This is mind Boggling!!!! Think you're pissed off now?

[busterbrown]

What do they got on Obama? Two fucking desperate stories which are complete bullshit..

I’m telling you, take away everything which has to do with 911 and You will still have a list of Bush scandals that just makes one shake their head in amazement..

Wouldn’t it be nice if a few Dems with some guts, read this list on the floor to the world..
http://www.netrootsmass.net/hughs-bush-scandals-list/

[NYC_SKP]

1. Number 400: (creative commons copyright, free use with attribution)

400. An absent President

Of the 2922 days Bush was President he spent all or part of 1,020 on vacation (35% of his time in office). This includes 487 days at Camp David, 490 at his ranch in Crawford, and 43 days at his family’s compound in Kennebunkport. If there is one word which typifies this and Bush, it is AWOL. The man has been AWOL his whole life. You have only to look at his academic career or his lack of it. It nails his experience with Vietnam where he never took a strong position for the war and went, or against it and protested. It was the essence of his time in the National Guard (whether it was technically the case or not). It marked his approach to his business failures. As for the governorship of Texas, it looks good on a résumé and is a useful political springboard but it is a weak position, tailor made for an AWOL man. Unfortunately for us, the Presidency is a real full-time job. In it, Bush stayed true to form. He was not just physically absent from it much of the time. He was intellectually and morally absent from it all the time.

The results we can see all around us. He did not keep us safe from 9/11. He mired the nation in stupid wars he waged stupidly and interminably. He was not there for Katrina. He took a piratical financial industry and negligently set it loose on the economy to wreak havoc in the housing and oil markets and eventually bring the whole system to the point of collapse and the country to the edge of depression.

But the blame does not belong to him. It never does with an AWOL man. No, it belongs with us who, as a nation, for 8 years took a vacation from our ourselves and our responsibilities. We had not just an AWOL President with Bush but an AWOL age. Now Bush is gone, as AWOL as ever, and we are left to deal with his legacies.

Posted in: Hugh's List of Bush Scandals, Incompetence

[TinkerTot55]

8. Terrific point.

And of course GW was absent; that was the plan all along.

Cause Cheney ran the whole, rancid, odious enterprise. For himself, and his corporate and military cronies.

[Isoldeblue]

2. K&R YES!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

4. Democrats are now going after Obama almost as obsessively as Republicans.

Republicans would NEVER do this to Bush or ANY ReTHUG!

[truebluegreen]

6. Um, yes and no.

You are right: Republicans would never do this to one of their own. IOKIYAR. The fact that Democrats would do this at all in a Democratic administration is why we are better.

And, although I haven't been following this in detail, what Democrats want is good government, not counting coup. Wanting the President to take action is not the same as crying for impeachment.

[EV_Ares]

7. Well if they want good government maybe there is a time for the party to come together because those

dems who are not helping matters by joining in against the president will not see good government for a long time. That is what happens when you aid the enemy.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

10. "Wanting the president to take action"...for WHAT exactly?

You need to follow these stories in greater detail and then you'll understand what I and many others are getting at.

[truebluegreen]

11. You are right, of course.

I have been disappointed and disengaged. But just once I would like to see the President take a forceful, pro-active we'll-get-to-the-bottom-of-this stance, start a sweeping review of not only the current misfeasance, but also set in motion a review of ALL non-profits, not just Tea Party groups.

Even if he doesn't have the money, and can't shame Congress into giving it to him (I know, they are shameless) being loud and up-front would be much better than his usual measured and muted response. IMO.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

14. Well, did you see his presser just yesterday? He was pretty angry and forceful. I had never seen him

like that and the corporate media has been commenting on his anger. He called it was it is: a political stunt. This is all about politics and he called them out on it.

[truebluegreen]

15. He called a flap over the misuse of the IRS a "political stunt"?

You and I both know it was, but the optics stink.

Instead of getting mad about political stunts (not before time, as my Aussi friends would say) he should have used the opportunity to demand an investigation of, not only the IRS, but the people who are determined to flout our tax laws. To me, it sounds like once again he is being reactive instead of proactive.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

16. He shoulda, woulda, coulda. All I know is that he can't win for losing. No matter what he does,

no one will ever be satisfied. I hope he handles the IRS issue appropriately, as well as the AP flap up. But he also has to run this country with no help from Republicans and little support from his own party. It's really a shame.

[truebluegreen]

17. We are not supposed to support him, but rather the reverse.

If he did, or even tried to do, what we want, he would get a lot more support. To me, he seems more like a man without a country.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

18. Actually, he has the support of 90% of the Democratic Party. Luckily DU is not a reflection of that.

Last edited Tue May 14, 2013, 11:10 PM - Edit history (1)

All people does is sit around all day long blaming the president and saying absolutely nothing about the Republican obstruction, even treason. I've already said my peace. Let's agree to disagree.

[truebluegreen]

19. My point wasn't about whether or not people here,

or in the party, support the President; but rather whether he does what we want. Personally, I think the latter is the important issue.

Sorry you disagree.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

22. Tonight, Ari Melber was on Lawrence O'Donnell's show tonight and did a brilliant regarding the

"Blame Obama First" crowd on both the ideological left and right. People must learn how the government works. I work for the federal government and what I do has nothing to do with Obama. I work for an undersecretary who works for a deputy secretary who works for the Secretary of the Department (HUD). So, again, I don't understand what Obama was supposed to do. These were decisions made internally by the agency and lower-level employees. The Secretary of my agency oversees tens of thousands of employees. There's no way the president could know or have control over what each and every one of the lower level employees do on a day to day basis.

STOP BLAMING OBAMA FIRST!! Blame him for decisions made that were directly guided by his constitutional authority. This wasn't.

