« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Obama, Bush, and the Transitive Property

By: 6eorge Jetson (Diary)  |  January 18th, 2009 at 10:38 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

As all of the MSM know, President George W. Bush is a complete and total idiot. Science has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is the Worst. President. Ever.

In a little reported but interesting turn of events, Obama is choosing to continue many of George Bush’s policies by retaining Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, selecting a major player from the Paulson/Bernanke/Bush led TARP I design, and not committing to an exit/closing date from either Iraq or Gitmo.

Unbeknownst to the MSM, there’s this little mathematical property called the Transitive Property. It’s rather a complex concept, but I’ll attempt to summarize it as

if a = b and b = c, then a = c

When applied to Bush and Obama, we find that Obama is the …

Tags: ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • jonathanswift

    that Gates was forced on Pres. Bush in 2006. The President stayed with Sec. Rumsfeld, an able and visionary man who made fatal errors unfortunately, far too long.

  • 6eorge Jetson

    Yes, Bush stuck w/ Rumsfeld the capabilities transformer far too long. We needed an operational guy that understood that the occupation needed people on the ground to win the people-centric challenge. To attempt to quantify an unobservable, let’s say we lost 2,000 additional precious American lives due to the delay in correcting our tactics. You make an undeniable point in raising your critism.

    But while we certainly overpaid, was the end result worth that overpayment versus the then-popular alternative to cut-and-run in ~2005? If Obama has the stomach to see the mission through to a stable Iraq, I believe historians will conclude that the tens of millions have freed from life under a tyrant will have been worth it. And whether or not Iraq stays a close ally, as long as it offers opportunity to the young Middle-easterner, it will serve as a self-sustaining drain on Al-queda and the jihad mindset of radical Islam.

    Had we paid $30,000,000 instead of $15,000,000 for the Lousiana Purchase, would historians conclude today that we got a raw deal? I think it would be deemed a good move at either price.