Crediting The Proper President

[ChoppinBroccoli]

I just smacked down a right-winger on Facebook using many of the points made in this article (along with some of my own), and he got so mad that he threatened to de-friend me. Taking his ball and going home was all he had left. Check out this thorough debunking of the right's attempt to grab some of the glory away from Obama.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/05/03/crediting-the-proper-president/

[LadyHawkAZ]

1. Kicked, rec'd, snagged and reposted. Tyvm.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

2. If You're Interested, Here Is A Recap Of My FB Encounter

RW'er: "I'd like to waterboard you. Clinton had the chance before Bush. Before 9-11 happened. Write me a thesis why it isn't his fault. Jk. Actually think for a moment why - in a time of realizing success for all Americans -success that was a product of 2 administrations - you felt the need to spew more blame venom." He continues in a second post: "Don't start typing so fast. It requires objective reflection. Introspective thought. Hate and blame can't take you there. Why did you feel the need to take a quote totally out of context to present a refracted image of what you knew the truth to be. It sounds so angry. Anger and careful thought don't co-exist dude."

Me (sorry this is all in one paragraph, but that's how Facebook makes you do it these days): "No, it requires knowing a little something about what actually happened rather than just repeating Faux News talking points. When Clinton got intel that Bin Laden was in a certain camp, he bombed that camp. Turned out the intel was wrong, but he DID something. When Obama got intel that Bin Laden was in this house, he gave the order to take it out. He DID something. When Bush got intel that Bin Laden was holed up in Tora Bora, he ordered the military to stand down. He did NOTHING, just like he did on Aug. 6 when he got info that Bin Laden was readying an attack on the United States. So YOU want me to credit Bush in ANY way for this day of victory? Fine, I will give credit where it is due. Without Bush, we wouldn't have NEEDED to kill Bin Laden in 2011, because under competent leadership, he would have been dead a decade earlier. You know, a President who takes Bin Laden seriously doesn't slash the counter-terrorism budget down to the bone in his first budget, and doesn't blow off Richard Clarke when he tries to brief him on how immediately important counter-terrorism is, and doesn't ignore a personal letter from Bill Clinton telling him that fighting terrorism would and should the be the #1 priority of his administration. The people bending over backwards to praise Bush in ANY way for this great accomplishment HAVE upset me, because it's a slap in the face to the people who actually had ANYTHING at all to do with it. It's like saying that Jim Tressel should have stood up and heaped praise on John Cooper after he won the National Championship. Tressel took over and achieved victory after years of Cooper's bumbling. So yes, it DOES anger me that you righties insist on taking credit away from where it rightfully belongs because of YOUR political agenda, and heaping it onto a bumbling fool who did nothing but make the problem worse. Now, if you're interested in why Clinton REALLY ISN'T to blame for creating Bin Laden, I'll put it in a separate post so as to make it easier on your eyes."

Me again: "Now, if you'd REALLY like to learn something about who's REALLY to blame for Bin Laden, keep reading. If you'd rather just sit back and continue to pat yourself on the back for your clear-headed, non-partisan, critical thinking that is quoted almost verbatim from Faux News talking points, you can just stop reading here, which I suspect you probably already have. Since I know where your "clear-headed, non-partisan, critical thinking" comes from, I know without you even having to say it why you blame Clinton for Bin Laden. See, you didn't even USE the phrase "U.S.S. Cole," did you? So how did I know that was EXACTLY where you were taking this? OK, I'm your huckleberry. Do you agree with ME that the MOMENT the President found out that Bin Laden was responsible for the U.S.S. Cole bombing, he should have immediately responded with some sort of retaliatory strike? I'll assume you're answering yes wholeheartedly. The U.S.S. Cole bombing took place on Oct. 12, 2000. As soon as it happened, President Clinton formed a commission with one sole purpose--find out who did it. There was also a $5 million reward offered for any information that led to the arrest or capture of anyone responsible (sounds like just a little bit more than "doing nothing" like your talking points suggest, but let's continue). The commission reported its findings in Feburary of 2001 to the President. The conclusion: Osama Bin Laden did it. Guess who was President in February in 2001. And guess what he did about it. Oops. Interesting that when Bush KNEW Bin Laden attacked the U.S.S. Cole, he did nothing, and that when he KNEW Bin Laden was about to strike the United States, he did nothing, and that when he had the chance to kill Bin Laden at Tora Bora, he did nothing, and when he KNEW that Bin Laden was in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border area (after escaping the first time), he diverted troops to Iraq, a country that had no ties whatsoever to Bin Laden. Noticing a theme here? And when asked about Bin Laden 6 months after 9/11, he says he's not all that important, not a priority. Totally consistent with that theme. Oh yeah, Bush deserves ALL KINDS of praise for taking out Bin Laden."

Me, in conclusion: "So, in conclusion, you should know that my original post was made only AFTER 24 hours of listening to right-wingers do all kinds of mental gymnastics in order to take the praise AWAY from Obama and pile it onto Bush because of THEIR political agenda. You want to point a finger of blame at me for politicizing this (whatever that means), when all I was doing was RESPONDING to the right's politicization of it for the last 24 hours. So who's REALLY the one "spewing blame and venom" and "presenting a refracted image of what they know to be the truth" here? And yes, it IS very angry. So MY only question in response is why ARE right-wingers so angry about this?"

RW'er: "I didn't post anything angry. You did! You provided a partial quote on Facebook. I think Obama has more guts than I thought he did. But I didn't post an out of context angry quote. YOU did. I simply called you on it and said your idiotic post is as retarded and uninformed as someone who says clinton should have gotten OBL. You didn't hear me because you didn't listen. You were to busy trying to prove a point and be angry than listen. But let's be clear - you were angry when you made your post - so don't blame that on me. You carry anger with you every day that blinds you from conversation and true learning but fills you with self righteousness. Once again because you tangle yourself up in your own perspective you can't see when it gets absurd and you don't care to know what I think. You want to call me names, lable me, and shortcut the conversation. Perhaps its best we simply don't have them anylonger. I enjoy a debate. I enjoy talking with old friends. I appreciate people who don't talk intellectually down to me - particularly when I am more educated. I don't enjoy angry imbalanced angry name calling from a friend who isn't 'above' me by any measure and shouldn't talk as such."