Obama is Bush-Lite

Bill Whittle: Obama is Bush Lite

My question is: How responsible should voters hold the Democratic Party for giving us, promoting, supporting and covering-up for

“Bush Lite”, “Captain Hope and Change”, Obama?

Krauthammer – In Praise of the Rotation of Power

RealClearPolitics – In Praise of the Rotation of Power.

Charles Krauthammer praises rotation of power:

“Barack Obama is now commander in chief. The lack of opposition (to our presence in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan) is not a matter of hypocrisy. It is a natural result of the rotation of power. When a party is in opposition, it opposes. That’s its job. But when it comes to power, it must govern. Easy rhetoric is over, the press of reality becomes irresistible. By necessity, it adopts some of the policies it had once denounced. And a new national consensus is born.”

Krauthammer further explains:

“The rotation of power is the finest political instrument ever invented for the consolidation of what were once radical and deeply divisive policies. The classic example is the New Deal. Republicans railed against it for 20 years. Then Dwight Eisenhower came to power, wisely left it intact, and no serious leader since has called for its repeal.

Similarly, Bill Clinton consolidated Reaganism, just as Tony Blair consolidated Thatcherism. In both cases, center-left moderates brought their party to accept the major premises of the highly successful conservative reforms that preceded them.

A similar consolidation has happened with many of the Bush anti-terror policies. In opposition, the Democrats decried warrantless wiretaps, rendition, and detention without trial. But now that they are charged with protecting us from the bad guys, they’ve come to view these as indispensable national security measures.”


Obama Going Bush

Charles Krauthammer writes Obama’s Deeds Vindicate Bush:

Of course, Obama will never admit in word what he’s doing in deed. As in his rhetorically brilliant national-security speech on Thursday claiming to have undone Bush’s moral travesties, the military commissions flip-flop is accompanied by the usual Obama three-step: (a) excoriate the Bush policy, (b) ostentatiously unveil cosmetic changes, (c) adopt the Bush policy.

The rhetoric is like cosmetic magic making superficial changes while making the Bush policy his own.

Observers of all political stripes are stunned by how much of the Bush national security agenda is being adopted by this new Democratic government. Victor Davis Hanson (National Review) offers a partial list: “The Patriot Act, wiretaps, e-mail intercepts, military tribunals, Predator drone attacks, Iraq (i.e. slowing the withdrawal), Afghanistan (i.e. the surge) — and now Guantanamo.”

There is something much larger at play — an undeniable, irresistible national interest that, in the end, beyond the cheap politics, asserts itself. The urgencies and necessities of the actual post-9/11 world, as opposed to the fanciful world of the opposition politician, present a rather narrow range of acceptable alternatives.

The genius of democracy is that the rotation of power forces the opposition to come to its senses when it takes over. When the new guys, brought to power by popular will, then adopt the policies of the old guys, a national consensus is forged and a new legitimacy established.

That’s happening before our eyes. The Bush policies in the war on terror won’t have to await vindication by historians. Obama is doing it day by day. His denials mean nothing. Look at his deeds.

If only Obama weren’t so joined at the hip with NARAL and Planned Parenthood, the unborn might have a chance of getting a Bush-Life policy retained to keep them alive along with the other Bush policies finding new life in this administration.

Read it all here.

.

Crunching the Numbers-Iraqi Lives Saved

The Gateway Pundit has an interesting take on American success in Iraq, lived out in lives saved.  He writes in:

Bush Saved Hundreds of Thousands of Iraqis From Saddam’s Reign & Clinton’s Embargo

So how do Bush’s numbers compare to the slaughter during Saddam Hussein’s reign or the deadly embargo kept in place during the Clinton years?
Scott Thong crunched the numbers:

Saddam Hussein’s reign: From the 285 months of Saddam Hussein’s reign from 16 July 1979 to 9 April 2003, using just six of the war crime events listed by U.S. War Crimes Ambassador David J. Scheffer, a total of 865,000 Iraqis civilians died as the result of Saddam’s ethnic cleansing, political oppression and ‘arrests’. That is a rate of 3035.088 deaths per month… 1.75 times greater than Bush’s death rate. This figure does not count the deaths of non-Iraqis, nor the casualties suffered during the wars against Iran and Kuwait, nor the countless other documented human rights abuses Saddam committed.

