-right technocrat, 'The man may be a swine - but he's OUR swine.'

Instead of whinging about the opening of a privately funded testament to an idiot's hubris (which cost $250 mil, but had $500 mil raised for it - makes you wonder what happened to the other quarter billion), you should spend your time bringing as much pressure to bear on Obama as possible on issues that actually matter. John Adams didn't publicly call Jefferson a slave-raping shithead either, and politics were a lot uglier in those days.
Posted by johnjjeeves on April 25, 2013 at 12:44 PM · Report this
Catalina Vel-DuRay 22
The whole idea of a George W. Bush library is so laughable that it rises to the level of high camp. That puts the President's remarks in context.

And I have no doubt that W is a likeable guy. If you met him in his natural environment - a tradeshow where he was a Sales Manager for a line of industrial solvents or something - I'm sure he'd be the hit of the hotel bar.
Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay on April 25, 2013 at 1:30 PM · Report this
8Way 23
George W. Bush Lie Berry.
Posted by 8Way on April 25, 2013 at 1:37 PM · Report this
Center right? In what twisted Mother Jones wet dream of a universe?

Obama is unfit as a leader, while Bush made some bad decisions based on good analysis.

He said it this morning, in fact. While WMD's weren't discovered, it really doesn't matter. First, Iraq was in violation of a UN resolution, whose consequence was spelled out as military intervention. The fact that our European 'allies' are a bunch of pussies who wouldn't even stand up to Hitler until it was too late, forcing us to ave their effete asses, is beside the point. As is the desire of most lefties to cede our governance to the UN come to that....

Bush got legislation past a Congress run by his his opposition. Obama can't even get it past his own party, and still whines about the opposition- you know- opposing him.

Bush- a leader who could have been better but was still pretty good despite a lot of lies and outright slander about him. Obama- a worthless emtpy suit without any leadership abilities. Yeah, I think I know which I prefer.
Posted by Seattleblues on April 25, 2013 at 2:01 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 25
@ 24, when it was obvious to every American who read the news that there were no WMD's in Iraq, it pretty much proves that Bush committed war crimes. That's a fact, and it isn't debatable.
Posted by Matt from Denver on April 25, 2013 at 2:10 PM · Report this
To sum up Bushes comments to a journalist re- Iraq.

Iraq was behaving, in violation of a UN resolution, exactly as a nation stockpiling WMD's. All major intelligence services agreed that they in fact looked as they they were developing WMD's. (Hussein had in fact used such weapons against the Kurds a few years previously.) Hussein, public proclamations notwithstanding, must have realized that once a deadline was set for inspection or invasion he had two choices. First he could capitulate and retain his power, if not his face. Second, he could refuse and take on the most powerful country in the world with the limited help of our European so called allies.

His refusal, evidence aside, sufficient reason for the invasion.

Something Bush didn't say- This was a stunning military success by any rational view. A war won and a country occupied with minimal casualties on our side is a success, folks, whatever your silly ideas.
Posted by Seattleblues on April 25, 2013 at 2:12 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 27
To clarify: I'm talking about all the news regarding the UN weapons inspections that occurred. They never found a damn thing, and if you know something about the production and storage of WMD's, it's that they can't be hidden. That is why I knew - knew for a fact - that there were no WMD's in Iraq. And if I knew it just from the news, everyone in the Bush administration knew because they had the facts in hand.
Posted by Matt from Denver on April 25, 2013 at 2:13 PM · Report this

No, it isn't.

Please tell me which international or national law Bush broke. Code and legitimate legal scholar supporting your vicious lies would be nice....

Bush was acting in accordance with a UN resolution, you lying sack of shit. Congress voted with him, overwhelmingly.

If you hate this country so much as to spread vicious lies about our presidents, how about you get the hell out you commie POS?
Posted by Seattleblues on April 25, 2013 at 2:15 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 29
@ 26, Saddam (not Iraq - can an entire nation "act?" No, only the government leaders can) was acting like someone whose leadership was shaky due to his failures, such as facing down the USA. He was being defiant in order to build up support (people seem to like chest thumping leaders for some reason). It was internal politics.

