First, some Middle Eastern guy did it to President Bush in 2008. Now, a woman has done it to Hillary:
I’ll say little except to note Hillary’s comment, “That is not the way democracy works” – which is not what I remember lefties saying in 2008.
First, some Middle Eastern guy did it to President Bush in 2008. Now, a woman has done it to Hillary:
I’ll say little except to note Hillary’s comment, “That is not the way democracy works” – which is not what I remember lefties saying in 2008.
Quite frequently it seems that if there is any principle guiding President Obama’s foreign policy, it is the desire not to do what his predecessor did. He and his national security advisors and officials, in public at least, have acted as if Mr. Bush’s foreign policy were an absolute disaster, needing, in their view, a “reset” in relations with Russia and requiring them to distinguish their policies from his.
They would exercise “smart power,” a term which implies that Bush’s team acted without consideration for the consequences of its actions. Yet, much as Democrats faulted that team for a supposed “go-it-alone” foreign policy, George W. Bush and his top national security advisors did take time to cultivate relationships with a great variety of world leaders. And when they failed, the problem wasn’t entirely (and sometimes not even remotely) related to their efforts, but due instead the posturing of other nations.
In short, Obama and his team critiqued Bush’s foreign policy not as it was, but as it was depicted in the editorial pages of left-leaning newspapers and in their own party’s talking points. Despite France and Germany’s refusal to join the coalition to liberate Iraq, Bush and his team did succeed in building a coalition of forty nations to enforce United Nations resolutions and to hold that then-rogue nation to account for violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire ending the Gulf War.
Obama and his team may have “reset” relations with Russian and operated under the assumption that they were using “smart power,” but they have failed to build the kind of coalition in response to events in Syria than Bush’s team built in response to Iraq’s violation of international agreements. And President Obama is now blaming the international community for his failure to muster a coalition to act against the Syrian regime:
Obama said Wednesday that “my credibility is not on the line — the international community’s credibility is on the line.” (more…)
— Bruce – GayPatriot (@GayPatriot) June 26, 2013
Back in 2009, at the outset of the Obama administration,when a few Tea Party protestors compared the President of the United States to Adolph Hitler, the blogger Zombie, in this retrospective, reminded us how regularly liberal protestors did the same thing when George W. Bush was president. “One”, that blogger observed,
. . . would think that this would not be particularly newsworthy, but Democrats, the White House and their supporters are expressing outrage at this “horrifying” and “menacing” turn of events. (Or faux-outrage, at least.) Pundits, bloggers, media outlets and even top politicians like Nancy Pelosi are claiming that such signs are unprecedented, racist, and even that anyone who brings a swastika to a protest must be self-identifying as a Nazi (instead of accusing their opponents of being Nazis).
This all came to mind when, over the weekend, a left-of-center friend posted on Facebook that she was appalled
. . . to see a group of anti-Obama protesters with slur written signs towards our President as well as signs using the Nazi sign – I believe everyone has a right to their beliefs but the amount of disrespect towards this President is unfathomable and disgusting…what made it worse was the number of people cheering them on or honking their horns in agreement – a sad state of affairs we have reached in America…
She is right to be appalled. It is wrong to compare the President of the United States to the “Führer” of the Third Reich. That said, the amount of disrespect shown toward Mr. Obama is no less disgusting than that shown to Mr. Bush.
One only wonders why some only started speaking up against such slurs after George W. Bush left office.
We have indeed reached a sad state of affairs in America when people slur the President of the United States as do those who compare him to Hitler. But, we had reached that state of affairs long before Barack Obama took office, indeed, long before George W. Bush took office.
Let us hope that in the next Republican administration, those who today express such concerns about civil discourse will continue to do so.
Wow, just wow, is about all I can say in response to this piece of leftist rationalization which I saw today on Facebook. It goes without saying that we’d be hearing something VERY DIFFERENT from this fellow if there was a Republican president.