Bill Clinton era embargo: From the 108 months of 6 August 1990 to 6 August 1999, using the United Nations estimate, a total of 1 million Iraqi civilians died as result of the sanctions. Of these, as many as 567,000 of the casualties were children. That is a rate of 9259.259 deaths per month… 5.337 times greater than Bush’s death rate. Justify that, anti-war liberal Democrats. (Clinton actually only gained the Presidency on 20 January 1993, but the sanctions also lasted past the date of the UN estimate – to 22 May 2003, while Clinton stepped down on 20 January 2001.)

Back in 1996 Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said that Clinton’s policy that may have resulted in 500,000 dead Iraqi children was worth it.
In a much forgotten exchange between Lesley Stahl and Madeleine Albright on “60 Minutes” back on May 12, 1996:

Political Vendettas

Here’s the thing, the Wall Street Journal reports in

A Tale of Two Farces

Here’s the match-up. In the right corner we have Omar al-Bashir, for 20 years the Islamist dictator of Sudan and the man most responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of Darfuris. In the left corner we have six former Bush Administration officials who were given the task after September 11 of formulating America’s response to the atrocities. Who do you think is in the greatest legal jeopardy?

Speaking of President Obama the Wall Street Journal says:

Now that he is President, he has larger obligations. One is to stand against foreign grandstanding that intrudes on America’s rule of law. Another is to oppose Members of his own party, such as Mr. Levin, who are running political vendettas against former U.S. officials.

You would think Obama could and would stop political vendettas against former U.S. officials, but will he?  He is not much for standing up for America or Americans.

Camelot for the Masses – “Obamalot”

According  to Hot Air, the Washington Times found “the motherload.” Says Hot Air, “While publicly identifying with the nation’s have-nots, the Obama administration has been cultivating the Beltway social elite behind the scenes.”

In the vernacular of the tax-paying masses, Obama’s hobb-nobbings are just another “loada’ __.” Obama seeks to ingratiate himself with high society despite the imprinted image of  just-plain-folk representing “the humble masses yearning to breath free.”  Not much free for the tax-paying middle class,while the air of  neo-Camelot-ary reigns in Obamalot.  While Obama reaches into our pockets, his “outreach to the luxury lifestyle glossies, which cater to the region’s highest socioeconomic strata with knowing coverage of everything from the choicest real estate and most exclusive parties to the plushest resorts and spas, is not the only recent evidence that the Obama administration is eager to forge ties with the nation’s social and style arbiters.”

Says Hot Air:

Charming the local (and not so local) power structure is good, smart politics, as is having dozens of interest groups aligned on your side coordinating their message with a daily phone call. And just as conservative groups could never get away with that without dark media insinuations about the “right-wing noise machine” building a wall of propaganda around the White House, George W. Bush could never have gotten away with holding a strategy session on how to glad-hand the D.C. glitterati while issuing near-hourly warnings about how we’re on the brink of Great Depression II. I can just picture the mocking nut-roots YouTube clips, destined to be recycled on “Hardball” and “Countdown”: First a quote from a story about Bush’s interest in socializing, then a clip of him and Laura dressed in finery and dancing at an inaugural ball as graphics about the market’s implosion and this year’s $1.75 trillion deficit roll merrily by. They’re … out of touch, you see. Exit question: Couldn’t the meeting have been postponed until, oh, say, after Geithner came up with a bank rescue plan and Treasury had been staffed? This isn’t going to reassure George Will or Tom Friedman about Obama’s ability to prioritize.