Bush was, and remains, an idiot, a puppet put forth by the neocons in order to regain power. You can file 13 everything he says.
Posted by Matt from Denver on April 25, 2013 at 2:16 PM · Report this

So, the Kurds weren't gassed? Hmm. Good news for all of those men women and children who were buried after dying in horrible pain....

How about you go over there, dig them up, and explain that their insane psychopathic leader didn't in fact use WMD's against them?
Posted by Seattleblues on April 25, 2013 at 2:17 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 31

Guantanamo Bay. Torture of POW's.

I'm laughing at you because you routinely lie about FDR. Oh pot, how black thou art, sayeth the kettle.

I'm a capitalist, btw. One that believes in regulation and not laissez faire, but a capitalist nonetheless.
Posted by Matt from Denver on April 25, 2013 at 2:19 PM · Report this
Catalina Vel-DuRay 32
Speaking of camp, here we have Seattleblahs foaming at the mouth about Communists.

Welcome back Seattleblahs. I'd heard that you fell down a well.
Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay on April 25, 2013 at 2:21 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 33
@ 30, were we fighting for the Kurds in the 80s? Were there any UN sanctions against Iraq then?

The issue was, What did Saddam's government have in 2003? Not 1988. I'm sorry if that's hard for you to follow.

It's not good for your case when you have to shift the goalposts in order to score, or project your own sins upon me.
Posted by Matt from Denver on April 25, 2013 at 2:21 PM · Report this

Well, if you talk to his professors and classmates at university, not so much... They said that he was bright, but not a scholar. Like his father, his intelligence lay in actions taken, not in how cleverly he twists truth for the press as your current president does.

Clinton comes across as not particulary bright. And he invaded a nation to distract from his personal legal and poliltical problems. But I don't hear lefty morons like you calling him a war criminal....

And yet, when a US president acts on a ratified UN resolution he's a war criminal.

Reality really is a foreign place for you. Mile High Matt.
Posted by Seattleblues on April 25, 2013 at 2:22 PM · Report this
venomlash 35
@30: Yeah, back in 1988. It's a damn shame that it took us fifteen years to avenge them... know that Saddam didn't have WMDs when Bush Jr. actually went after the bastard, right?

And go back to the background checks thread; the ball's in your court.
Posted by venomlash on April 25, 2013 at 2:23 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 36
@ 30, additionally - since you're weeping crocodile tears for the Kurds, maybe you can tell me if you supporting intervention in Syria today? Or does their lack of oil influence your opinion, just as Iraq's abundance did for the Bushies?
Posted by Matt from Denver on April 25, 2013 at 2:23 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 37
@ 34, you're dodging the question. You were frothing about how I was lying about Bush's violations of the Geneva Convention, but shut right up when I mentioned the torture of POW's.
Posted by Matt from Denver on April 25, 2013 at 2:25 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 38
@ 35, oh, that's good. He's actually saying that rights shouldn't be put up for a vote.... except that he supported that when it comes to the rights of LGBT people, until LGBT rights began to win at the ballot box.
Posted by Matt from Denver on April 25, 2013 at 2:28 PM · Report this

Which immediately stopped under Obama!

Oh. Wait.

Detractions to the Bush presidency exist, of course. He relied too heavily on information on not enough on intiution. He surrounded himself with some fairly, umm, interesting people. He made decisions to the best of his ability on the information he had.

Now lets look at your president. He blames others for his failure to lead. He surrounds himself with sketchy people. (Ayres et al, current nominees with no ability but marvelous connections and so on.) None of the policies you object to under Bush have changed, in fact your presdent agitated for key provisions of the Patriot Act to be saved from sunsetting.

Bush- A flawed man who acted as a leader when we needed one.

Obama- Blaming others for his failure to lead.

As for FDR he gutted the limits placed on the Federal government under our constitution. He cared more about his 4 freedoms than the real civil rights Americans should have expected him to defend. A traitor and a communist, he was no more American than Creme Brule.
Posted by Seattleblues on April 25, 2013 at 2:28 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 40
@ 39, more goalpost shifting. The topic is Bush, not Obama. And repeating the points I demolished about Bush doesn't allow them to be readmitted to the argument.