The message here boils down to: freedom doesn’t matter, liberty doesn’t matter, rights don’t matter, and the most important role for government is to stand for “social justice.” Here’s the link, but I’ve quoted the whole thing in its appalling entirety below:
Things I’m more worried about than my phone being tapped:
Global warming. The richest 1% controlling more wealth than the bottom 50%. Homelessness. Gutting the food stamp program. The rich hiding several Trillion untaxed dollars. Secretaries paying more in taxes than billionaires. Politicians being bought and sold. Malaria and starvation. More people per capita in prison than any other country. The “war” on drugs. More black men in prison than in college. Rising cost of education and health care. The rise of extremism. The continued oppression of women. The general lack of compassion in the world. The degree to which we all blame our problems on others and close our eyes to our own irrationality.
That more people are outraged by a small loss of privacy than any of these other issues.
Should I add “People who write in sentence fragments” to his list of outrages more “worrisome” than a government which spends all its time monitoring its people, or is that just my pet peeve?
Not surprisingly, the best responses to this kind of thing date to the founding of the Republic. We’ve always got the classic from Benjamin Franklin: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
But in this context, where the message is to sacrifice liberty for “social justice,” I think Sam Adams might be better, though trying to choose just one passage that is appropriate is rather like an embarrassment of riches. I have long admired this one:
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Perhaps this one is better: “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”
And just in case the Obamalaise is getting to you, here’s one worth repeating regularly: “Nil desperandum, — Never Despair. That is a motto for you and me. All are not dead; and where there is a spark of patriotic fire, we will rekindle it.”
Can you imagine an article like this appearing when Bush was president? No, back then it was considered “patriotic” for the press to disclose classified information, even when the information was incorrect or false, so the idea of the press reflecting on the Bush administration’s “struggles” with issues of free expression was unthinkable. But when Obama wants to stomp on press freedoms for any reason, the press decides to be “reflective” and “philosophical” about the issue. Craven rationalizations for restricting press freedoms under Obama are to be expected. I particularly like this reader’s comment which I saw when I originally read the article: “You are surprised Obama is stepping on the 1st Amendment? He tried to stomp on the 2nd Amendment for over a year now! The only Amendment this Administration seems to think is important is the 5th Amendment so they can hide behind it.”
And don’t think for a moment that it’s just the Obama administration. No, it’s pretty widespread throughout the Democrat party. Consider Dick Durbin’s (D-IL) thoughts about whether or not free speech ought to apply to bloggers:
Fox News host Chris Wallace asked Senator Dick Durbin whether Barack Obama’s promise to have Eric Holder look into cases of abuse that he personally approved represents a conflict of interest, but Durbin dodges that question and talks instead about the shield law proposed repeatedly over the last few years as the appropriate Congressional response to the scandal. However, Durbin asks what exactly “freedom of the press” means in 2013, and wonders aloud whether it would include bloggers, Twitter users, and the rest of the Internet media [Video at the link].
Facebook on Tuesday acknowledged that its systems to identify and remove hate speech had not worked effectively, as it faced pressure from feminist groups that want the site to ban pages that glorify violence against women.The activists, who sent more than 5,000 e-mails to Facebook’s advertisers and elicited more than 60,000 posts on Twitter, also prompted Nissan and more than a dozen smaller companies to say that they would withdraw advertising from the site.In a blog post, Facebook said its “systems to identify and remove hate speech have failed to work as effectively as we would like, particularly around issues of gender-based hate.” The company said it would review how it dealt with such content, update training for its employees, increase accountability — including requiring that users use their real identities when creating content — and establish more direct lines of communication with women’s groups and other entities.
Charles C. W. Cooke wonders why those who freaked out about the PATRIOT Act and how it might lead to people’s library records being seized aren’t so concerned about the IRS asking conservative groups to hand over their Facebook posts and a list of books they were reading. Or for records of conversations they had or their positions on issues. Shouldn’t the ACLU be as up in arms about the IRS’s intrusion into people’s privacy as they were about Homeland Security looking at suspected terrorist’s use of library computers?
Did the immediate past president — or his henchmen — ever demand that his political adversaries, in order to receive a benefit from the government, reveal the content of their prayers or the names of their members?
“[E]ven among Obama voters,” writes Heather Long in Friday’s Guardian, reflecting on a variety of factors, including the number of scandals coming to light, “there should be genuine disappointment. This not the President Obama we voted for, not even close.”
She talks about the excitement and exhilaration people felt in 2008 when Obama was elected:
It was mostly young people marching – from varied backgrounds. Many of these parades ended up in front of the White House where chants of “goodbye Bush” (or some variation thereof) began. It was the same slogan heard as Barack Obama was sworn in as president in January 2009 and Bush flew away in a helicopter.
There was a belief, especially among voters in their 20s and 30s, that Obama was going to be different. That his promises to “change the culture in Washington” were real. That his administration wouldn’t be beholden to lobbyists and conduct executive power grabs.
Interesting how part of their celebration relates to the departure of the much (and usually wrongly) maligned immediate past President of the United States.
What evidence, beyond the candidate’s rhetoric, did they have that Barack Obama was an agent of change?
They were clearly not aware, as many conservatives reported in 2008, that the great Democratic hope had always been a loyal foot soldier in the Chicago Democratic machine. In his twelve years as an elected official based in that city, Barack Obama failed to challenged its authority — as he failed to root out corrupt practices and cronyism that defined its government.
His record, as we have pointed out repeatedly, was at odds with his rhetoric.
We (that is, conservative and libertarian bloggers and pundits) told you that back in 2008. We told you that you were voting for an image crafted by political consultants and projected onto a charismatic Chicago politician with a mellifluous speaking voice. But, you were so eager to see George W. Bush replaced that you trusted the words of man who delighted in maligning that Republican, but about whom you knew very little. And are only now seeing as he is today — and was back then.
. . . please explain why such snooping didn’t occur while George W. Bush was President of the United States.
And as a bonus, for those constantly blaming that man for wanting to destroy his enemies, please provide evidence of him — or his minions — rooting around in confidential government files for details about his political opponents.
Henry David Thoreau once wrote: “There are nowadays professors of philosophy, but not philosophers.” I thought of that recently in seeing some of the media pushback against the publicity generated by the opening of the George W. Bush Presidential Library in Texas this week. Thoreau’s quote is as true as ever about the state of contemporary philosophy, but it is also true about the state of historical inquiry: these days we have professors of history more than historians.
The professoriate is a class with its own interests and its own agenda, an agenda that largely overlaps with that pursued by the majority of our lamestream media. That agenda does not include the practice of history in the abstract, insofar as that involves presenting the evidence, weighing the options, employing reason, and drawing conclusions. To most professors of history and folks in the media these days, history is only useful insofar as it serves their left-wing agenda. Hence their resistance to the displays in the Bush library.
Consider this article from Yahoo! News:
DALLAS—As former President George W. Bush prepares to officially open his presidential library on Thursday, a question arises as it has for his predecessors: How objective will it be about his time in the White House?
Bush left office five years ago as one of the most unpopular presidents in history, his poll numbers weighed down by public discontent over his handling of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and worries about the economy.
But the former president wanted to take the controversies about his presidency head-on, say several former aides who worked closely with him on the library. One way of addressing the challenge is an interactive exhibit allowing visitors to see what it was like for him to make decisions as leader of the free world. People will hear information Bush was given by aides, then be asked to make their own choices. Afterward, the former president’s image will appear on a screen to explain what decision he ultimately made and why.
“He really wants people to go in there and get a sense of what it was like to be president during that time and to use that to make an informed decision about his presidency,” said Karen Hughes, a longtime Bush adviser.
In some respects, the article strives to be slightly more balanced than I’m giving it credit for being, since it does point out controversies over the presentation of material in both the Clinton library and the LBJ library, as well, but I think it is materially different, too, in that Bush is trying to present the information that influenced his decisions and both the media and some so-called historians are crying foul over the fact that he is doing so.
One reason they don’t want Bush to tell his version of the story is that as the nightmare that is the Obama administration continues to develop, Bush is regaining popularity. While I don’t often share Dan’s enthusiasm for Peggy Noonan’s writings, I was intrigued to see her recognizing the depth of the differences between the two men in her column this week where she wrote:
But to the point. Mr. Obama was elected because he wasn’t Bush.
Mr. Bush is popular now because he’s not Obama.
The wheel turns, doesn’t it?
Here’s a hunch: The day of the opening of the Bush library was the day Obama fatigue became apparent as a fact of America’s political life.
