That Dumb Cowboy Bush

It’s sure a good thing we got rid of him.

[[Update a while later]

Who lost the Middle East? The wrecking crew in the White House.

[Another update a few minutes later]

Who are the good guys in the Middle East?

Prospects for liberal democracy there have never been bright, except for the one exception of Israel, which was formed by transplants from elsewhere.

Also, related: “Dismiss the Egyptian people, and elect a new one.”

7 thoughts on “That Dumb Cowboy Bush”

  1. I see pros and cons to Obama’s policy.

    On the pro side, he’s managed to wade into the vast gulf of political differences and unite Egypt, Turkey, and much of the rest of the Middle East into agreeing that Obama is a pathetic excuse for a Democratic leader. He’s a champion of tyranny, injustice, racial animus, religious intolerance, jihadist terrorism, anti-Semitism, and little else.

    He’s also sparking a Christian religious renaissance in all of Western, Central, and Eastern Europe, since now everyone over there is gratefully thanking God that Obama wasn’t President during the end of the Cold War, since he would’ve told all the anti-Communist protesters in Romania, Poland, Romania, Easter Germany, and elsewhere to shut up, go home, and obey the rule of their legitimately elected representatives in their various politburos. He would’ve decried the ensuing, illegitimate social chaos and demanded they end their vandalism of the Berlin Wall.

    His actions have also reassured the Russians, former Soviet republics, and the former East Bloc that yes, the KGB and Stasi really were the good guys, because at least they didn’t bug every phone, all the time.

    His Presidential directives have reassured the Chinese government that yes, rule by fiat really is the wave of the future, and their communist/corporate system based on graft, corruption, and naked power really is as legitimate and as progressive as ours.

    He’s made every world leader and government take stock, look at themselves, and rightly gain confidence that no matter what their failings, at least they don’t suck as badly as Obama.

    On the con side, well, the list is too long to go into (I only type at about 80 wpm and I’m not going to live forever) and Rand is still struggling with hard drive space. Two terabytes can’t possibly contain it all.

    1. I’m seeing some “pro” aspects to Obama’s policy of leading from behind. “He’s also sparking a Christian religious renaissance” among other things. He may have halted and turned back the growth of the Caliphate, which was certainly a goal of Al Qaeda. The people in Turkey and Egypt are pushing back on the strict adherence to Sharia and Islam. He could take credit for this, but even if the American media and LIV is fooled; Egyptians are not.

      Kudos to Kerry for pulling embassy people out of Egypt. Amazing he can do that and vacation at the same time. At least someone knows how to handle these situations in a timely fashion and make it look easy.

  2. Is “liberal democracy” really the best we can hope for these days?

    Why is there never anyone suggesting a liberal republic for Egypt, Iraq, Somalia, or whichever “regime change” is the pressing concern of the US this year?

    Everyone seems to forget that democracy is inherently abhorrent mob rule until they get under its thumb, but they still inexplicably want to press it into power elsewhere. Why? Is it the delusion that somehow democracy will work better there than it has here? Or is it simply that misery loves company?

    1. The delusion is that the populace understands and embraces rule of law, consent of the governed, government reduced to the most localized institution possible (i.e. no Big Federal Government), notions of property rights, the value of individual freedom.

      a solid 50% of the US populace don’t even understand thous (yes I’m talking about libs, Progs, and Soccie-Commie symp(athizer)s.

      The US populace was born and bread to such notions by way of the original settlers and the vastness of the continent. Egypt has been autocratically ruled by kings for thousands of years.

    2. I get really tired about all these tirades against direct democracy. To me this simply means you have eaten up all the propaganda done by Plato and the Roman Empire. Plato. A guy which came from the aristocratic class which thought that people should be ruled by a philosopher king i.e. an enlightened despot. From my point of view Athenian democracy worked just fine as a method of government. It took an alliance with the rest of Greece put together to crush Athenian military might. The much vaunted Spartans couldn’t have done it themselves alone. Athenian wealth was also unsurpassed across all Greece due to their strong trade networks and navy. The supreme irony is the Athenian democracy itself survived long after the Spartans themselves crumbled. It even survived the Hellenic age until the time of the Roman Empire.
      The fact is the democracy survived for the better part of 500 years. I think it is pathetic to consider it a failed way of government.

Comments are closed.