Gotta get it off my chest. Obama sucked up to George W Bush yesterday & it almost made me puke

When I heard with my own ears yesterday Obama saying what a good man Bush is, it made my skin crawl. It also made me realize that there is no hope of Barack going after Bush with any kind of special prosecutors or anything else, once he's in office.



IMO, the extent to which Obama paid Bush such generous compliments yesterday was totally unnecessary, and his characterization of Bush was absolutely false and misleading.

I've complained very little about Obama, if at all, but this was extremely disappointing to say the least.

:puke:

flee Washington. If they think their asses are on the line, then they will be shredding documents, killing off people, and pardoning every neo-con around.

Just because Obama sucks up to them, as he did with Bush, you think it's going to take them off their guard? Gimme a break. Bush and his co-horts are crooked but they're not stupid when it comes to something like that. They'll be shredding everything regardless.

to 'em before they start up the paper shredders.

:sarcasm:

Hey, a guy can dream...

Listening to some people on this forum, I think they actually believe that.

"George Bush is a murderous asshole who hates his country and probably beats his wife and kicks his dog"? Obama has nothing to lose by being gracious, and saying bad things about Bush, even if they're true, wouldn't do him any good. He's starting out on a positive, magnanimous note. I have no problem with him not calling Bush a douchebag to his face.

Obama did not have to answer King's question by sucking up to Bush to the extent he did. Listen to the entire interview if you can find it somewhere.

:puke:

I really admire Obama's sense of diplomacy but, zheesh, enough with the good will already!

He doesn't have to say anything BAD, but the wimpy dems have GOT to learn to KEEP THEIR TRAPS SHUT!

JUST DON'T SAY ANYTHING!!!

is that really so hard a concept?!?!

Why do they actually GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to PRAISE the WAR CRIMINALS?!!!!!

by being decent, he sets the tone for discussion of his changes as one of moderate discussion instead of partisan yelling.


He keeps his cool and controls his emotions. Something you should consider.

for as long as Bush gets off scott free with his crimes.

a grip.

once a president gets out the door, he will probably never be prosecuted. So next time, bitch at pelosi or maybe just hop in your wayback machine and work harder to stop bush from winning.

OPs like this one suggest that people allow emotions to get in the way of rational thought.

quite a few people, even on this thread, that understand why Obama is taking the approach he is. There would be no benefit in his attacking Bush at this point in time. I am confident that I dislike George Bush and his policies as much as you do, and would like to see: (a) high profile democrats speak openly about what type of man he is; and (b) Bush held responsible, in every way possible, for his actions as President. However, I do not think that it would be helpful for Obama to do other than he is at this time, and I know that it would be harmful if he were to attack him now.

Of course it would be harmful for him to attack Bush. That's not what this OP was about. Not even close.

take a step back, and re-read your OP, and a few of the responses you've posted on the thread, such as #10.

take a step back and realize that your posts aren't as perfect as you think they are either.

Perhaps you should also realize that 99% of the time, you, meaning YOU, H20 Man, post what people WANT to hear instead of touching upon the tougher viewpoints. Ever think about that, oh honorable H20 Man?

edit for clarity

that rather than being able to engage in a conversation about the topic at hand, you feel the need to resort to personal attacks. But, in order to answer your charges here, I'll respond.

My posts are not perfect. I've never claimed that they are. Nor do others identify my posts as perfect. Having been here since 2003, I am fully aware of that. Perhaps the more important thing, however, is those times when I post in error, I have no problem admitting it.

Second, considering that my posts generally sink with about 4 or 5 responses, I doubt that they are what people "WANT" to hear. And that is not by coincidence, for I have never had a goal of posting what others might "WANT" to hear.

