Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Miss Me Yet?

The billboard is real, confirmed so by Bob Collins of Minnesota Public Radio. However, at this time it is unknown who the responsible party is and who paid to have it put up.

The search is on of course, and perhaps one day the answer to this question may be known. As if it is an issue warranting serious effort or concern.

Of course it is possible that whoever erected the billboard did so for one of two reasons. One, to remind everyone of the Bush legacy of growing our government larger and plunging us forward down the road of increasing statism and increased intervention into foreign affairs where we really don't belong. Or two, as  a statement to those who voted for Obama that he is continuing down that same road, however at an accelerated pace. At least with respect to profligate spending.

When it comes to a comparison of a lesser of two evils I would say the comparison, or perhaps better stated the distinction between Bush and Obama is a good example. The distinction between the two is becoming more blurred with each passing month.

The answer to, "Miss Me Yet?", at least from this corner is no. The more complete answer is no, and looking forward to 2010 and 2012 when hopefully real change of a true conservative nature will happen. Maybe if it does this country can start acting with real responsibility with respect to fiscal and foreign policy issues.

I do thank Mr. Bush for one thing however. For keeping the country safe for over seven years. I hope Mr.Obama will do the same, or the next three.

Via: Memeorandum
Via: NPR
Via: MPR


  1. Come on Rational Nation USA. Kept the country safe, except for that whole Amerithrax attacks, or the DC Sniper or the VA Tech Massacre or that whole 9/11 thing...

    Bush will be remembered as the man who pissed himself while America was attacked, Became the War President Decider who ignored his Generals strategy for guerilla warfare while workign to destroy the economy and plunge the US into the Second Great Republican Depression.

  2. Bush's handling of terrorist kept us safe for 7 years.

    I could argue Clinton could have iced Bin Laden and didn't.

    I can also argue that Bush took his eye off the primary object when he took us on an interventionist and ill conceived war in Iraq.

    I can also argue he was no focal conservative as he pretended to be.

    I can also argue Obama is following many of the same policies albeit faster at the pedal.

    I can argue many things that both Bush and his predecessor have screwed up.

    Bush did prevent another 911 and we were safe. Obama's weakness is already perceived and acclivity is increasing.

    I will hold Bush to his failing with a fair and open mind as I see it. And I will do the same with Obama. He has three more years to prove himself.

    Lets hope he does, cause if he doesn't he will another Carter and Bush Senior.

    I am an equal opportunity critic and I call em as I see em no matter which side of the aisle they occupy.

    Time will tell Gene time will tell. I am willing to give that time. But when Obama does what I consider to be foolish I call it like I see. Just as do and did while Bush was at the helm.

    Only thing I didn't start blogging until 2009 June, so you will just have to take my word for it or ask my family how Bush drove me crazy.

    Thanks for swinging by. Your thoughtful comments are always welcome at RN USA

  3. Rational Nation USA, I specifically didn't mention Clinton because the billboard is about Bush.

    And my criticism with your post was only on the false belief stated time and again by Republicans that Bush some how kept us safe, highlighted by these shameful statements:

    "We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term..." ~ Bush Spokesperson Dana Perino.

    "We inherited the most tragic attack on our own soil in our nation's history," ~ Mary Matalin.

    "What he should be doing is following the right things that Bush did, we had no domestic attacks under Bush," ~ The Mayor of New York City on 09/11/01, Rudy Guiliani.

    Clinton had his problems and failures but it's a false dichotomy to compare Clinton's failures with Bush's.

    Obama's weakness is already perceived and acclivity is increasing.
    Exactly how? Terrorists aren't gauging their attacks based on whom the President is. 4GW is based on the will of the Insurgent, which waxes and wanes. During Bush's Presidency we faced the first fully realized Iraqi Insurgency which included Fallujah the biggest urban conflict since the Battle of Huế City and the Sadr City Siege through the US Surge.

    Now was all that fighting due to Bush's perceived weakness? No. It was because the Insurgents had the will to fight. Right now the Iraqis don't but in Afghanistan they do. In Afghanistan Al Qaeda was initially smashed and their will waned by the excellent US forces but Al Qaeda was allowed to fester for 7 years and now their will to fight is waxing.

    So, no Bush didn't keep us safe because we did have successful terrorist actions on US soil after 911 and attempts. Richard Reid, Amerithrax, The DC Snipers, VA Tech Massacre, and others...

  4. The over 4,000 Troops and thousands more that were injured in Iraq are just as much victims of terror as those that died in the 9/11 attack. To say that "Bush kept us safe" is to me anyway, forgetting them.

  5. Gene - I do not dispute your statements as a point of accuracy. But rather the conclusions finally arrived at. We shall see what the future brings in this respect. I truly hope the toll on our homeland does not increase. I am skeptical of Obama's resolve. It's early yet so I am hoping I am proven wrong.

  6. Truth - I would define these deaths, and thousands more that were injured, as the result of the U.S. intervention in a foreign land. An action supported by congress that was both unnecessary and ill advised.

    I do not define the Iraq war in the terms you and other liberals chose to define it as it is based more on emotionalism that purely reason.

    Having said this I do not believe we should have invaded Iraq. It did serve to destabilize the region and did result in death and injury that could have been avoided.

    I suppose my response shall be taken by some that I have become "a political" hack, as I was accused of yesterday. It's my position and I'm sticking to it.

  7. from a legal point of view we had greater justification for the invasion of Iraq then we had for Afghanistan, believe it or not. and we are learning more every day to testify the justification of it but is never fully told to the people as it should be.
    but all of this is irrelevant since Obama is essentially following the same lines as Bush did in regards to the war over there.

  8. Griper - I beleve the justification for the War in Afghanistan folling 911 was absolute and w/o question.

    The war in Iraq was nothing more than intrventionist foreign policy based on flimsy arguments. The war in effect destabilized the region further.

    As to our continued involvement in Afghanistan I have had mixed feelings,although at this time I am leaning to get out ASAP.

    We simply can no longer afford to be the worlds policemen,particularily when were not invited.

    I return to,"The only justification for the use of force is in response to an act of agression against our people or nation."

    Afghanistan fit this definition,Iraq and the current situation in Afghanistan to not.


  9. RN,

    since when was it decided that the nation of Afghanistan attacked the US? If it had been the nation of Afghanistan that had attacked us just as it was the nation of Japan that attacked us you would have an good argument.

    As for Iraq we were already at war with Iraq before Bush invaded it. that in itself justify the war with Iraq.

  10. I have a good argument in the face of the reality that it was Afghanistan that was used as a base from which to plan, plot, recruit, and ultimately 911.

    We defeated Iraq after the Gulf War. The fact that the Military Industrial Complex, Bill Clinton and GWB chose to act as they did does not justify the invasion of Iraq.

    On this issue I am firm, have considered it over and over again. And you and I shall simply have to agree to disagree on this one. :-)

    Check out my post 2/10 just up. Betcha (oops) I piss off a few libs.

  11. since you say you are firm on this issue, I'll say no more. just thought you might like a new perspective on this issue.

  12. Griper - Always enjoy a new perspective. It's just I have given quite a bit to this issue and always seem to end up where I started.


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 3/4/18 Anonymous commenting has been disabled and this site has reverted to comment moderation. This unfortunate action is necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or irrelevant to the post subject.

While we appreciate and encourage all political viewpoints we feel no obligation to post comments that fail to rise to the standards of decency and decorum we have set for Rational Nation USA.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.