And she isn’t the only one. Writing for Politico this week, Keith Koffler complained about “Obama’s hubris problem,” prompting Neo-Neocon to ask the question that is on many of our minds: “And he thinks it’s only a second-term phenomenon? Where has he been, on planet Xenon?”
It seems like the media is unhappy this week because Bush is getting a fresh chance to tell his story independent of their filter, whereas the public is increasingly growing tired of the combination of arrogance, divisiveness, imperiousness, incompetence, and the need to politicize everything for which President Obama is increasingly known.
Perhaps, to modify Noonan a bit, the opening of the Bush library was uncomfortable for many of his admirers because, in seeing all five living presidents together again, the public got a chance to see them and to size them up, and as Joseph Curl wrote in the Washington Times W. easily outclassed Obama.
Does the left-wing Facebook group which posted this picture realize how accurately it depicts the juvenile attitude the incumbent President of the United States has adopted to his predecessor:
And how the depiction does their man no credit. They may find this funny, but the action they depict reflects poorly on their man in Washington as Jennifer Rubin explains:
There is irony overload in President Obama describing President George W. Bush as “gracious” and “patriotic.” Obama has been among the most ungracious of successors, rising to power by vilifying Bush 43 and blaming four years of economic failure on his predecessor. He has assiduously refused to acknowledge Bush’s accomplishments (e.g. the troop surge). Dubbing his predecessor as “patriotic” is only a compliment in a political universe in which “Bush lied, people died” is taken as gospel. (Does he imagine there is some doubt as to Bush’s patriotism that requires Obama’s stamp of approval?)
(Read the whole thing.) How many other presidents whined about the problems they “inherited” from their predecessor?
No, Mr. Obama never performed the juvenile stunt depicted in this photoshop. But it does say a lot about liberals who think it funny.
In many ways, George W. Bush was the kind of president Barack Obama, in his 2008 campaign (at least rhetorically), aspired to be, an individual who would transcend partisan acrimony and speak in unifying terms to the nation. And while that Democrat may have promised a new kind of politics, he delivered the same old/same old with the addition of a full measure of the tricks he learned working his way up in the Chicago machine.
Last week, with his temper tantrum after the defeat of gun control legislation in the Senate, the Democrat demonstrated (once again) that he would rather demonize his political (and partisan) adversaries than engage them in debate and discussion. Instead of acknowledging the arguments (of those opposing gun control), Obama claimed they had none (“no coherent arguments” were his exact words) and accused them of lying (without providing any specific examples of their dishonesty).
Can George W. Bush’s critics (or anyone for that matter) provide one single example of that good man accusing his domestic political opponents of lacking arguments or engaging in deceitful practices? Did he lash out at Democrats when they obstructed his attempts to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or at liberal special interest groups who helped scuttle his efforts to reform Social Security?
Did that Republican accuse good-faith Democratic efforts to control federal spending as “thinly veiled social Darwinism“? (Did Democrats, in the Bush Era, even make any good faith efforts to balance the budget even as they faulted the Republican for his deficit spending?)
Maybe had the 2000 election not been so close and, thanks, in large part, to Al Gore’s decision to delay his concession, controversial, would people have appreciated George W. Bush for what he was, a good man who respected his ideological adversaries and political opponents, and was acting in what, he believed to be, the national interest.
SORT OF RELATED: Bush is back
DEFINITELY RELATED: “Bush’s policies aside,” writes Guy Benson, “those who know him best have always been struck by his kindness, integrity and humanity. Who among us wouldn’t be proud of such a legacy?”
Perhaps like me, you’re enjoying this great new TV show I just found on C-SPAN2 called Mr. Paul Goes to Washington where my favorite Senator is currently filibustering President Obama’s nominee to head the CIA, John Brennan. As I write this, he’s currently about to ring in his sixth hour. The goal of Senator Paul’s soliloquy is, as he has stated several times since I’ve been watching, simply to elicit one thing: A straight-forward answer to the question, (to paraphrase) ‘Does the president believe he has the legal authority to execute through drone strike non-combatant citizens on American soil?’