Regarding "tougher": I am fully confident that, in the example of working towards the goal of having people from the Bush administration held responsible for their crimes, that I have done -- at very least -- as much as you have. So I'm not sure what area you thinking of, when you talk about how tough you are. Perhaps you could explain.

that you are saying that I can't engage in a conversation about the topic at hand without resorting to personal attacks when it was you, my friend, who started with the personal attacks, only in a more subdued manner, but none the less still an attack. Was it not you who replied in post 44 to mkultra in a condescending manner about allowing "emotions to get in the way of rational thought?" I don't think that was meant as a compliment to me, lol. Then you followed that one up with your last post, another condescending remark right in the first half of your first sentence of that post. When it comes to personal attacks, you're as good as the next guy, but you just try and disguise them more than some do.



ummm, I never talked about how tough I am. I said 99% of the time you post what people want to hear instead of touching on the tougher viewpoints. Okay, the 99% part is an exagerration, but how often do you or anyone else start threads that might go against the grain, even if it's the right thing to do? That was my point.

is, without question, an emotional statement. Nothing more, nothing less. Would you really suggest otherwise?

When someone says George W Bush is "a good man", do you agree with them and keep a straight face or something just to hide your emotions?

{1} "So what" -- it was a response to your last post, in which you took offense to my having made note that it was a case of emotional vs rational thinking. As I've quoted numerous times on DU -- though never to popular response, I endorse Ben Franklin's saying, "When passions drive, let reason hold the reins."

{2} It depends entirely upon context. I had a friend say Bush was a good man once in a public setting. I explained to him why I thought Bush was a terrible human being. He may not have changed his mind, but he said that he had not previously thought about it in the way I had.

In public debates, I enjoy a more confrontational style. (I'm not talking about the internet, which combines public and private aspects.) There is not a person on earth who I would have any problem debating Bush's qualities in an open forum. But my emotions would play no role in such a debate: I would take full advantage of the opposition's, and perhaps play to those of the audience.

My kids are waiting in the car to take me to the store. I'll be back later, and would be pleased to continue this conversation.

but just let me know who gets the best of who on your way to the store...you or your kids. ;)

My daughters picked out two Obama books (one hardcover); three Obama magazines; a "special edition" Obama newspaper; and an Obama calander. These all from a grocery store. Then, of course, select food to consume while they read.

Yikes!

So I guess I can figure out who got the best of who, in that transaction at least!

...with your 2 points, even though I don't think passion (emotion) always gets in the way of rational thinking. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.



Now THIS is what I like the most...when you get talking "life"...and about "people stuff" in that manner. Good stuff.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That is the problem. Obama's praise appears to exonerate Bush of any blame for our catastrophic situation. when he says that Bush made the best decisions at the time. I don't buy that in the least. If he did the best than maybe we should have amended the Constitution and let him go at it for eight more years. I guess we really didn't need a CHANGE in course and that it was just campaign propaganda.

{1} During the campaign, when Obama spoke of Bush, he did address Bush's responsibility in the problems our nation faces. But he did not engage in a personal attack on Bush. Nor did he engage in personal attacks on his opponents in the primary, or against his opposition in the general election.

He did say that he was willing to talk to the leaders of other nations, that many consider to be our enemies. Obama was attacked for saying this. I suspect those attacks were not rooted in a fear that Obama would engage in personal attacks against those "enemies."

{2} At this point in time, the things that Obama is saying about Bush stand in sharp contrast to the negative things that others, including some republicans, are saying. There are, at times, definite advantages in creating contrasts.

{3} I would like Bush et al held responsible for their crimes. Thus, I do not want Obama saying negative things about him right now. There is, as everyone familiar with the Constitution knows, a separation of powers in the federal government. It is never good -- and, indeed, always bad -- for a person in Obama's position to speak harshly about a person, in the context of a situation where that person could potentially be charged with a crime. An example that many DUers might be familiar with would be when Nixon told reporters that Manson was "guilty."

anything at all". Ordering Abu Ghraib was a bad decision by Bush**.

I can't see any benefit to Obama taking cheap shots at Bush on his way out. Obama may just need that one Republican that he didn't piss off unnecessarily.

....when it is appropriate to attack bush/cheney, inc..

i think it is your rationality that is clouded-by what exactly i don't know.

Getting mired in hate and bitterness would solve nothing and makes us no better than they are.

are you speaking of?

I'm a democrat, as are most of my friends. We are engaged in an organized effort to advocate having Bush et al prosecuted for their crimes.

As a democrat, I recognize that the majority of elected democratic officials in Washington, DC, have failed in their duty to uphold the Constitution, and to address the crimes and abuses of the power of office that Bush, Cheney, etc have engaged in.

I noted in an OP that I posted last night that one of the things that I like best about this period of time is that people are beginning to connect it with our nation's history. This is the exact opposite of what Bush-Cheney attempted to do, which was to instill enough fear and paranoia in the public's mind, as to allow them to cut the people off from their history.

This is important, in the sense that even on an internet political discussion site that is supposed to be progressive-liberal, we see people saying that upholding the Constitution and rule of law is not as "important" as many other issues facing us. I do not think there could be a better example of ignorance that results from being cut off from our history, anywhere.

In order to make the case, to reduce the fear and paranoia, and to help others recognize the necessity of upholding the Constitution and rule of law, we will do better to focus on the rational, rather than the emotional.

I certainly recognize that you have every right to disagree with me on this.

:crazy:

If we are going to have a chance to solve this nation's numerous problems, we have to come together and work together as a country. Progressives cannot do it by themselves. Obama's comments were in that spirit.

punishing those who break them, whether they're your best friend or worst enemy.

If "being decent" means going along to get along for politics' sake, (i.e. "triangulation") then, no, he is not making the right moves.

that not being the president yet makes enforcement impossible.

Time will tell us what we need to know.

time will tell as time often does.

...to say the least.:banghead:

I'm sure he loves Laura for standing by him all these years. The woman is a saint or just too lazy to get up and leave her cushy life.

If he loved this country, he would have taken better care of it.
Nothing "best" about 99.9% of the decisions he made. Most were wrong, dangerous, divisive, irresponsible, greedy, selfish.

How he keeps fawning over Bush is very disturbing. What the hell is up?

Although I agree any graciousness to *ush is pukey but you didn't finish the quote and that is not fair!:spank:

“That does not detract from my assessment that over the last several years we have made a series of bad choices and we are now going to be inheriting the consequences of a lot of those bad choices,” Obama said.

King was fishing and ya just don't want to take away from your inauguration by bitchin about your predecessor.

Obama can leave that up to us and others cause that's all I've been hearing from the talkin heads is what a fuck up *ush has been

Hillary wouldn't have either. Only if we'd elected somebody like Kucinich would the * criminals be forced to face justice. Makes me :puke: too, but we have to be grateful that the country has a shot at turning itself around economically, socially, and internationally.

“That does not detract from my assessment that over the last several years we have made a series of bad choices and we are now going to be inheriting the consequences of a lot of those bad choices,” Obama said.

You know a little honesty would be nice - you know, get the rest of the conversaton, keep things in context.

If I said "I like red but I prefer blue" you would fucking buy me a red sweater instead of a sweater in my favorite color of blue.

:argh:

I didn't miss any of the article. I read it all. I posted the part that made me sick. It's completely relevant to my post, so if you don't like it then just start another thread and post the parts you find suitable. Maybe it'll make you feel better about agreeing with Obama that Bush is such a fine person. lol

I see your post as dishonest,you know how you focus on the polite comment and ignore the criticism.

He said a good man that loves his family and country - that is not a fine person, you can't even get your exaggerations and poutrage correct.

You'll be much happier over at FR.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Took you long enough.

:hi:

I'm disappointed and saddened when DUers do the same thing.

