Bush never blamed Clinton. sure many people did like pundits. But Bush never did. He didn’t blame Clinton for 9/11, he didn’t blame Clinton for the recession that started immediately when he took office.

Indeed if you look back at conservative blogs many were complaining that Bush needed to go on the attack and start blaming the former administration, but he never did, nor did he allow other Republicans to further pursue Clinton for high crimes and misdemeanors which many wanted to do.

Obama has claimed he has already made us SAFER than we were under Bush. He has exceeded the utmost threshold of Bush safety and now made us “OBAMASAFE” ™.

That means he is entirely to blame for anything that happens.

“What do you mean we’re angry?!??!!! rage! insult! vomit! spew! gnash! bile! etc, etc”

God help us all…

Best bwishes,
-MFS

If another terrorist attack is carried out by people who sneaked in across the southwestern border that Obama and Napolitano refuse to enforce, do we get to blame him then?

If another terrorist attack happens because Nappy Napolitano pulls resources away from monitoring foreign terrorists in order to keep track of those right-wing pro-gun, pro-life folks she has identified as a threat, do we get to blame him then?

If another terrorist attack is facilitated by Iran, Venezuela, Syria, or any of those other countries whose leaders are Obama’s BFF, then, do we get to blame him?

If Pakistan falls to Islamists and then facilitates a terror attack, do we get to blame Obama then?

The Obama administration is taking us back to those good old Clinton days as I and a growing number of Americans see it.

So, yes, another attack on the home land is all Obama as he has given our enemies the green light with his hate America tour in his first 100 days.

Why would that standard no longer be applicable in a theoretical attack during the Obama administration? Bush gets to blame Clinton, but Obama doesn’t get to blame Bush? That doesn’t seem consistent.

Because BJ was more interested in screwing interns than doing anything to protect the country. He was too busy gutting the military to they point they couldn’t afford the equipment that the liberals demanded of Bush when they were pretending they gave a crap about our soldiers. Do you have the guts to demand to know what Sandy Burglar stole from the National Archives?

Bush has actually taken steps to protect this country as partially evidenced by the fact that we haven’t been attacked again since 9/11.

Comrade Obama is doing his damndest to undermine our national secuirty insisting that it’s our moral obligation to do so. He sees his own country in a lower light than he does these guys:

http://tinyurl.com/d76syc

Do you have the guts to demand that Il Douche release ALL of that information?

Or are you just the usual sniveling liberal twat that whines incessantly about us standing up for ourselves?

What if instead of being angry, dismissive, and hateful, I was actually pointing out something that made sense, that the tea party movement seems to be not much more than ‘juvenile reactions to political change, and not economic reality?

Well, since that’s the position of the KOSholes, MSM, MorOn.org etc. crowd, it will NEVER be something that makes sense. Well, maybe in the lame-brained bastard lemmings who cheerlead for massive debt, but can’t explain why (you, boob, gillie etc.).

would conservatives rally around Obama, as liberals rallied around Bush? There’s no doubt in my mind that you wouldn’t. You’d blame the President, wouldn’t you?

Rally around the country, yes. Rally around an arrogant SOB who’s been parading around trashing his country, displaying weakness and undermining the GWOT, NEGATIVE.

Really, I’d just like to know if you’ve got the guts to admit it.

I keep wondering if you’ve got the guts to explain why you think massive debt is good for the country.

Would you disagree?

Well, George Bush was not blamed by conservatives for 9-11, who attributed absolutely every one of our national security failures to the Clinton administration. Why would that standard no longer be applicable in a theoretical attack during the Obama administration? Bush gets to blame Clinton, but Obama doesn’t get to blame Bush? That doesn’t seem consistent.

That depends. Would Obama act like Bush, or would he do like he and his spiritual and intellectual advisors already have done about 9/11, blaming America, shrieking “God damn America” from the podium, and claiming that the people who were killed were “little Eichmanns” who deserved to die?

And Obama would be partially to blame since he has publicly rolled back the post-9/11 protections that have kept our nation safe since then.

Would you disagree?

I’m mildly curious, and I say mildly only because I feel I already know the answer to this question, but if there were another 9-11 style terrorist attack on the United States, would conservatives rally around Obama, as liberals rallied around Bush?

There’s no doubt in my mind that you wouldn’t. You’d blame the President, wouldn’t you? If the conservative reaction to this month’s piracy episode was any indication…. well, like I said – ‘mildly’ curious. Really, I’d just like to know if you’ve got the guts to admit it.