Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Thursday, September 08, 2011

Sept 11, 2011

One never quite knows what to make of stories like this: Homeland Security chief Napolitano says that there is "lots of chatter" on jihadi networks, now that the tenth anniversary of the World Trade Center attack is close. And an Obama administration official has said that there is a credible but unconfirmed threat reported of attacks against New York and Washington, perhaps involving a "vehicle laden with explosives."

My question: If another attack were to occur, would the nation rally around Obama the way it rallied around Bush?

I think not. In fact, I think just the opposite would happen.

And I think the change has nothing to do with the qualities or characters of both men. (Obama is a bad president, but he's certainly no worse than Bush.) Something ugly has happened to our citizenry -- psychologically, socially, spiritually.

Within minutes -- perhaps seconds -- of a new terror strike, much of the public would presume that Obama was responsible. The actual facts on the ground will not matter; ultra-paranoia has become our new national default setting. The birther mania gave us an advance view of what to expect.

At the very least, if a new attack occurs, Fox News will surely push the line that "Obama couldn't keep us safe." Of course, they said something very different in 2001.

(Note to the nutjobs: I will neither print nor read you. And yet you will write to me nonetheless. Why? Because you are nutjobs.)

I agree that if we had another terrorist attack, Obama would never get the sort of support that George Bush got. There is a group of people in this country whose hatred toward Obama is so consuming and radical that they would never give him credit for anything he does on any issue and they certainly wouldn't support him after an attack. If America was attacked again I have no doubt they'd start with the "Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist sympathizer" routine and folks like Limbaugh would be agitating that notion, everyday, on-air, ad nauseum. The silly birtherism BS that was pimped by FOX, Newsmax, Limbaugh, Beck, Palin, Trump, Bachmann and other prominent people inside the GOP demonstrated how far they were willing to go to destroy Obama. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be unhappy with Obama's time as POTUS, but the people who should be the most disappointed is his base. It seems to me that Obama's string of broken promises would have the GOP cheering him on instead of rattling the cage on the "Secret Muslim" "Not American" claim from the Teaparty

And there is NO DENYING that Obama is a terrible POTUS, but he's no worse than George Bush. I don't know how any Democratic POTUS could work with the current crop of obstinate Repubican Congress Critters. The only goal of the Republican/TeaPary at this point is to say or do whatever they must to assure Obama's failure, even if that means taking our country down the shitter. I also think that any POTUS of either party, who served on the heels of GWB, would have had a difficult time with the issues facing our country.
Had the SCOTUS not interfered with the vote counting Florida President Gore would have been impeached September 12, 2001.

I remember the print and broadcast media covering Bush the Lesser's ass until the whispers that it was Bill Clinton's fault for not getting Osama took hold.

The republicans will do it to any Democrat in the White House because that's what they are.
I agree with Mr. Mike. Had Gore been president and the twin towers came down they'd have called for his head instantly. Of course, I don't think they would've come down had he been president. For one thing, there was a bipartisan bill beefing up homeland security ready in January of 2001 that Bush and Cheney simply shelved.

Anyway, it has nothing to do with the "current crop" of Republicans. They would've eviscerated Gore back in the day, for sure.
Only an Obot would be consumed by consideration of what a terrorist attack would do to Oboma's polls rather than what it would do to the country.
So, you're implying that I'm an Obot? Amusing.

You know, I think I invented the term "Obot." At least, last time I looked it up, I couldn't find any usage of the term predating my own.

Of course, this is probably one of those cases where the same idea popped in lots of different noggins at more or less the same time. But I THINK I published it first.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic