Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA

Yes, there is a clear difference between policy and war crimes–a distinction that a Harvard-educated lawyer is capable of discerning without having presumptive Attorney General John Edwards “launch a probe.” That rooster that plays tic-tac-toe knows the fucking difference. This is just the usual lip-service to the extreme left wing that all Democrat candidates are beholden to. It means NOTHING, and he will do NOTHING. He just has to tip his hat to the Huffpost whackos to keep them from rioting in the streets like animals.

http://www.anncoulter.com/

In “Bush’s America: 100 Percent Al-Qaida Free Since 2001,” she astutely reminds us that Bush’s greatest accomplishment is the fact that there hasn’t been an Islamic terrorist attack on U.S. soil in the 7 years since 9/11. I’m glad she took a break from commenting on the 2008 election to point this out.

I think Bush has been standing up against not just liberals, but pretty much the whole world for almost his entire presidency. He has sacrificed his popularity, spent every ounce of political capital he has and risked his legacy — and not just on the war. On tax cuts, on judges, on embryonic stem cells, on partial birth abortion, on reforming social security and more

He has done everything he promised he would do when he campaigned and put everything he has into it. Moreover he has done it all in the face of a Democrat party and media that are doing everything in their power, not just to oppose him, but to destroy him — and they have pretty much succeeded in the short term. But he still keeps on keeping on.

And one of the things he promised us he would do is bring a new tone to washington. And whether Democrats reciprocate or not, hes going to do it.

But quite frankly, spoiled rotten conservatives stopped supporting him some time ago — both voters and particularly the cowards in congress who have all but disappeared out of fear for their own jobs — because its hard doing what is unpopular. (Welcome to his world.) I think thats why hes battered.

He proved to us over and over again he can take on Democrats AND the world and win if only his base is there for him. But they aren’t. they abandoned him because they didn’t get 100% of what they wanted. They only got 90% or 85%. He did everything he said he would, he put everything on the line to do it, and in the end conservatives bailed on him. Thats what battered him, not anything the Democrats did.

So he made some dumb statements. So what? What evidence do we have that a) they aren’t being taken out of context as the press has done his entire presidency and b) that he has any intention of changing any of his policies? I suspect, given his character and past performance, that hes simply trying not to rock any boats and keep from giving the press any bait between now and November.

I cut him some slack and give him the benefit of the doubt. He’s more than earned them.

Why wouldn’t he be suffering from battered president syndrome?

As Wikipedia puts it,

abused people often do not seek assistance from others, fight their abuser, or leave the abusive situation. Sufferers have low self-esteem, and often believe that the abuse is their fault….

When someone has this syndrome, it’s tragic… and pathetic. You (or at least I) wish they could stand up for themselves. To answer your question: some abused people do stand up for themselves and thus *escape* the syndrome. I don’t know why exactly some do and some don’t, but many do. And I believe Bush would be more successful and popular today, and not making the kind of pitiful remarks I cited, if he had challenged his opponents’ (wrong) moral premises and stood up for himself more aggressively all along.

Wikipedia also notes,

Often sufferers will even seek out their very abuser for comfort…

Hmm… Scott McClellan, anyone?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/06/020735.php

Perhaps that is why the calls for impeachment are rising. The time to kick a good guy (if you’re a liberal) is when he’s down. They can smell the blood.

Regards,
Peter H.

Do any of the libs who post here seem happy?

Someone earlier posted a link to an article about Senator Obama and an investigation of the Bush Administration for possible war crimes. While the full text of Obama’s answer is provided, without the full text of Philadelphia blogger Will Bunch’s question to Obama the answer is wide open to different interpretations. A key part of Obama’s answer was his position that no one should conduct witch hunts over polciy differences; that there’s a clear difference between dumb policy decisions and actions that violate laws.

That would include Bush Admin officials, PLUS Kerry, Clinton, Wilson, Plame-Wilson, Rockefeller, NY Times editors, British intel officials, etc., etc.

Bring. It. On.

Regards,
Peter H.

Go ahead, Dhimmicrats. Try impeachment. You obviously forget that history can repeat itself and you can lose seats in Congress for doing so.

Idiots.

Regards,
Peter H.

Whenever I allow myself to challenge one of their bugaboos, they go ballistic. Sarcasm, horror at my ignorance, profound disgust, shock and dismay. These captains of intellectual might can not extend the courtesy of a reasoned debate. But if I keep at it, soon, I learn of all that is wrong and ugly and deceitful and nasty about Bush, the Republicans, conservatives, the religious right, corporations, and America in general.

How can you be happy when there is so much you loathe and despise? Seldom do I see a liberal enter this site for the purposes of a gentlemanly debate. For the most part, they seem to want to issue decrees or just drop a turd in the punchbowl.

I usually smile my way through their ramblings when I encounter them in person, because mostly they string 17 inanities together in a premise, leap to a conclusion and then use the conclusion and four more inanities as a premise for a more outrageous conclusion and so forth ad infinitum.

What possible happiness can they have when they are not in their Amen corner agreeing with each other?