Skip to content

A Spoonful of Saccharine: Geopolitical Realities No Barrier to Maddow Blaming Bush for All Problems

December 2, 2009

By now, you’ve all seen President Obama’s speech, wherein he agreed to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan (though most definitely not a surge of the kind used in Iraq and suggested by many for quite some time now, we are assured). Now, Rachel Maddow often tries to walk a peculiar line in which she appears anti-war and drifting close to anti-military, yet somehow still pro-defense and pro “a stronger America.” Obama’s latest decision would appear to fall afoul of her anti-war stances. One might think she would take this time to examine her stance, and wonder if it isn’t misguided if even her hero Obama has decided not to end the war in Afghanistan. But no, Tuesday night she just used it as a cheap excuse to blame everything on former president George W. Bush

Really, after the last eight years, one would think that “this is all Bush’s fault” would have run out of any sort of usefulness and been retired as the sad old fallback cliche that it is. But alas, no such luck.

Maddow described Obama’s speech as one he had to give because “[he] is stuck explaining his choice among all the, frankly, pretty bad options available to fix Bush‘s supposedly ‘begun well’ war.”

That last quote was, of course, an attempt to turn a normal phrase into a bush malapropism–an activity which apparently is still great fun at leftist dinner parties even after all these years. Then Maddow had this to say:

“President Bush bragged in a lot of places about how awesome he thought things had gone in Afghanistan, even as both Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban, not only survived, but survived unscathed and stayed in business as militant leaders, just now relocated eastward slightly.  If Omar went from Kandahar to Quetta in Pakistan, that means he moved slightly less than the distance between Wichita and Topeka.”

Now, Rhodes Scholar that Maddow is, we’re sure she’s aware that, despite the difference, if Omar and Co. moved just that far, the geopolitical realities changed drastically. Instead of being in Afghanistan–a country the US was at war with, and where troops could operate freely–he was in Pakistan, a touchy ally who would not take kindly to US troops operating openly on their soil.

She then went on to rant about the “secret CIA drone war” taking place in Pakistan at the direction of the former president. She asked why we have to use the CIA, which she says,

“effectively functions as a fifth secret branch of the U.S. military now”

(And wow, that must be a big secret, if second-rate political talk show hosts know all about it). She wondered aloud why we couldn’t use the real Army in Pakistan. If she really doesn’t know the answer to that, we’re both shocked and appalled.

We’re left with two alternatives–either Maddow doesn’t understand how her arguments contradict themselves–“Don’t escalate the war! Oh, but send our troops into ‘friendly’ nations without authorization!”–or she really wishes for us to declare war on Pakistan in the name of finding the remnants of Al Qaeda hiding there. Although really, if it’s the latter, she’s only taking her lead from former statements by then-candidate Obama. The only thread of logic we can see running through these actions and statements is simple–if it lets them blame it all on Bush, and cover their actions with the “cleaning up Bush’s mistakes” argument, then it’s a good argument.

After so long, doesn’t that logic ring awfully hollow to the rest of the country?

  1. politicalmoxie permalink
    December 2, 2009 2:40 pm

    Where have you been???

    Some think showcasing these ‘offensive peronality’ personalities is a waste of time. NOT ME!!!
    I love reading in print what I’ve been thinking.

  2. ant permalink
    December 2, 2009 3:21 pm

    My deepest sympathies go out to all writers who have to sit through this guy’s show.I cannot stomach more than five minutes of this oh so intelligent rhodes scholar.If he/she is so sure of osamas whereabouts maybe he/she or one of her five viewers should tell someone.

    • politicalmoxie permalink
      December 2, 2009 5:16 pm

      I torture myself and tune into other cable shows…then I find my self screaming at the TV. I can amaze even myself at how many four letter words I can fit into a vocal paragraph.

  3. Carterthewriter permalink
    December 2, 2009 3:27 pm

    As time passes and the memory of Bush’s tribulations fade, this woman will have absolutly nothing more to talk about.

    • themadjewess permalink
      December 2, 2009 3:58 pm

      Right, Carter, the buck STOPS with Obama. People cant just keep blaming a pres. that will be gone a year now.

      But this is the left, NEVER assume responsibility, always attack opposition, no matter what. Obama, soon, will come out, and say “I inherited this mess from Bush” yada yada, and the left will keep up with the Bush this, Bush that, and Obama will be a dictatator while they are blaming Bush.

  4. December 2, 2009 3:37 pm

    I miss George Bush.

    When he was President, I was employed, felt safer and felt freer.

    • Carterthewriter permalink
      December 2, 2009 4:40 pm

      Yeah, but those clowns took over Congress which drove our economy into the ground, especially using mortgage loans as a big source of campaign cash to finish off the Republican’s White House asperations. In the meantime, our economy tanked during the process. Barney still will not accept any blame for it, either. He did accept a huge chunk of money, though.

      It is strange how these people think, and even stranger that we vote for them.

  5. Ben permalink
    December 2, 2009 8:08 pm

    This rant is incoherent. Do you think the last eight years and the actions of the previous administration are somehow irrelevant just because they’re in the past and we have a new president? That we should just forget about all that and how it led to where we are today? And do you think that no one should report on what the CIA is doing? No where in her report did she advocate for invading Pakistan- she’s just telling us what’s going on and how complex it is.

    You are creating your own reality to suit your own biases. It’s lame and ridiculous. Any discussion of Afghanistan must include the pros and cons of the decisions the Bush/Cheney administration made in order to make informed decisions going forward.

    I appreciate being reminded of our history- so many like yourself so easily forget. Had this war been executed appropriately from the beginning, we could be in a much more favorable position now. That’s just the truth.

    Grow up and contribute meaningfully to the debate- or don’t say anything at all.

    • In the Know permalink
      December 3, 2009 7:00 am

      Meaningful debate=blame Bush? I think not. The object of this “meaningless rant” is to point out that “O” acts as though his decisions are somehow required because of things Bush did. Did he choose to run for president knowing there was a war at hand or was it some big secret you leftists were unaware of. Grow up and take responsibilty for your actions. Or is that something only us “kids” do while you adults run around pointing fingers but not actually doing anything. Congratulations, no matter how much you or your lying media denies it, you are failures and so is your chosen one. The truth always has a friend, it’s called time.

    • Dream Killer permalink
      December 3, 2009 10:19 am

      Yes, it SHOULD have been ran as a WAR! NOT the kind of limp-wristed crap spewing all over the media about how the enemy combatants have been interrogated. After all, it’s probably folks like you who think they’ll tell us about all of their operations against the US while sitting in Lazy-Boys drinking tea. Go back to bed and leave this space for relevant comments!

  6. ant permalink
    December 3, 2009 9:00 am

    In The Know,you are right on. Noone forced dear leader to run for office.

  7. saja permalink
    December 3, 2009 11:10 am

    Dreamkiller, is english your second language? Please clean things up a bit so the rest of us don’t have to struggle through your comments. And by the way, the above post is about Maddow, not your lazee boi.

    • Dream Killer permalink
      December 3, 2009 12:12 pm


      Thanks for the invitation to clarify. My earlier post was in response to Bens analogy of the obvious kool-aid drinker Maddow is. It is precisely diatribes like that which weaken our nation and open us up for potentially horrific scenarios. It is clear that Maddow didn’t appreciate our “handling” of the terrorists we’d captured. What she (conveniently) fails to acknowledge is that it was precisely THOSE techniques which enabled us to avoid at least 3 other terrorist attacks on US assets overseas. Sorry if my thread was too convoluted to follow easily, I just try to keep things brief, so I tend to condense. English is most definitely my first language, yours?

Comments are closed.