Brings up a very interesting point: For eight solid years, we heard screeching and gnashing of teeth from the Left about how George W. Bush wants to kill us all and eat our babies and of course shred the Constitution through wars based on lies and the horrible PATRIOT Act. But in the end, who is it who’s actually standing up for these ideals? Well, so far I’ve seen Senator Paul in exchanges with Senators Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Pat Toomey. Odd, don’t you think, that it’d be these ‘Tea Party right-winger knuckle-draggers’ who are actually doing the work that the Bush-haters allegedly wanted done while the leaders of their nominative party are lining up with their president in his expansion of Bush’s ‘unitary executive’ policies?
Clearly it’d be expecting waaay too much for the addlepated adherents to the Bush-is-Satan school of political thought to recognize the irony of the situation, let alone find that realization a great opportunity for self-reflection. Sad, that.
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HHQ)
NB: I had originally written the paraphrase of Sen Paul’s question as “power” to execute. Clearly that’s within the president’s power, but I’ve clarified (I hope) by changing my original post to read “legal authority”, which I think is likely more to his point.
Back in 2004, James Piereson coined the phrase “Punitive Liberalism” to describe a particular malady common in the days of severe Bush Derangement Syndrome. James Taranto introduced many of us to the idea when he wrote:
Writing in The Weekly Standard, James Piereson offers a useful addition to the American political glossary: “punitive liberalism.” This “bizarre doctrine,” which found its fullest expression in the presidency of Jimmy Carter, holds that “America had been responsible for numerous crimes and misdeeds through its history for which it deserved punishment and chastisement.” Those who disagree “were written off as ignorant patriots who could not face up to the sins of the past.” (Hat Tip: Ace; the original version of Taranto’s piece is only available currently at the Wayback Machine)
It is with some trepidation, therefore, that I describe some symptoms I have been experienced with increasing frequency over the last few months.
I first noticed the condition when I read, a few weeks after the election, that the Community College of Allegheny County in Pennsylvania was cutting “the hours of 400 adjunct instructors, support staff, and part-time instructors to dodge paying for Obamacare.”
“It’s kind of a double whammy for us because we are facing a legal requirement [under the new law] to get health care and if the college is reducing our hours, we don’t have the money to pay for it,” said adjunct biology professor Adam Davis.
My reaction? When I read that, I could hear (to borrow a phrase from Taranto) one of the world’s tiniest violins playing in the background. I actually laughed and felt relieved about something in the political world for what may have been the first time since the disaster known as the 2012 Presidential Election. Yes, I thought, even the leftists in academia will not manage to avoid paying for the mess that is Obamacare, and it will cost some of them far more than they imagined.
Then just a few days ago, I had an even stronger reaction when I heard that some unions were petitioning the administration for special subsidies to defray the high cost of insurance under Obamacare. Rick Ungar writes in Forbes:
Unhappy that important improvements in insurance benefits resulting from the healthcare reform law will now cost employers with union workers a bit more—improvements such as no longer permitting insurance policies to place the yearly and lifetime caps on benefits that leave beneficiaries high, dry and broke should they suffer a serious and expensive illness—some labor unions are now asking the government to change the rules to allow low-earning union workers access to the government subsidies so that their employers will not be disadvantaged when competing with companies who have non-union employees.
Yes, you read that correctly. Becket Adams at the Blaze elaborates further:
No, really, union heads are acting like no one warned them that costs would go up.
“We are going back to the administration to say that this is not acceptable,” said Ken Hall, general secretary-treasurer for the Teamsters.
“I heard him say, ‘If you like your health plan, you can keep it,’” said John Wilhelm, chairman of Unite Here Health, the insurance plan for 260,000 union workers. “If I’m wrong, and the president does not intend to keep his word, I would have severe second thoughts about the law.”
Why? Why? Why didn’t anyone tell these leaders about the costs associated with “Obamacare”? (more…)
Back in August, 2011. when reporting that the national debt has increased by $4 trillion under President Obama, CBS News’s Mark Knoller reported that:
Mr. Obama blames policies inherited from his predecessor’s administration for the soaring debt. He singles out:
- “two wars we didn’t pay for”
- “a prescription drug program for seniors…we didn’t pay for.”
- “tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that were not paid for.”
Mr. Obama has now been reelected to a second term. The debt continues to increase.
At the outset of Mr. Obama’s term, shortly after passing the $800 billion stimulus, the Democratic 109th Congress passed a budget spending $400 billion more in FY2009 that Mr. Obama’s predecessor had requested in his last budget. Will any reporter ask Mr. Obama about these spending increases he — and his party — didn’t pay for?