Can't you say something about the torture?
Posted by Matt from Denver on April 25, 2013 at 2:32 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 41
Quick observation - ever notice how hardcore cons are all about getting even? And how it seldom makes sense, except as a distraction? "Your guy does it too!!!1!!1!" Whether our guy does or doesn't.

Cons, it would help if you never elected assholes, liars, and crooks, but that's all you seem capable of following.
Posted by Matt from Denver on April 25, 2013 at 2:38 PM · Report this
English isn't your native language, is it Mile High?

So called LGBT citizens have full equality. They have always had it. Whatever they choose to surrender, including mariage, to satisfy their perverted inclinations isn't at issue versus government limiting real rights mandated by the Constitution.

Which provisions of the Geneva Convention did President Bush violate, pray tell? Bush, mind you, not someone else.

We've had discussions before where I've said among other things that-

The Patriot Act is a horrible piece of legislation violating civil rights in many ways. It should be eliminated.

Torturing American nationals or others by the United States government is unacceptable. It goes against everything that makes us the greatest nation on God's earth. Unlike you, I think this true whether it happens under the Bush presidency or the Obama tryanny.

Absolutely the presence of oil matters. It's called foreign policy. As it happens economies hang on the price of oil. The ability of America or Europe to funtion as developed nations relies on oil. So yes, the presence of oil enters into decision making of presidents. Suprised you didn't know that, really....

So does national soveriegnty, though. The UN had a valid resolution against a member nation, Iraq which the US and a coalition of allies enforced. What would cause us to violate Syrian soveriegnty? The manifest tyranny of their government? Well, they'll have to stand in line.

Posted by Seattleblues on April 25, 2013 at 2:39 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 43
@ 42, there you go again, presuming to know how I feel about Obama. If only you were a regular slog participant, you'd have a clue.

Not that it matters. The topic is Bush. As usual, you're projecting (in this case, the bit about English).

I'm glad you acknowledge that torture happened. Do you think Bush is somehow not responsible? That would be compatible with the con's world view ("My leaders are only capable of good, like unicorns and rainbows, and the bad is only the fault of underlings"), because cons don't believe in personal responsibility.

Regarding Syria, I was relating it back to the Kurds. Did the UN have a valid resolution against them in 1988? If not, then why did you bring it up?
Posted by Matt from Denver on April 25, 2013 at 2:44 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 44
By "them," I mean the Iraqi government, not the Kurds.
Posted by Matt from Denver on April 25, 2013 at 2:45 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 45
BTW, it's the Third and Fourth Geneva conventions which relate to torture. Those are the ones Bush violated.
Posted by Matt from Denver on April 25, 2013 at 2:49 PM · Report this
@Mile High Matt

Taking advantage of legal pot in your state I see. Good for you. Have some Cheetos for me, willya buddy?

The Kurds matter since they demonstrate a past of owning and using WMD's, moron.

So the UN convened a hearing, and Bush was tried and convicted of violations specific provisions (not generalized idealizations) of the Geneva Convention, right?


And the fact that the policies Bush adopted were maintained by a far left ideologue like Obama doesn't speak to the legality of them? I mean, so far 2 of our presidents should be extradited and tried, by your insane showing.

Oh, well if it works that way I think you're a child molestor who raises roosters to engage in illegal fighting. I also think you cheat on your taxes and beat your wife. Oh, and you kick your dog.

See, in this country we're innocent til proven guilty, schmuck.
Posted by Seattleblues on April 25, 2013 at 2:58 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 47

The question in 2003 was, Does Iraq NOW (meaning 2003 - don't want you to get confused) have WMDs.

History lesson. After the first Gulf War (which was in 1991, and was not waged on behalf of Kurdish liberation), Iraq agreed to disassemble their remaining WMD's, dissolve their weapon-building programs, and not start any new ones.

See, the past had been taken care of. It no longer had any bearing on the state of things in 2003.