Peace:thumbsup:

& peace to you :thumbsup:

who is he talking about making these choices? not me. certainly bush is in that category, and obama may be too (fisa), but not me.

opposition to the op is total obamaphilia and to democratic party suck ass support for the status quo. it is quite frank;y disgusting.

bush is a criminal and there is no acceptable reason for obama to say the opposite.

the fact that he didn't even watch Bush's farewell address (Obama was seen leaving for dinner at 8:01 EDT right when Bush had started speaking) and the fact that he complained about the Blair House fiasco ("I wish I didn't have to move twice in 5 days") is more insight to how he really feels about Bush. But he's being gracious as always. He's a far classier person than you or I ever would be towards them and he's far classier than 99.9% of the politicians in Washington.

John King, host of CNN's new show State of the Union, sat down with President-elect Obama to discuss the economy.

• Obama says he always thought Bush was a 'good guy'

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2009/01/16/sots.tsr.king.obama.intv.cnn?iref=videosearch

and if Obama investigated and prosecuted Bush, it wouldn't be for being a bad person or for not loving his family, it would be for crimes he committed.

He's just being magnanimous.

It isn't going too far. In the context of his interview, he didn't have to go as far as he did with his compliments, which were so far from the truth that it was alarming to hear him say those things about Bush.

Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree, I guess. :)

Was that before or after you called for him to drop out in March of last year?

Did you forget that DU has archives? And you've left behind some whoppers.

and you havent been since the primaries.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Obama can be magnanimous at his own leisure, but on CNN, two days before the inauguration, he's setting the tone for the public debate.

For 8 years no-one in the mainstream media dared speak the truth about Bush. Now, with statements like these, Obama ensures this will not change.

First off it is Obama's style. Also what is he supposed to say the weekend before a highly anticipated inauguration? The news shows would be going on 24x7 if he said anything close to negative. Thus creating a very divisive atmosphere. Finally, my guess is starting on Wednesday or Thursday you will see Democrats eviscerating Bush.

about Democrats eviscerating Bush starting on the timeframe you're predicting. That would be very very nice, although I'll have to see it to believe it.

Trashing the President's predecessor is a job for subordinates and fellow party members--not the President himself. I don't ever think we heard Bush himself say anything blatantly awful on its face about Clinton. Sure, his advisors, subordinates, and friends mercilessly trashed Clinton (and still are), but Dumbass largely kept himself out of it.

it would be nice if Obama chose not to insult the intelligence of every sane person on the fucking PLANET.

You just can't call a war criminal sadistic murderer a good guy with a straight face, unless you are his attorney.

Obama just said fuck you to everyone who isn't part of the "Bush is a religious man, he's just like me, and I'd like to have a beer with him" crowd.

he has done this before -sucking up to his opponents.

Note how disappointed his friends were with him.


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedailymirror/2008/09/barack-obama-ha.html

Honestly, he bashed him pretty good this last year. So much so that Laura was even hurt :). I think the guy can say a gracious thing once in a while without being called on it. Can't he?

You're fucking insane if you think Obama saying something vaguely positive and bland about Bush in response to a question is some sort of suck-up. What was he supposed to say? "George Bush is an insane, murderous cokehead who worships the devil, beats his wife, has sex with his children and kicks his dog"?

Seriously. This is paranoia on a fucking scale I can't even fathom.

Anything more than that would be completely unnecessary and untrue. The guy is a fucking murderer for chrise sake.

Obama himself probably can't do it because he's got this whole bipartisanship thing going on in order to rescue what's left of our ravaged economy. But if he prevents the incoming AG or anyone else from taking action against Bush, Cheney, or anyone else, then our nation has had it.

It appears to me that Obama has made a very bland statement about the chimp. Damned him with faint praise if you will.

"Loves his family and loves his country" - probably Tim McVeigh did too.

"..the best decisions he could.." - but being a moran, these decisions have screwed the country royally.

You can read anything you want into these remarks.

And compared to what Bill has said I think Obama was pretty restrained.

