« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Barack Obama’s favorite four-letter word: “Bush”

“Blame Bush” has been Obama’s favorite strategy for trying to deflect blame for his mishandling of virtually every challenge he’s faced since ascending to his throne almost one year ago.  But is this approach still resonating?  I think not.  Obama refuses to stop blaming his predecessor for his own shortcomings. The latest blame-fest came with the December 25th pantybomber incident.

Immediately following the Christmas terrorist attempt by Omar Abdulmutallab, the Obama administration sprung into action in an attempt to pass the buck to Bush.

“The idea was that we’d show that the Bush Administration had had far worse missteps than we ever could,” says a staffer in the counsel’s office. “We were told that classified material involving anything related to al Qaeda operating in Yemen or Nigeria was fair game and that we’d declassify it if necessary.”

“This White House doesn’t view the Northwest [Airlines] failure as one of national security, it’s a political issue,” says the White House source. “That’s why Axelrod and Emanuel are driving the issue.”

The official White House blog reflects the Obama strategy to place the blame on Obama’s predecessor.  How ironic is it that an official WH blogpost with the title “The Same Old Washington Blame Game” would be so focused on blaming another POTUS for the shortcomings of their own administration?

So, Obama’s approach for responding to the terrorist incident has been to be Not Bush.  Erick Erickson pointed this out yesterday in his excellent post titled “9/11 Didn’t Happen: The Obama Administration Tries to Prove George Bush Was Wrong”  And, in a Washington Examiner piece, Byron York further illustrates the point:

Obama’s first response to the incident, or nonresponse, did not surprise anyone who followed his 2008 presidential campaign. As a candidate, Obama repeatedly accused the Bush administration of using terrorism to spread fear among the American public for political gain.

“Since 9/11, we’ve had a president who essentially fed us a politics of fear,” Obama said at a December 2007 Democratic debate in Iowa. “We have been governed by fear for the last six years,” he said two months earlier in Philadelphia. “We’re tired of fear,” he said still earlier at a debate in South Carolina.

Obama pledged a new, quieter approach. He would improve America’s image in the world, reach out to Muslims and dial back the fear.

So when a radical Islamist Army officer shouting “Allahu Akbar!” murdered 13 of his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, Obama’s response was so low-key it took him days to recognize it as a terrorist incident. And when a radical Islamist Nigerian nearly succeeded in detonating enough explosives to bring down a Northwest Airlines jumbo jet as it approached Detroit, Obama remained silent.

(and thanks to Mr. York for the title idea…)

Obama mouthpiece/DNCC Chair Chris Van Hollen was a bit less vague about his part in the blame game:

“In general, we are facing the consequences of the Bush administration’s failures to deal with al Qaeda,” Van Hollen told Hotline OnCall. “The Republicans have no business in pointing fingers at the Obama administration on terrorism and national security.”

“The Obama administration has been much more aggressive about going after al Qaeda than the Bush administration, which turned its focus from al Qaeda to Iraq,” he added. The Obama admin has “been on the offense in places where the Bush administration had taken its eye off the ball.”

But perhaps the crowning glory of the O came during today’s meetings and brief speech, where he stated that the terrorist incident was “a screwup” by “U.S. intelligence”…and then proceeded to declare that there will be “no finger-pointing”.  Eh?  Is that not what you just did, Mr. President?

At what point does Obama start accepting responsibility?  After we boot him from office (probably not even then)?  I have frequently adopted Gerald Warner’s nickname for Obama – “President Pantywaist” – to reflect his utter lack of courage in governing.  The presidency is a big political game for President Pantywaist.  He does not possess the courage to lead and accept the consequences of failure.  Instead, he prefers to take the advice of Rahm Emanuel and “not let a crisis go to waste” – and he leverages these crises politically, rather than worrying about their impact on America.  The Heritage Foundation accurately describes Obama’s cowardice in this area of national security and dealing with terrorists, after previously criticizing Bush for his approach:

During the campaign, then-candidate Barack Obama often criticized President Bush for “going it alone” and just this past May, President Obama promised: “I will work with Congress and members of both parties, as well as legal authorities across the political spectrum, on legislation to ensure that these commissions are fair, legitimate, and effective.”

The Obama administration’s decision not to seek congressional authorization for military detention exposes a lack of political courage to stare down the extremists in his own party and do the right thing for American security.