Anyway, if it can be shown that torture continues under Obama, then yes. He should be tried, too.

I doubt you apply your last line to your own opinions, BTW. Is Tsarnaev innocent?
Posted by Matt from Denver on April 25, 2013 at 3:03 PM · Report this

Finally, your terminally softened brain is beginning to process this!

The past is prologue someone once said. In this case it literally is true. Hussein, Iraq, was oblidged to allow inspections under the UN, precisely because of their history and the first gulf war. These inspections were refused, and ultimatum issued and ignored, and the war happened entirely because of the behavior of Saddam Hussein, as the leader of Iraq. NOT because of those of George Bush. That is, unless you believe Winston Churchill started WW2, which you very well could based on prior means of thinking.

Again, tried for what? General provisions set the tone for specifics. They don't replace them. So Bush should be tried under which SPECIFIC provisions of the Geneva Convention, Mile High?

Yes, until he pleads his guilt or is adjudged guilty in a court of law.
Posted by Seattleblues on April 25, 2013 at 3:10 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 49
@ 48, there you go again, projecting. I've spelled out what Bush should be tried for.

Getting back to Iraq, the weapons inspectors had been allowed in several times. They found nothing. We had spy planes and satellites photographing every inch of Iraq. What did they find? Nothing.

You can't hide that stuff. The industrial effort needed to make WMD's requires huge factories, and it's impossible to disguise plants that are engaged in that purpose.

THAT is why we knew, for a fact, that Saddam had none - before we invaded.

Posted by Matt from Denver on April 25, 2013 at 3:16 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 50
BTW, did you ever evict your lesbian tenants? Or was that a lie?
Posted by Matt from Denver on April 25, 2013 at 3:18 PM · Report this
lark 51
This exchange is entertaining and informative. Thanks MFD & SB!
Posted by lark on April 25, 2013 at 3:24 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 52
@ 51, I find it informative about SB when he says stuff like "...and the war happened entirely because of the behavior of Saddam Hussein, as the leader of Iraq. NOT because of those of George Bush." Yeah, because armies just invade without orders from the commander in chief. Bush had NOTHING to do with that. ROFL...
Posted by Matt from Denver on April 25, 2013 at 3:28 PM · Report this
It's good to have you back, seattleblues. You actually had a valid point or two in there. I'm impressed. But you're funnier ranting about "dykes" and "faggots". Now can you please ask Lord Basil to come back? I miss that guy!
Posted by catsnbanjos on April 25, 2013 at 4:24 PM · Report this
Not sure who you are but if you are trying to deride President Bush then don't. He was blamed by the media for not caring but he did and he did what he thought was right. The internet brings out the nuts of the world.
Posted by nan on April 25, 2013 at 4:41 PM · Report this
dwightmoodyforgetsthings 55
@2- Bullshit. He coached America into an imbecilic, nationalistic, stupid, counterproductive spasm of absurdity.
Posted by dwightmoodyforgetsthings on April 25, 2013 at 5:14 PM · Report this
dwightmoodyforgetsthings 56
One thing everyone should remember about presidential libraries is that their primary purpose is to store presidential papers in a location which is private and free of FOIA requests.
Posted by dwightmoodyforgetsthings on April 25, 2013 at 5:33 PM · Report this
Catalina Vel-DuRay 57
" The internet brings out the nuts of the world."

You mean like you? You can't possibly be as stupid as your post indicates. If you are, I hope you are in some sort of structured environment.
Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay on April 25, 2013 at 5:58 PM · Report this
dirac 58
Lots of people *eating* shit for a spineless President here. No, he shouldn't say anything bad but let's be clear: he could've done his job and prosecuted the fucker rather than attend the opening of a memorial to his greatness.
Posted by dirac on April 25, 2013 at 9:12 PM · Report this
@58 If he'd gone down that road Obama would have been a one term president and Commander in Chief Romney would be palling around w/ W.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on April 25, 2013 at 9:24 PM · Report this
dirac 60
@59 Well, as I said that just makes O a spineless war criminal. No truth and reconciliation, no firing Bush staffers, no prosecution of the CIA: all alternatives that he passed on.

Unlike others here, i think a President Romney would be better because it would at least wake up "progressives" or "pragmatists" from their cognitivie dissonance and double standards.
Posted by dirac on April 26, 2013 at 11:07 AM · Report this
dwightmoodyforgetsthings 61
@59- Really? The 33% of people who thought Bush did a good job would be able to outvote the 66% who wanted the damage he did fixed, rather than painted over?

The Democrats lost the 2010 mid-term because of their spinelessness, and they only won the presidency in 2012 because Romney and the GOP are so fucking detached from what the majority of Americans want that we held our noses and voted for Obama.
Posted by dwightmoodyforgetsthings on April 26, 2013 at 12:06 PM · Report this
sperifera 62
George W. Bush Library = oxymoron.

Emphasis on the last two syllables.
Posted by sperifera on April 26, 2013 at 12:08 PM · Report this
Pridge Wessea 63
@60 - We already established you'd rather the country burned than be less than pure, but nice of you to remind us.
Posted by Pridge Wessea on April 26, 2013 at 1:45 PM · Report this
dirac 64
@63 Hello mischaracterization and straw men. These are really tired, flimsy arguments you have. No it's not purity to realize that middle of the road Democrats--including those who make so many excuses and undertake special pleading for the beloved God Emperor--are doing their best to fulfill Bush's legacy.

"pure" is not {"following the law","not being a total dick Republican while his blind and/or stupid constituency give him cover", "doing NOTHING to stop the whoring of this country to monied interests", "PROPOSING/WANTING to cut social security and medicare [oh but he needs to be 'practical']", etc, etc.}

Posted by dirac on April 26, 2013 at 2:58 PM · Report this
Pridge Wessea 65
@64 - I rest my case.
Posted by Pridge Wessea on April 26, 2013 at 5:45 PM · Report this
dirac 66
@65 Then your case really sucked.
Posted by dirac on April 26, 2013 at 6:50 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 67
@ 66, you're the guy who sang Rand Paul's praises when he supposedly stood up against drones. What do you have to say about that now?
Posted by Matt from Denver on April 26, 2013 at 8:30 PM · Report this
Amazing to read all the inventive excuses above, that Obama-apologists make up when faced with yet another addition to the avalanche of evidence of Obama's true corporate content-of-character colors. And all from readers of a publication that purports to champion the rights of homosexuals, no less!!

How is it possible for any member of the gay rights movement not to understand that the removal of civil liberties (Obama's indefinite detention law, anyone?!) makes ALL of our rights null and void, including gay rights?

Oh, and will somebody please explain, how did "Yes We Can" turn out to mean "No We Can't" stop the expansion of the 1%'s ugliest policies?

Wasn't the whole reason for being against Bush's because of his ugly policies?!!

Isn't it amazing that "our nation's first black president" gets away with expanding ALL of those same ugly policies of Bush, and no one hardly says a word of protest... The 1% must be laughing at how easy it was to get "anti-bullying" activist hypocrites like Dan Savage, to march in lockstep with the re-election campaign of their war-agenda proponent, Obama.
Posted by katm on April 27, 2013 at 11:23 AM · Report this
dirac 69
@67 You can't distinguish between ad hoc policy confederacies and praise? More mischaracterisation and distortion to smear a viewpoint. The pretense of rationality here is rich since this is the group who claims fear of Repubs is the best political course of action.
Posted by dirac on April 27, 2013 at 1:44 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 70
@ 69, the only thing wrong with your statement is characterizing Paul as an "ad hoc policy confederate" when in fact he was a fucking liar.

If he was an ad hoc policy confederate, that would be one thing. But it was painfully obvious that he was not.

That's why I'm laughing at you. Not smearing - your own actions are doing that for you.
Posted by Matt from Denver on April 27, 2013 at 9:44 PM · Report this
Pridge Wessea 71
@70 - ^^
Posted by Pridge Wessea on April 28, 2013 at 12:40 PM · Report this

Add a comment


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy