Why right praise Bush for OBama's order to kill BIn LAden?
Why right rushes to praise Bush For Obama’s order to kill Bin Lade, When Bush closes unit focused on capture of bin Lade in 2006 and intelligence officials confirmed monday 2006. Remember when Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government ."If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said. Remember , you can watch the video here http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/01/us-usa-politics-obama-idUSN0132206420070801 Fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, Bush wasn't interested getting Bin Laden, That will be end to his beloved war making money. The Federal Government too has been in deficit spending ever since George W Bush took office. Bush ran record deficits and waged two unpaid for wars. The war spending was kept off book in the form of while the budget deficits were reported as between $500 billion and $600 Billion they were really around a Trillion dollars if you included the war spending When the Federal Government runs a deficit no one seems to care. Well, let me clarify that statement. When a Republican is President and Republicans contro then no one seems to care about deficit spending or the Nationa Debt. Reagan ran record deficits and ran Trillion. Bush Sr. continued .
Current Events - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
In the early 1960s, de jure segregation (segregation by law) was enforced by the South under what were called Jim Crow laws. Separate waiting rooms, rest rooms, water fountains, etc., were provided at places, like bus stations, where blacks and whites shared the same facility. After Civil rights legislation overturned the Jim Crow laws and required integration of places open to the public, especially schools, George Wallace ran in 1968 as a third-party candidate (American Independent) under the slogan "Segregation Forever," capturing the electoral votes of five southern states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1968). The Nixon team, impressed by Wallace's success in the "Deep South," elaborated the Southern Strategy: rather than endorse segregation, this strategy seized the label "conservative," which argued that the country must be desegregated, but that a conservative interpretation of the Constitution required that the states desegregate themselves, with no interference from the federal government. "Conservative" sounds much more respectable than "racist." Now segregationists became conservatives, alleging that the federal government had no legal role to play in enforcing desegregation. Those who disagreed were called "liberal." Just as Southern whites hated the thought of their children attending school with black children, they also hated "liberals," whom they viewed as the [epithet withheld] who were forcing integration on them. Since then, "conservative" has come to the ideological rescue of people who cast all blame on non-white European-descended groups. These groups became scapegoats: they get better jobs riding on the wave of Affirmative Action; "illegals" displace whites from good jobs; they grow in numbers, taking over control of the country. "Conservative" whites support candidates who they are led to believe will "take back" control of their county. "Liberals" are nonplussed by "conservatives" who fail to understand that it is the powerful monied special interests that are taking over our economy and our government. These "liberals" cannot understand why "conservatives," who are losing personal income, jobs, and even pensions to the powerful, corporatist forces vote against their own interest in order to support those corporatist forces. Yet, the power of seething, unending prejudices is sufficient to seek its own satisfaction even when the result is harmful to those who harbor such prejudices. Obama is the incarnation of all hated "liberals" to tens of millions of "conservatives." To credit him with anything is too distasteful to swallow--and doing so may enhance the horror of his reelection. Here is where we can see how intelligent many prejudiced people are. Fighting against reality is tough. But they have the creativity and imagination required to demonize anyone whom they deem to be their enemy. Hence, they revel in lies about Obama's birth certificate, about his being a Muslim, about his mendacity as our president. They perpetuate any story, true or not, that will undermine the credit Obama could get from his success in killing bin Laden. Thus, when reminded that it was Clinton who had this country once more running surpluses, and that it was GWB who reversed the trend, leading us into a tailspin of debt in order to cut taxes on the wealthiest few, provide taxpayer subidies for the wealthiest few, and deregulate speculative entities like banks, insurance companies, hedge funds so that they could invest other people's savings and investments in deals that fell apart and left millions with no pension and no job, "conservatives" answer that we have no revenue problem; we have a spending problem. Where is all this wasted spending going? Many say foreign aid (about 1% of the entire budget); almost all agree on "welfare," meaning "giveaways" to blacks, Hispanics, and other people who, no matter how needy, are leeching from hard-working people (whites) so that they can live lazy lives of leisure. "Conservatives" have exaggerated ideas about how much is actually spent on welfare, while they ignore the hundreds of billions spent on corporate welfare. In short, you are asking a reasonable question for which there is a reasonable answer. The problem is that tens of millions of "conservatives" will accept the truth only if it validates their anger, frustrations, resentments, and hate.