Well, that is what we would be hearing if there were a Republican President with this same war-mongering record of death.
Drone strikes dramatically increased after US President Barack Obama took office in 2009. There were only five drone strikes in 2007, but the number rose to 117 in 2010 before declining to 46 last year. Exact casualty figures are difficult to verify. Most of those killed are militants, but some civilians have also been killed.
More innocent children have been killed by the drones of Tyrant Boy-King Barack Hussein Obama than by the guns of Adam Lanza, Jared Loughner, James Holmes, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris combined. By far.
Let’s file this under the category: “If This Nominee Was President Bush’s…”
OutServe-SLDN Statement on Hagel Apology
(Washington, DC) Army veteran and OutServe-SLDN Executive Director Allyson Robinson released the following statement in reaction to an aplogy issued today by former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel for remarks made in 1998. The apology was reported by Washington Post.
“We are pleased that Senator Hagel recognized the importance of retracting his previous statement about Ambassador Hormel and affirming his commitment to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal and LGBT military families. We look forward to learning more about his commitment to full LGBT military equality as this nomination and confirmation process unfolds,” she said.
The hypocrisy of gay groups and their lickspittle use of kneepads when it comes to anything-Obama is more than revolting at this point.
Yesterday, ran into a Democratic friend whom I hadn’t seen since the debacle. I told him I feared that the election returns would mean continued economic stagnation, with the slow recovery sputtering out and the twentysomethings who voted overwhelmingly for Obama finding it increasingly difficult to find jobs.
He, citing “most economists”, insisted that the president alone can’t fix the economy.
And that comment got me thinking, wondering. . .
I mean, haven’t you noticed that many of the people insisting that the president alone can’t fix the economy are some of the very people who still blame the immediate past president (a Mr. George W. Bush) for the Great Recession?
“Ohio, we’ve tried our ideas and they work,” President Obama said yesterday in Lima, Ohio
We’ve tried the other folks’ ideas. They don’t work. The eight years before I took office, we tried their ideas. What did we get? We got falling incomes, record deficits … and an economic crisis that we’ve been cleaning up after ever since.
So, please tell me exactly how Obama’s ideas worked. Federal debt increased more in his (still uncompleted) first term than it did in both George W. Bush’s terms. The unemployment rate is higher than it was the day he took office. And much higher than the rate forecast by his team of economists when they pitched his “stimulus.” The economic recovery is the slowest since the Great Depression.
It’s as if the neophyte challenger running against an incumbent president. He’s not running on his record; he’s still running against George W. Bush.
And if George W. Bush is still responsible for today’s problems, then, well, Mr. Obama hasn’t been a very effective chief effective. . .
Caught this on Drudge last night:
Let me start by saying that I don’t blame President Obama for the problems plaguing the Big Apple in the aftermath of Sandy. But, bear in mind, how quick the legacy media were, seven years ago, to blame George W. Bush for the problems plaguing the Big Easy in the aftermath of Katrina.
We heard all sorts of horror stories, most of them untrue, about the goings-on at the Superdome, most supposedly Bush’s fault. So, why is Drudge the only one linking the desperate situation in parts of Manhattan to the president?
And when Katrina hit, the city most impacted was governed by a Democratic Mayor, the state by a Democratic Governor.
When Sandy hit, New York had a Mayor who would endorse Obama, the state has a Democratic Governor.
Over at the American Thinker, J. James Estrada contends that the electrical outages might not have happened had congressional Democrats not blocked a Bush administration plan to upgrade the nation’s electrical grid. (Via our reader Former Left-Leaning Lesbian.)
ALSO RELATED: Applying Bush/Katrina rules to Obama/Sandy
CREDIT WHERE IT’S DUE: Anderson Cooper is reporting the crisis on Staten Island. (Via Instapundit.)
BARACK OBAMA’S KATRINA, WITH BLOOMBERG IN THE ROLE OF RAY NAGIN? This Depressing NBC Segment On Staten Island Could Change The Way The World Sees Hurricane Sandy. “This NBC segment on the situation this week on Staten Island is awful, and makes the response look horrible.”