Though you don't always have to like it, you might as well get used to it. I wouldn't have expected he behave differently toward a predecessor than he would toward anyone. It is who he is.

is in thinking that they play for different teams. Obama and the Clintons are on one platoon and Bush and Cheney and the others are on another platoon -- but it's the same fucking team, financed by the same people, and taking orders from the same people.

We are a country with one party -- The Corporate Party. It has two right wings -- the Democratic right wing and the Republican right wing.

Once you understand that, everything else becomes clear.

get back to a real two party system, if in fact we ever had one.

Resist!

They would like it if we split off and started an irrelevant 3rd party, so that's out of the question.

I could be king -- I truly don't know what to do, short of revolution -- or a mass awakening of people to realize they are being screwed by the corporations.

Doesn't preclude that he's a dumb as a rock, and a self-centered war-monger with delusions of grandeur who could only make destructive choices. I'd say he "loves his country" in a Munchausen-by-proxy kind of way...

suck up to someone who is hated by nearly everyone and has no power. It was more about Obama trying to be gracious and decent.

Bush has been beaten to a pulp by the media and the public -- and deservedly so -- but it does Obama no good to kick a bloody pulp as he walks by it. Instead he offered words of decency, and it was the right thing to do.

Bush will be judged by God, history and, hopefully, the law.

than sucking up to him to the unnecessary extent that he did in that interview.

And not using attack language. Attacking Bush would be unlike Obama. But I'd leave it there. Certainly Bush didn't make the best decisions he could, and he's not a good man - that whole family is sick, completely out of touch, arrogant, and deluded.

and they are such NASTY individuals to boot.

I just wish Obama didn't go as far as he did with the praise. There isn't a single Democrat on this board who would ever agree with Obama that George Bush is "a good man" or that he made "the best decisions that he could at times under some very difficult circumstances."

I think it's the ***"I think personally he is a good man"*** part that really bugs me. Bush is not a good man, not anything close. He is the worst human being on Earth.

But if he gets this country moving again, I won't care about some words now. At least there is hope for the first time in a long time.

and pretty much the entire world, outside of a few brain-dead neo-cons, is looking forward to Tuesday when the WORST man on Earth is no longer making ANY decisions that will affect us.

Thank you for your posts. I feel better now :)

I'm watching Obama speak right now, if you want to turn it on. :hi:

My wife was just hollering for me to come downstairs to watch him, too. Good times ahead! :hi:

and frankly i think Bush is really just a twisted person. I would stop short of saying that he is rotten through and through though.

:shrug:

which in itself speaks volumes in that the only good thing he could come up with was his departure. I hate what Bush has done but I wouldn't bash him publicly right now either. It's in extremely poor taste in my opinion but then, I am one of those who can feel empathy for even the vilest of human creatures.

And if you listened to the interview. The context in which he made those comments, were not praising Bush. He said it like he was almost trying hard to say something nice about Bush. GO WATCH THE INTERVIEW.

But again this is the typical bullshit overreaction, thats becoming too common

He's always the gentleman towards others, especially, when those certain others don't deserve it.

I would have been far less gracious, and well, far less Presidential.

I suppose that even after eight years of Bush, a certain level of decorum is expected of our leaders. Doesn't really strike me as a big deal.

I still get a kick out of Obama's description of the first time he met Bush in the White House, in The Audacity of Hope, where Bush greeted him by offering him a squirt of hand sanitizer...

It's respect for the office. Something very few know anything about. I'm surprised at this post. You know better.

if I feel he deserves it, such as in this instance for sucking up to Bush and for praising Bush with the complete and utter nonsense that he bestowed upon him.



Did you mean lighten up or light up? :evilgrin:

I'm heading for a scotch.

That's what I thought you meant ;)

I was going to say he kissed Bush's ass, but I thought that might piss a few people off, even more than sucking up did :evilgrin:

Obama has never said anything impolite about Bush.
Rather, he damns him with faint praise and gives backhanded compliments.

the first one is moot, the second one doesn't say he made the right decisions, just the ones Bush's feebled mind could make

his affability.