[truebluegreen]

25. I am not now, nor have I ever, blamed the President

for what someone in the government has done, without his knowledge, or for what each and every one of the lower level employees do on a day to day basis.

I do blame him for the things he has control over: His Cabinet picks. His policy decisions. His priorities. His continued attempts to make Grand Bargains with a bunch of crazy people, to the country's detriment (and yes, I know, he feels he has to govern, while the crazy people do not, but there has to be a limit on what he is willing to give away).

You asked what I thought he was supposed to do. I said, take charge, get out in front of this, be pro-active and demand accountability. Do not call the reaction a political stunt, even if it is one!

You replied with coulda woulda shoulda and a virtual shrug. And now you're telling me to STOP BLAMING OBAMA FIRST!

If someone is reacting emotionally and inappropriately here, it isn't me.

[Parable Arable]

20. I'd say it complains about it's fair share of both on the whole, and with good reason...

I get the whole rage against Obama, I feel it too frequently. That being said, there are posters on here, and I won't name names, who honestly just relish trashing the president and will turn any discussion pertaining to him about how he's "failed" or has "betrayed the party". And you know something? I welcome the criticism of this president for his stances and policies, but I've noticed a large number of DUers (especially on the GD board) tend to engage in two things that I'd wish they wouldn't do.

The first is that they resort to personal attacks against the president, which undermines the validity of their argument and makes them look mean spirited, and less rational. I have my share of issues with the president, but I get annoyed when he's deemed "contemptuous of the American people" or "an idiot".

The second is that they engage in a practice that Obama "cultists" engage in: Turning him into something he's not. I sympathize with the liberals who bemoan the fact that some members on this board "cheerlead" the president at every turn, but there also exists a small number of them who believe that Obama ALONE is to blame for the Democratic party moving to the right. Some posters will claim that "If Senator Sanders or Warren were president, the party would become as liberal as it was during the FDR/Johnson era". While I too share their frustration, I get the sense that they don't realize or acknowledge that PBO isn't the source of the parties move to the right, and is at worst, merely a part of the problem. I get the feeling that some here opt to make Obama into the entire problem because it's more convenient to do so rather than to address said problem as complex, multifaceted dilemma that it is. And to be quite honest, I disdain those types of posters as much as I disdain the "Obama can do no wrong" crowd.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

21. You are making very fair points and I appreciate that. I'm only asking that people hold him

accountable for things directly under his control. There seems to be this knee-jerk "BLAME OBAMA FIRST" reaction on BOTH sides. All I ask is that we be fair. I don't agree with everything this president does, but it seems to be that people are quick to blame him without knowing or understanding the complete story. It's knee-jerk and that's unfair.

[Parable Arable]

23. I'm a lot harsher with this president over security related decisions.....

Like the drone strikes, and the unjust treatment of Bradley Manning, than I am over his domestic policy choices, because he h doesn't seem to need to really on congress to make those decisions.... When I'm angry with the president on that count, I'm legitimately angry, and will question what advisers he's surrounded himself with and why.

In regards to dealing with congress, I give him a lot more leeway, because I realize that the president doesn't have the legislative authority that I wish he did. At it's essence, my frustration with Obama's negotiation strategy towards congress basically boils down to "he seems to disregard the progressive caucus", and believe me I could go on all day about how flawed I view the "charm offense".

However, that doesn't mean that Obama alone is the problem. I get the sense that this "disregard" towards the progressive caucus will continue UNTIL we are able to actually elect more of them to congress. It may be a daunting endeavor, and it might not even happen within the next few decades, but it will if the inhabitants of this board maintain faith in the cause and channel their frustration in a positive manner. Electing a president more liberal than Obama might do some good, but that future Democrat will be stymied until they are given a congress that forces them to negotiate on progressive terms.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

24. Yep. Again, a very fair analysis. Drone strikes? Unacceptable! Putting Big 3 on the table?

Unacceptable!! Other issues for which he is given little constitutional authority over? Not his fault! A recalcitrant corporate media? Not his fault. The treasonous Republicans/Teabaggers who want him destroyed and are thus deliberately thwarting the economic recovery? Why are people blaming him? I don't get it. The Constitutional gives Congress direct authority over budgetary decision making. A cowardly Democratic party in Congress who won't go after the Republicans, but are quick to target Democrats when there's some scandal (e.g., Anthony Weiner, ACORN, etc.)? It's just crazy.

I'm giving you props because I think you're being fair and measured.

[Parable Arable]

28. Big 3?

Pardon me, I'm not quite up to speed with my political lingo. Care to fill me in on what those are? I'm assuming one of those is SS.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

30. SS, Medicare, Medicaid...

[Parable Arable]

32. Ah thank you.

[EV_Ares]

12. Excuse me.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

13. The question is serious: What actions should the president be taking?

[TDale313]

27. I agree.

Dems actually care about good government and abuses of power. We're willing to say "This is wrong" even if it's "our side"

Now, we're still early and I'm not saying there's any there there w/the IRS or AP stories, but leaders shouldn't get a pass just because of the D after their name.

[truebluegreen]

29. +100

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

31. Agreed. But still want to know exactly what Democrats/The President did wrong.

As Prince once sang, "Still Waiting"...

[otohara]

5. It's Been A While Since I've Seen That

I totally remember this site - because "there are just too many scandals to remember"

[lastlib]

9. Everyone needs to bookmark this page!!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

26. Without the media what would the Republican party do?

I expect the big donors have funded this latest swift boat attempt.

[Jamaal510]

33. I'm more disappointed than pissed.

I'm disappointed that they're wasting time and taxpayer on this instead of focusing on jobs (like how they promised in the 2010 elections) and other issues that matter to average Americans.