And when one criticizes this current President, the liberals come out swinging to defend him. They don't particularly like to debate the issues though; they would much rather change the subject and deflect the criticism in another direction once their argument quickly runs out of gas. If you try and debate one of these scandals with a liberal, there's a few signs to look out for to know when you've backed them into a corner and won the argument. When in doubt, they will call you a racist, blame the (conservative) victim or blame George W. Bush. I'm not here to talk about the race card today, because that is the flimsiest of the defenses, and I've previously covered their victim blaming. I am currently more concerned with the current administration's (and its' defenders') continuing tactic of blaming Bush for everything that went wrong here recently.Three of the four major scandals going on right now fall under this tactic to some degree. The outlier is Benghazi but we won't cover that today because everyone knows questioning the events in Benghazi means you're racist (against Obama), sexist (against Clinton), or on a partisan witch hunt. Before diving into these scandals, I'd like to remind everyone that every single thing that went wrong for 8 years under George W. Bush was directly Bush's fault according to liberals. 9/11? Housing market collapse? Economic recession? Abu Gharib prisoner abuse? Patriot Act? Missing WMDs in Iraq? Guantanamo Bay? Hurricane Katrina? You name it and it was Bush's fault according to liberals, because it happened under his watch. If a Democrat got a hang-nail while Bush was in office, it was Bush's fault. To quote the movie Rules of Engagement, "Even if you thought it wasn't your fault, it went wrong, and you were there".
That's fine if you want to apply that logic, because accountability needs to start at the top. The problem is that this logic is 100% ignored in reference to the current administration. Benghazi attacks? Boston bombing? Jobs disappearing? IRS targeting political enemies? NSA tracking innocent Americans? DoJ suppressing freedom of press? Guantanamo Bay still open? Hurricane Sandy? Obama wasn't there, wasn't involved, didn't know anything about it, and isn't accountable for any of it. Yet somehow, Bush is still responsible. It hurts my head.
When it came out that the IRS was targeting conservative groups, IRS chairman Doug Shulman resigned but refused to take any responsibility for his department's actions. This man, a known donor to the Democratic party, was appointed by Bush in 2007. That is the best defense the Democrats have. George Bush tries to extend an olive branch to the other side, tries to appoint a Democrat specifically citing that we need someone impartial in this spot, and Shulman immediately turns his back on conservatives. This man served one year under Bush, and four under Obama, but somehow this is still all Bush's fault. Their defense is essentially "Yeah, he's one of us. Yeah, he did all of these horrible things. Yeah, he spent four times longer under Obama than Bush. But its still your fault for hiring him! Its your fault for trusting us!" Let's not hold anyone accountable who was involved in these recent actions, rather let's blame the man who hired him six years ago. How could it possibly be a partisan attack against conservatives if a conservative hired this man? Disregard all of the actual evidence against him and his IRS.
To quickly mention the other two scandals, they also continue to blame Bush. The DoJ is targeting journalists, and the NSA is engaged in surveillance against innocent citizens. Liberals quickly make some vague connection to the Patriot Act and then take the next step of blaming Bush. Nevermind that Obama has massively expanded Patriot Act activities; Bush is the one that invented it. Nevermind that the DoJ and Eric Holder fall directly under the Executive Branch, and are thus accountable to the President. Nevermind that the NSA is part of the DoD, which directly falls under leadership of our Commander-in-Chief. Patriot Act, George Bush, blah blah blah.
The biggest difference between Bush and Obama is accountability. When something controversial happened under Bush, his administration stepped up and took responsibility. Enhanced interrogations? Yep, we waterboarded the hell out of them. Patriot Act? Yep, the NSA is expanding surveillance for your protection. Deal with it. Secret CIA prisons? You bet. Under the most transparent administration in history with Obama, everything is done in t
he shadows. Their story morphs from "the White House didn't know anything about that" to "Everyone in the White House knew about it except the President". For some reason no Democrats have a problem with that. The biggest difference between Bush and Obama, is that I don't like being lied to. Bush pushed the Patriot Act into existence and was quite public about it, so I may not like it but I have no problem how it came about. Obama demonized the Patriot Act and championed civil liberties, and then expanded the Patriot Act. He stabbed every American citizen in the back over and over with empty promises and complete lies to get elected, and that is why I have such a problem with his administration. I may disagree with most of what a man does, but I can deal with it. Just don't lie to me. Is that too much to ask?
No comments:
Post a Comment