When going gets tough, Obama calls Bush
Whether he’s speaking about Afghanistan, health care, or the economy, President Obama begins each engagement by reminding America that the previous administration was an utter, abject failure. Time and time again, he tells us how he inherited a set of problems worse than any president since FDR. Everything that happened from 2000 to 2008 falls under attack, from the handling of 9/11, to the missing WMD’s and our failure to capture Bin Laden. Whatever the issue, wherever he appears, more than a year into his administration, the wisest, most intelligent president of them all, Barack Obama, is still attacking George W. Bush in nearly every speech he gives.
So why then, when the going gets a little too tough for him, does Obama keep calling his predecessor for help?
The begging began before Obama even took office, in November of 2008, when President-elect Obama asked Bush to support the $25 billion automotive rescue package. In January of 2009, Obama went back to the well, asking Bush to press Congress for the release of the final $350 billion TARP funds. It was an early sign that Obama’s ability to get things done, and his sway within his own party, may have been vastly overstated. Much to the chagrin of conservatives, Bush agreed to both requests, and pressed the legislative branch for the cash. After taking office, President Obama thanked him by constantly informing us that TARP, and the auto bailouts, were policies enacted by the failed Bush administration. Despite asking for them, Obama continues to act as if they‘re nothing more than pieces of the baggage handed to him as he entered the White House.
After being sworn in, Obama continued campaigning against Bush at every opportunity. His constant global apologies, the bowing, and the bogus humility, were designed to fix the damage caused by the former leader’s roughshod ways. Our president travels the world, painting a picture of America as a spoiled child, whining in the corner until getting its way or throwing an Iraq-style tantrum. For the last eight years, Obama implies, a tyrannical American president ignored the wishes of the world, flaunted our power, and treated the planet as little more than a plaything. One of the White House’s stated goals is to “repair America’s image” in the eyes of an international community fed up with our “cowboy diplomacy.”
Why then, when an earthquake leveled Haiti, did Obama pick up the phone and call that very cowboy for assistance? The president had Bill Clinton, the UN special envoy to Haiti, on his team. There was no need to bring in Bush. Yet there he was, front and center, ready to aid the administration and the Haitian people. If, as Obama claims, Bush is so universally despised, why would he want him to be the face of such a massive relief effort? If he was so painfully inept, why put him at the center of a situation that could have meant life or death to tens of thousands?
This week, the call went out again when the Northern Ireland peace process, begun 15 years ago under President Clinton, hit a snag. David Cameron, the leader of the United Kingdom’s Tory party, was threatening to hold the whole thing up. Obama, who’s snubbed England too many times to count, was apparently unable to do anything about it. So, who did he ask for help? Was it his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton? Was it the president who famously began the process? Neither.
(15 votes, average: 4.73 out of 5)
Loading ...
Obama and his freak show can’t get anything done because they believe their own press clippings and they aren’t that smart.
Impressive how you’ve managed to willfully miss the point of Mr. Laurie’s piece. Bravo.
Saying that Cameron has no sway in this matter is like saying Al Gore has no influence upon US environmetal groups. He may not be their leader, but they folow his lead. Labor’s accused Cameron of “egging the driver on in the train crash” of the peace process more than once. If his importance here is as minimal you’d liek it to be, Obama wouldn’t have wasted time getting Bush to call him.
Kooky Brit politics aside, the question posed in the piece remains. Why does the administration continually need support from their arch enemy? Is this State department that useless?
@tpaine
Cameron has no sway with the UUP leaders.. if they did then they would have voted yes as he is for the devolution and his party started the peace process, this is what the article you read about egging the driver on said
“It’s true that Mr Cameron has been embarrassed by his electoral partners’ conduct and he admitted in an interview today that he’d tried to persuade the UUP leader Sir Reg Empey to support the devolution plan.”
Oh and when Sir Reg Empey was giving a speech that your precious dubya attended good ole’ Georgy boy was so feckless that he couldn’t help insulting him by rolling his eyes and giving that ape like grin we all came to know and dread, so yes obama was a complete fool to ask a guy like that to interfere in such a delicate situation, i guess he didn’t realise that conservatives in the UK won’t listen to a moron just because they have similar political ideologies (and that’s a stretch of the imagination), and as he likely thought that bush would be best for the job it shows that he is willing to forgo criticism and ask for help from an opponent which proves he’s got strong character.
Obama believed Cameron was threatening the peace process.
Obama’s State Dept believed Cameron was threatening the peace process.
They felt it strongly enough that they enlisted the help of a man they’ve belittled for years.
Articles in the Guardian, Times, and Telegraph, have all made similar assertions, as has the labor party.
The forums of those newspapers are overflowing with people debating this issue, many of whom agree with Obama.
jj24, you disagree with Obama, the papers, and all those Brits in the forums. Looks like you’re the sole authority on the subject. Congratulations. Just rememebr: there are plenty of people on the other side of this fence.
Besides, the more you attack Bush, the more you remind people that Obama enlisted the aid of someone you call a “feckless moron” because he was too incompetent to handle the prblem himself.
I’m just going to correct you on your obvious ignorance of UK politics.. David Cameron has no power over what happens with regards to the vote in Northern Ireland and completely supports the devolution of policing and justice powers to Northern Ireland, your idea that he was threatening to hold the whole thing up just shows that you have done no real research, the party “threatening” to hold the whole thing up is the UUP (Ulster Unionist Party) who don’t really have enough votes to cause any trouble anyway, David Cameron’s Party is allied to the UUP but has no say in what they do whatsoever. Why don’t you try writing an unbiased (look it up if you’re not familiar with the word) article rather than slanting a story whichever way suits your political ideology…