Remember all those anti-war rallies against President George W. Bush? He was accused of all sorts of things, from purposefully killing civilians to shredding the Constitution. There were full page ads taken out in major metropolitan newspapers bashing him, anti-war poetry readings on college campuses, Code Pink hysterics, and a whole slew of other events that usually involved bongo-drums.

Oh, how the times have changed:

Drones strikes were first used by the Americans in 2004, but President George W. Bush was sparing with them. In five years, he authorized only 44 attacks. By the time Obama was into his third year in office, though, he had signed off on more than five times that number (emphasis added).

Suddenly Obama is being depicted as a steely-eyed purveyor of death. This image was reinforced by an exhaustive 6,000-word article in the New York Times, quoting senior White House officials.

The piece was clearly authorized by the White House in the hope of increasing his re-election chances.

Not only has Obama made Bush’s profligate spending look like child’s play, but now ‘W’ comes off like a novice at killing with drones, too!

Imagine what your nightly news coverage would look like if you replaced “Barack Obama” with “George W. Bush” in the following paragraph:

The New York Times has revealed that President Barack Obama hosts a “Terror Tuesday” secure PowerPoint-style teleconference attended weekly by his top 100 intelligence and security officials. After the meeting he goes through a “nominating process” by viewing the “baseball cards” showing suspected terrorists, before personally deciding who is to be assassinated by drones; he also, in some cases, explicitly approves killing the suspect’s family if it should be in the vicinity of the strike.

I can see it now — jokes on light night television where President Bush views baseball cards of terrorists and is mostly concerned about why there isn’t a stick of stale, pink bubble gum that comes with each set. Political cartoons would show the president laughing at “baseball cards” of the dead, bloated bodies of innocent civilians. Code Pink would hold rallies on Tuesday to bring attention to the “Terror” of it all.

But with Barack Obama in the White House … silence.

President Obama’s solution to Guantanamo Bay wasn’t to close down the prison, but to make sure no one else checked in … by killing a whole lot of people. And then he gets around having too many people complain about the drone strikes by … killing the extended family. But don’t ask Jimmy Fallon to ever mention that because he’s too busy yucking it up with the president during a late night “slow jammin'” of the news.

The anti-war movement has zero moral authority. Zero. They played politics with national security, just like Van Jones admits environmentalists played politics with the environment during the Gulf Oil spill.

“You’ve never seen the environmental movement more quiet during an oil spill. I guarantee you if John McCain had been president with oil spill or George Bush had been president with that oil spill, I would have been protesting. I didn’t because of who the president was,” (Van Jones).

Personally, I blame any innocent life lost in Pakistan on Pakistan. They claim to be a sovereign nation, but can’t control Islamic radicals within their own border. They claim to be an ally, but turned a blind eye to bin Laden for years (while taking billions of dollars in U.S. aid). They don’t want U.S. boots on the ground, but they’re unwilling to enter into their tribal areas in any meaningful way.

Regardless, the silence of the anti-war movement speaks volumes. They are a joke, and in many ways the president is a joke; he fed the flames as a candidate, and then when he walked into the White House and got the intelligence briefings he shut up with the anti-war platitudes — fast. National Security briefings tend to do that to a man.

The next time the anti-war movement comes out to play, which should be the moment a guy with an ‘R’ next to his name is elected, just laugh and tell them to go home. Tell them there’s another Kony 2012-ish, flavor-of-the-week cause for them to get worked up about before ultimately doing nothing.

Now if you excuse me, I think I’ll read up on Bashar Assad. I won’t be asking Barbara Walters or her liberal reporter-friends what’s going on in Syria because I know she’s been too busy churning the Rolodex of nepotism for murderous regimes to tell anyone the truth.


  1. Barak’s pretty close to Bush Jr. in a lot of troubling ways. Is it safe to be grossly disappointed with both? As far as supported hypocrisy goes, it’s politics, and our electorate is too distracted at the moment with bread and circuses to notice or even care.

    Syria’s a troubling subject since we used to be a-okay with Assad for years when he was supporting us, but now that he’s openly massacring his people, we sudden have added him to the list of global bad guys. Poor guy went from a useful evil to a liability. Maybe he can ask Mubarak or Saddam how that turned out.

    As far as tyranny goes, I’m absolutely ecstatic that Judge Forrest had the gumption to put a halt to the NDAA–the most constitution-abusing piece of bullshit legislation produced by our Congressional representatives since the Alien Registration Act.

    I have few qualms about sending a cruise missile or reaper drone to dispatch established terrorist enemies of the USA. But, to indefinitely detain Americans in America, for any crime, is unconscionable and a shit stain rubbed on the 5th Amendment. Shame on those who voted for it and kudos to Judge Forrest. How did that not make bigger waves in the news cycle?

    1. Wait, you mean that wasn’t covered on Al Sharpton’s show? Weird. This is off the topic, but I highly suggest watching Reverend Al a few days in a row. It’s quite possibly the worst talk show ever made. And yet … it’s there. It exists, and people watch it. Some people apparently LIKE it. I’m thinking of doing a blog post on it since I’ve been subjected to it multiple times at work.

  2. I’d rather be waterboarded with pig urine that watch a single minute of Sharpton.

    Hey, that technique could yield valuable information about terrorism, or could be used to find out who’s leaking at the White House. 🙂

    1. Sharpton can barely even read. His delivery is so stiff and stilted … and his arguments are incoherent rants mixed with a middle-school kid’s logic. I almost feel bad for him.

      I’m not even saying that because he’s liberal. Even when you compare him to other liberal talk show hosts, he’s just bad. Really bad.

      I think if you pulled most homeless guys off the street they could do just as good of a job as Sharpton. Maybe he’ll get better … but as of now it’s just painful to watch.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s