Obama is as embarrassing as Bush

President Barack Obama’s unrelenting warrior spirit and paranoia over leaks of any kind raise this question: Has he become as embarrassing as George W. Bush?

bushobama

One of the media myths about Ronald Reagan was that he made us feel better about our country. That’s such trash. I don’t need anybody to make me feel good about my country and fellow citizens. Like tens of millions of others, I can do that on my own based on what I see every day. The vast majority of people of this country are terrific. Unfortunately, thanks to the influence of big money and sketchy elections, the leaders suck.

While my attitude toward the country is uninfluenced by political leaders, I admit that every now and then I feel embarrassed to have the latest charade as president of the United States. I thought that George W. Bush would hold the embarrassment title forever; have his jersey hoisted into the rafters of the big political field house as the all time embarrassment. He could barely speak. He strung sentences together that were often unrelated. He had his own dyslexicon that showed his Freudian slips on a regular basis.

Worse still, Bush failed to protect nation on 9/11 despite a ton of excellent intelligence. Then, to cover his unbelievable command failure, he launched the catastrophic invasion and occupation of Iraq. There’s much more, of course. He let Wall Street become a big casino that transferred wealth to the rich from the middle class at a record pace. On and on. The man was a disaster. Even though he stole two elections, I’d get an uneasy feeling with him as … hard to say … my president.

We have a new contender. President Barack Obama pulled off the scam of the new millennium when he convinced people that he was a refreshing change from Bush. He was the liberal minded, highly intelligent, polished alternative to the years of Bush disasters. Things would be different (unless you knew what appointing Tim Geithner as Treasury Secretary meant).

Wall Street got more bailouts. Instead of facing charges, the fat cats took bonuses as the economy collapsed. Unemployment soared, businesses failed, and foreclosures reached epic proportions.

What did Obama do? He rammed through a health care bill that has a few nice features. It also represents a bailout for health insurance and drug companies that will now have their outrageous price increases subsidized by the government (i.e., us). Real job numbers are still in the disaster zone.

Obama catches up to Bush

Obama’s wars have been by proxy. He had NATO front for him in the Libyan massacre. That intervention cost countless lives and impoverished the Libya. To win that war, the United States (through NATO) backed a Libyan group that had aligned itself with Al Qaeda.

The same formula applies in Syria. Even though that nation wasn’t attacking or threatening us, we’re violating the Nuremberg Principles (VI, a, i, ii) by aiding in the invasion and destruction of that nation. And guess who is on our side once again? Al Qaeda fighters who somehow got into the country to evict the elected ruler of that country. It’s like a mob hit. The boss tells a guy to get out of his territory. The guy says no. So the boss sends some thugs to messes up the guy’s place in a big way and kill a bunch of people just to make the point.

Libya and Syria won’t match Iraq for deaths, injuries and total destruction. The machinations behind those efforts do equal or exceed the lies and viciousness before and during the Iraq invasion. To paraphrase a great man, at long last has the Obama administration lost all sense of common decency?

The president equaled Bush’s embarrassment quotient with two recent revelations on secrecy. Edward Snowden blew a big whistle on administration spying on we the people. The so-called liberal apologists for Obama can’t disappear this one, not now, not ever. As part of Snowden’s revelations, SpiegelOnline just released a story about administration tapping of European Union allies – Germany, France, the UK, etc.

In addition, the McClatchy Washington Bureau broke a very disturbing story last week on an Obama program called the Insider Threat Program. Anyone revealing information designated secret or, in some cases, unclassified information, will be subject to a felony charge.

The very ugly wars of devastation against Libya and Syria plus the massive paranoia exhibited in the Snowden affair and the revelations of the Insider Threat Program make President Barrack H. Obama every bit as embarrassing as his predecessor.

Obama, Congress, and the United States Supreme Court represent the trifecta of political disaster.

END
This article may be reposted with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

27 Replies to “Obama is as embarrassing as Bush”

  1. Good; nice piece.
    You are far too kind, but I’ll forgive you, because I couldn’t have written this without an expletive laced diatribe.
    Most (if not all) of the warmongering presidents have never even served in combat, or the military (Bush was a protected deserter), so it’s especially interesting they are so ready to go to war.
    It reminds me of cowards, who have no trouble saying, “Let’s you and him fight.”
    I wish I could come back in 50 or 60 years, just long enough, to read what the historians have to say about this period in American history.

    1. Come back in 50 years – you’re an optimist. What makes you think they’ll let us leave;) If we have that opportunity, I’d expect to see an insightful history of the food and drub habits of the elite and their minions. We’d find that they were all taking some special elixir that made them immensely confident and incredibly stupid. The appalling choices on climate change are simply inexplicable.