But being frat boy president "nice", and a "good man" doesn't still mean he isn't a sociopath.

The pRes can come across as a good guy one-on-one but that's typical of most sociopaths. They are masters at affability which is how they survive as long as they do. Bush has received a lot of media massaging that insulates his utter depravity - phrasing his lack of moral compass in jingoistic terms: patriotism, service and religion.

I only hope Obama has seen through this. He knows that Bush's sociopathology warrants him seeming to be a "good guy" while still being the ultimate bad guy.

I'm rather surprised that you're giving it any undeserved attention.

:shrug:

...so instead of fixin shit that's broke.

What a quaint concept. Go team go!!!

He didn't have to go out of his way to PRAISE the WAR CRIMINALS!!!

I am so fucking sick of this shit...

He doesn't have to say anything even close to the TRUTH - all they have to do is JUST KEEP THEIR TRAPS SHUT!!!

we'll be okay. :hug:

do, mtnsnake?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

How many times have you seen a guy being fired in disgrace while the President gives a eulogy on what a great job he did and how everyone is sad he wants to go spend more time with his family?

Am I supposed to know you or something?

opposition.

You won!

I'm not the one who is acting like the "opposition" on this thread. You and all the other ones who think you can crucify someone who dares to raise a single complaint about Barack are the ones who are flipping out of control about it.

Then again, we all know why a few people here (not you) are taking such exception to this. It's because they can't stomach the fact that I like Hillary and Obama both. Anyone who says anything differently is only kidding themselves. Anyone who supported Hillary in the past is not welcome here any longer, and that is the cold hard truth. That's what this is all about with the ones who caused all the flaming previously, that the mods had to clean up after. So it's not that anyone is acting like the opposition, it's that anyone who once supported Hillary is treated like the opposition here.

He will be the President of all the people, there is nothing gained by reckless public comments, he was prudent and gracious, as the occasion demanded.

Okay.

Otherwise you would accept the fact that some people can support all Democrats (with exceptions of course, like Pelosi and Lieberman AFAIC), not just one. Just like you have the right to post your opinions on this thread, I have the right to criticize Obama for something I feel needs to be addressed, even though I supported him as much as anyone during the campaign. If you agree with Obama that Bush is "a good man", then that's your problem not mine.

and talk about how Bush is the great satan all the time? If I wanted a President who acted like a petty, partisan asshole I would have voted for Bush or McCain.

And this game is getting a little old:
"It also made me realize that there is no hope of Barack going after Bush with any kind of special prosecutors or anything else, once he's in office."

Just like one of Obama's early cabinet picks meant liberals would be shut out of the cabinet, wouldn't have a voice, and Obama would do nothing good for the next four years, right? That's a completely unrealistic prediction to make. If you're that negative and hopeless then its a personality issue and you'll probably see nothing good in Obama until you start taking anti-depressants.

That would be a huge insult to Satan. :evilfrown:

You'd have to be pretty ignorant to come up with a translation like that. Oh the drama! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Yes, it seem like you want someone who always trashes Bush like Chavez does. Or maybe you want a nasty partisan like Karl Rove. A lot of Americans are sick of the nasty garbage and that's one reason so many of us voted for Obama. His victory is in large part a repudiation of the kind of nasty, mean spirited partisanship you're apparently looking for.

I just didn't like him going as far as he did with the Bush praise. Arrest me for that why don't you. Good fucking grief.

Maybe you could have left it at that statement instead of all the mind reading about how Obama won't investigate Bush's crimes

Obama is smart, and a diplomat.
He'll leave the real analysis to Olbermann and Jon Stewart!

Anyone who supported Hillary or Bill at one time or another is treated like the opposition here, no matter how much they supported Obama during the cammpaign and still support him. They are no longer welcome on this forum by more than a few people who think they run the place.

Oh, and thanks, my friend :)