I think we can safely say that Harry S. Truman’s famous sign “The Buck Stops Here” has been replaced in the Oval Office by one stating “The Buck Stops In Crawford, Texas”.

COMMENTS

  • smagar

    Disdain for Bush 43 among our MSM is pathological. If I were to opine publicly that Bush might have been the second gunman on the grassy knoll, the AP would put at least one reporter on the case, in hopes that it were true.

    “Blame Bush” will be a working theme for the Obama administration as long as the MSM permits it. Once the MSM (besides Jake Tapper) really starts pushing back, then they’ll drop it. But, until then, why not milk it for all its worth?

    For the MSM’s part, large, large segments of them want to see Obama succeed. So, why not spend precious air time and column inches discussing, over and over again, the extent to which Bush 43 really is responsible for our problems today? It’s a worthwhile subject, isn’t it?

    Plus, it allows you to avoid dwelling on subjects that Obama would prefer not to discuss. I mean…with so much news out there to talk about, that poor CNN anchor can only spend a few seconds discussing Obamacare, or cap-and-tax, or Charlie Rangel’s scandals, or the fact that world leaders (and terrorists) are laughing at the Superior Intellect on Pennsylvania Avenue. Yes, yes, that boilerplate answer from Donna Brazile or Robert Gibbs to my pointed question was unresponsive and begs for a pointed followup—but who has the time for that? Plus, I’m up on a hard break, so…In Other News!

    Lawyers know that you never ask a question in court if you can’t deal with the answer. MSM reporters know the same thing. They also know that their editors, friends and preferred readers want to see Barack Obama succeed.

    Do you really think they’re going to harm him by doing their jobs?

  • bk

    1. As you said, his pathological BDS caused him to try to blame it on Bush, even while he’s saying no finger-pointing is allowed.

    2. And even more telling is how he said yesterday that “our intelligence agencies failed to connect the dots”. Oh really. How many times after 9/11 did we hear from the minions like Onama on the left that “BUSH failed to connect the dots”. So when it happened under Bush it was Bush’s fault; when it happened under Obama it was Bush’s fault, or someone else’s fault, but it damn sure wasn’t Obama’s fault. The Infallible Messiah speaks yet again. Does he have a desk plaque saying: “The buck stops elsewhere”?

  • smagar

    From Ed Morrissey at HotAir, just now. (Emphasis added).

    Over the last two months, the groups Americans for Tax Reform and Alliance for Worker Freedom have pursued complaints against SEIU chief Andy Stern and SEIU treasurer Anna ?Queen of Labor? Burger for illegal lobbying. The national news media has shown little interest in the story despite Stern?s weekly visits to the White House ? until now. CNN takes a surprisingly balanced look at the charges, although they only see fit to interview Stern rather than the very-accessible groups demanding the investigation:

    OK, CNN, why not interview a rep from at least one of the organizations that’s pressing for an investigation of SEIU, Stern and Burger? Could it be that, if you put them on camera, you can’t control the narrative of the story as closely as you’d like?

    Shouldn’t “The Most Trusted Name In News” take special care to put BOTH sides of the story on the air?

    Wouldn’t surprise me if Stern and SEIU insisted that neither ATR nor AWF be interviewed on the air, as a background condition for SEIU’s agreeing to an interview in the first place. Perhaps someone should ask CNN? Or, maybe, raise the question openly? (Hannity? O’Reilley? Rush?)

    (I was tempted to add Howard Kurtz to the list—but who am I kidding?)

    Boy, it sure makes it easier to create and/or sustain a meme of nasty people pursuing Obama, if you don’t allow the public to see/hear from the “pursuers” themselves.

    It all seems very well thought out, doesn’t it.

    Just sayin…

  • jimmuy8

    Remember?

    And wasn’t this the guy who’s whole campaign was “I’m the guy who can fix all these problems?”

  • bs

    while I was writing that.

    But I wasn’t going to give them any credit or ideas. :-)

  • Crowe

    …and who was responsible for successfully shuttering the AQ camps that trained the 9/11 highjackers, and who authorized the tools necessary to prevent another terrorist attack, and who finally got Qaddafi to disavow nukes etc., and who made national security his absolute number one priority….

    …that POTUS is responsible for a failure of security that happens under the watch of the POTUS who has this resume, compiled by Warrior

    …right. everyone believes you. The cowboy is responsible for a security breakdown, not the limp-@$#%@ ivy-league snot.

  • johnt

    Unless there were a few leading Democrats on the plane. Totally uncoordinated with the O’s sentiments, total confusion combined with spite and the usual cowardice. Bush did nothing for eight years, Bush did too much, al-qaeda wasn’t in Iraq,[ oddly their not in Afghanistan either, hmm ] as if this is the al-qaeda war & nothing else.

    In any case, 2009 is done. So when does The O take off on his threatened ultimatum to Iran, where by the way, al-qaeda isn’t?

  • IJB

    The only people who are still lapping up the “It’s all Bush’s fault!” excuse are the far Left, and they’re already in 0′s back-pocket.

    This is the problem when you surround yourself with people who think exactly like you do – Obama & co. still trot out “Blame Bush!” because they are surrounded by a bunch of Leftie reporters eager to repeat the meme.

    The thing they’ve forgotten to do is to go out into the rest of the country to see if that message is still playing anymore. If they’d bothered to do that, they’d already know it’s no longer working.

    Instead, they’ll keep trotting it out, which only serves to further weaken the Obama Admin., while simultaneously further eroding the influence of the MSM.

    Oh well – it’s not like you can tell fools when they’re being fools!…

  • izoneguy

  • bk

    “Under my plan….”
    vs
    “This job is hard.”

  • Tbone

    why can’t you fix it Barry?

  • smagar

    A large portion, if not a majority, of their workforce wanted this guy.

    They’re supposed to be smart people. Smarter than the average bear.

    Plus, because they deal in national security, and must grapple daily with all the world’s unsavory elements, they’re supposed to be a little more level-headed and practical than their Ivy League classmates who remained behind at Hahvud or Yale to work in the Womyn’s Studies or Sociology departments.

    Yet, they apparently swallowed Hopeandchange, too.

    Time for the CIA to take its medicine. They had way, way too much fun undermining George Bush for me to work up much sympathy for them.

  • http://nanosecondinv.proboards.com/index.cgi? irondiopriest

    … to assume that the only people lapping up the “it’s Bush’s fault” mantra are die-hard Leftists.

    Millions of average Americans who don’t get their political information from anywhere other than the newspapers and the nightly news only hear the sound-bites, and they don’t think past what they hear.

    The Left rode into the seat of power on the back of lies and demonization, and while the dynamic of political awareness seems to be shifting, it is not safe to say that such lies and demonization are falling on deaf ears everywhere but the hardcore Left.

  • Crowe

    And not just for the spooks, but for you and me and our families when the spooks are hamstrung from doing their jobs effectively.

  • momo

    and Obama is about to take office with his BDS. The buck stops with you Obama-try to show the dignity your office demands!!!

  • sarge324

    the far left zombies including the lame street media want socialism.the press are for the truth, not to hide it.people we are in danger of losing our freedom to the socialist.we will slow them down when we vote the left out and put in the right.stay mad in 2010.dont forget what they are doing to the country.the childern are going to pay.remember the names of the zombies and vote them out.

  • bk

    that 9-10 months from now they will fall for “Re-elect me – I need more time to undo Bush damage” spiels? The people we’re talking about will have forgotten who George Bush was by then, and will instead be wondering why so many of them still don’t have jobs after two years under Obama and the Democrats.

  • sharonmcp

    ?Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama?s declining support is that just 50 percent of voters now say they prefer having him as president to George W. Bush, with 44 percent saying they?d rather have his predecessor. Given the horrendous approval ratings Bush showed during his final term, that?s somewhat of a surprise and an indication that voters are increasingly placing the blame on Obama for the country?s difficulties instead of giving him space because of the tough situation he inherited. The closeness in the Obama/Bush numbers also has implications for the 2010 elections. Using the Bush card may not be particularly effective for Democrats anymore.
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30413.html

  • edwlstr

    I shall call it EOD. That stands for Emasculate Obama Day (EOD) . It will fall on NOvember 2, 2010. The NO in NOvember stands for “neuter Obama”. We will vote out all the Dems in the House and the RINOs with them. Some of the Senate will have to go also but not all are up for re-election. Since revenue bills are originated in the House this spending frenzy will stop and Obama will have one friend in Washington, Boo. In the future when my little ones ask of me, “Grandpa, what does this celebration and festival mean and where did it start”? I will tell honestly of our greed and the “something for nothing” folly that nearly cost us our precious liberty. As a result of this remembrance and our telling of its history, perhaps Americans in future generations will live free and socialism will stay in the dustbin of history where it belongs.