      1. I’ll be long dead in 50 years, much less 60 (I’m working on my 69th year). I’m talking a temporary resurrection so I can read up on how the historians view this abomination in our history. 😉

  2. Michael, I’m not sure the correct adjective is “embarrassing”, when comparing Dubya to Obama. I would agree that Obama is as “craven” as Bush, in terms of catering to the powerful and moneyed interests in this country. But, I don’t cringe every time Obama opens his mouth when he is traveling abroad, the way I did with Bush. Lets face it, Bush’s biggest foreign policy achievement was ducking successfully when a shoe was thrown at him!

    1. Great memories on this thread. The shoe incident was superb. The guy trows it, Bush ducks, and that’s it. The reporter deserves a commemorative something or other.

      I’m happy for you that you’re not at the cringe stage with Obama. I am. It’s not as visceral as when I’d hear Bush talk but it’s definitely showing up. I prefer to read what he’s saying. It’s quicker and tolerable. But when he starts talking down to us, as though he actually knows anything, it’s a bit much. It’s just aesthetics, though. There is so much at stake with limited time, even a performance slightly better than BUsh would be grounds for contempt.

      1. I would love to be able to read again all the lofty comments about Obama and the hateful diatribe directed at Clinton prior to the 2008 election. I remember how Clinton was demonized for voting “yes” on Iraq. Yet, there’s rarely been a word about Joe Biden’s “yes” vote.

        How so many Americans were willing to put their complete trust in an ‘untested’ and ‘inexperienced’ person is beyond me.

        1. Two wrongs don’t make a right, two losers are just two losers. Clinton is revolting.

          She was tested and she failed. Look at the barbarity that she promoted in Libya and Syria. She ran all over the world demanding that Assad get out. What a belligerent thug she is. Her swan song was taking sides with Petraeus on arming the Syrian rebels. The English language doesn’t have enough adjectives to describe her betrayal of basic humanity.

          “America” doesn’t put these fools in office. They’re vetted by the parties that are owned by the financial elite. The general policies following any election are determined by the selection of candidates who differ only on social issues and style. Citizens do not have a choice because the outcomes are almost always the same.

          Our will is meaningless unless we’re the people who fund the parties that pick the losers who win every time.

          Other than that, it’s all good;)

  3. MC said; Has he become as embarrassing as George W. Bush?
    I think more so. I find I can’t bare listening to him; he’s more objectionable than Bush, IMO!
    We had to deal with 8 years of that prick (Bush)! And now we’ve got 8 years of another prick (bigger?), worse than the previous prick, because the first prick was so bad we figured we couldn’t possibly have another prick as bad?
    Jaysus, we’ve been royally fucked in unmentionable places!
    So, to listen to that lying bastard, has become unbearable to this one!

  4. Great piece, Mike.

    First and foremost, thanks for calling me terrific. (I’m assuming I’m one of the vast majority of Americans.)

    As you say, in so many ways that we thought Obama would be better than Bush, he is just not. But who can blame the electorate? In 2008 John McCain *looked* like a continuation of Bush and talked like a warmongerer. (Remember “Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb Bomb Iran.”) My own feeling was that his health, already failing, would fail worse and then we’d have President Palin.

    In the 2008 campaign, we didn’t have a real choice, despite Obama’s appearance. Obama’s health care platform included the insurance company bailout that you speak of. And Obama did promise to continue the war in Afghanistan. So it was more of the same either way. In 2012, you could vote to continue existing policies, or to make them worse, Romney style.

    Boy am I cynical. Can we go back to talking about how terrific I am?

    1. You and the rest of the Agonistas are particularly terrific;) No real choice – that’s critical. As someone said, if voting did us any good, they wouldn’t let us do it. 2012 was the ultimate dark comedy – Bush versus Bush on steroids. Don’t blame the people, I agree. It’s a locked down system on autopilot headed for a storm of unbelievable dimensions. And, we’ve got a pilot and crew on crack.

  5. The comparison is difficult because Bush and Obama are embarrassing in different ways. Bush was incurious, crude, and crass. The high points of his international manners included sneering at a reporter for asking French president Chirac a question in French during a joint press conference, putting his hands on German chancellor Merkel, and referring to foreign leaders by really stupid nicknames (Pooty-Poot? Really? You’re going to be insultingly familiar and that’s the best you can do?)

    Obama, on the other hand, just says to foreigners, “Fuck you.” His masterpiece was his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize in which he emphasized the necessity of war. (Well, in all fairness I’ll hand it to him on that one — the prize selection committee deserved it for picking him.) He started his terms generally telling audiences what they wanted to hear and then doing the opposite, just the way he did in his campaign. Foreign audiences picked up on the dishonesty far more quickly than the American media and many Americans, so more recently, he has simply resorted to condescension. He has become embarrassing as the face of what we used to call the ugly American.

    1. The David Gregory incident and Merkel massage are two oldies but very goodies for Bush. Why would be be the least bit upset with Gregory, a faithful tool of the establishment.

      The Geithner pick was the first unavoidable tell regarding Obama’s real intentions. The Nobel speech was the second.

      Your point about telling foreigners “Fuck you” is about as well put as I’ve heard it. It is open contempt. They know. The operational version of “Fuck you” to foreigners was beautifully executed in the person of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. A mean spirited, chortling, nihilist with ever present violent tendencies; what a gift to the world.

  6. Obama is as embarrassing as George 43! Really? Obama lied us into a war? Obama okay’d torture? Obama handled natural disasters poorly? Seriously, I get that Obama has not lived up to some of the far lefts expectations, but he certainly has not done as poor a job as George 43. Had the Republicans managed to get Mitts into office we would still have a full military presence in Iraq.

    Please. How about we take all the facts into consideration. The President of the United States is not a dictator. He is one of three branches of governing in our country. He is not an island. He has to work with what he was handed in 2009: both house and senate effectively controlled by Republicans; and a government with more poison pill employees than you can count. And yet, by some means of miracle, he is suppose to undo the 8 years of pure, unadulterated corruption left behind by #43?

    Right.

    I suggest a brick wall, lots of ibuprofen, and enough coffee to stimulate an elephant, and start beating away!

    1. Obama is part of that corruption. I can prove that with just two words — Tim Geithner.

      Obama lies on a regular basis. Look at Keystone XL. That’s a death sentence for the climate according to our very best scientists. Obama acts like it’s just another energy deal and will happen anyway. I mean, how bad is it when you won’t take a stand, when yuo withhold the truth about what is called Game Over for the Climate. The guy is going along with a world-ending project if you read the science.

      Obama lied egregiously about Libya being a “humanitarian” mission. It wasn’t. The country is destroyed and large parts of it are run by the Libyan franchise for Al-Qaeda.

      Obama is currently lying about Syria. He finally caved and went for lethal aid. But the government has provided everything but weapons to the barbarians on the rebel side.

      And there’s the “Insider Threat Program” which McClatchy, a Democrat leaning news group, called unprecedented in its scope.

      Every year that goes by ups the ante for any type of decent future and the squandering of that future is reaching frightening proportions. Had Obama chosen to lead instead of filling Treasury with Wall Streeters, the whole story would have been different. But that only happens in the movies. He’s just doing his job.

      1. Let’s not forget The Espionage Act of 1917; Obama has used it more than all presidents combined. And, he’s using it to prosecute whistle blowers and reporters.
        Obama has effectively shut down investigative journalism.
        Yeah, I know, it’s just a piffle… 😉

          1. Quatz! I was vaguely aware of the early “commie” scare, but The Palmer Raids?
            Thanks for that new information (to me).

  7. I’ve come to believe that Obama is a highly skilled sociopath. That’s what the job selects for, that’s what we get.

  8. Whatever he is, he is at least as psychologically interesting a case as George Bush. How Obama can continue to give heartwarming, liberal speeches about freedom and restraints on the government, and then do the opposite time and again, is a job for the psychologists to figure out. Either he is not aware of what he is saying, or he is not aware of what he is doing. Somebody around him must recognize that Obama has lost most of his credibility with most of the country, and even his base supporters have started to disbelieve him. With a loss of credibility goes a loss of political power, so what does he do for the next three years?

    1. No! I ascribe something far more sinister to Obama.
      He knows what he says and he knows what he means to do; regardless of his, “heartwarming, liberal speeches about freedom and restraints on the government”.
      To do as you suggest would mean he’s stupid. He’s not stupid! Listen to his ex-professor at the University ( I can’t find the interview [nuts]; Obama is totally in line with his ex-professor’s teachings. And those teachings are exactly what he’s doing today!
      He’s deceptive, dishonest, a liar (blatantly)and, I suspect, a sociopath.

  9. Bad as Bush? Eh… all presidents suck: some just suck less.

    On a lot of issues, Obama sucks a lot less than most presidents. You have to go back to Eisenhower or FDR to find one that sucked less, tho.

    He is less than an imperial president than Clinton or Bush: his actions have been harmful, but less so than most. Health care had it’s issues, but the Medicade expansion, contraceptive access, and barring the “preexisting condition” nonsense were big deals.

    He’s not as great on the environment as I’d prefer (Gasland, anyone?) but the EPA seems close to regulating CO2. Gay marriage is legal, and torture is no longer official policy (just accidental). If you’d like perspective, I’d recommend this site.

    http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.