J's Cafe Nette

Archive for the ‘BDS’ Category

Andrew Brietbart writing for The Washington times explains the extension of BDS far beyond former President Bush, followed by a succinct showing of the methods employed by the Obama Administration to advance the “virus”:

Now that Mr. Bush is quietly going about his retirement, this strain of rage – the GWB43 virus – has spread like wildfire, finding unsuspecting targets, each granting us greater perspective into what not long ago seemed like a mysterious phenomenon isolated only on our 43rd president.

The first person to catch the virus was Sarah Palin, whose family also was infected, including, unforgivably, her children.

Then it was Joe the Plumber, for asking a question.

Next were the Mormons.

Then it was Rush Limbaugh – who hit back.

Next, tax-day “tea party” attendees were “tea bagged.”

Tweet This Post

When I heard Sean Hannity’s interview of Rush Limbaugh and he asked him if he wanted Obama to fail I heard Limbaugh answer that he wanted his socialist policies to fail.

This has been red meat for those who didn’t hear it and still want to take it out of context.

Well, now, I just ran across this article in which James Carville and pollster Stanley Greenberg had held a meeting with the press and said they actually wanted Bush to fail. Not his policies, but his presidency.

Unfortunately, it happened on 9/11/2001 and when news of the terrorist attacks was known Carville told the press to forget everything they had said because “this changes everything.”

The news media was right in not telling the story then, but why didn’t they tell it later? Say, about as fast as they misquoted Limbaugh.

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: “I certainly hope he doesn’t succeed.”

Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.

“We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I’m wanting them to turn against him,” Greenberg admitted.

The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: “They don’t want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails.”

Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: “Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!”

The press followed Carville’s orders, never reporting his or Greenberg’s desire for Bush to fail. …

…That omission stands in stark contrast to the feeding frenzy that ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. The press devoted wall-to-wall coverage to the remark, suggesting that Limbaugh and, by extension, conservative Republicans, were unpatriotic.

“The most influential Republican in the United States today, Mr. Rush Limbaugh, said he did not want President Obama to succeed,” Carville railed on CNN recently. “He is the daddy of this Republican Congress.”

[Emphasis mine. Admin]

Sorry, fellas, but he only failed in the minds of those you poisoned into Bush Derangement Syndrome, who only hated him because (fill in the blanks.)

You and your party made it as miserable as you could for his presidency and continue to blame him for everything that has happened or will happen in the past, present and future.

Please, spare me the faux outrage.

Update: Carville felt he had to explain his comment Wednesday:

James Carville fired back at radio host Rush Limbaugh on Wednesday, who earlier in the day had taken the Democratic strategist to task for saying of President Bush in 2001, “I certainly hope he doesn’t succeed.”

Carville told CNN that unlike Limbaugh, who recently said he wants President Obama to fail, Carville retracted his own missive — uttered to a group of reporters on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001 — just minutes later, when he learned of the terrorist attacks on America.

“Thank God that I had the good sense to realize that the United States was at war and that changed everything, Carville said. “Once I found out that the country was at war, I said: Whatever I said, disregard it; it’s inoperative.”

“Unlike Mr. Limbaugh,” he added, who “kept insisting that he wanted the president to fail at a time of war.”

Carville was responding to Limbaugh’s statement earlier Wednesday in an exclusive FOX News report on Carville’s 2001 comments.

That’s strange. I don’t recall Carville being concerned about wanting Bush to fail during a war when it was convenient to do so. Of course, he had to wait until he and his cohorts ginned up the press so the people would be against defending ourselves from terrorists.

Tweet This Post

Martin Lewis has written a piece at HuffPo, calling for General Pace as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to arrest President Bush and relieve him of his duties of Commander in Chief.

General Pace – you have the power to fulfill your responsibility to protect the troops under your command. Indeed you have an obligation to do so.

You can relieve the President of his command.

Not of his Presidency. But of his military role as Commander-In-Chief.

You simply invoke the Uniform Code Of Military Justice.

The United States Code: Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 47, Subchapter X, Section 934.

Article 134 reads:

“Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.”

Article 133 reads:

“Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

A gentleman is understood to have a duty to avoid dishonest acts, displays of indecency, lawlessness, dealing unfairly, indecorum, injustice, or acts of cruelty.

To be crystal clear – I am NOT advocating or inciting you to undertake any illegal act, insurrection, mutiny, putsch or military coup. You are an honorable patriotic man.

I am NOT advocating or inciting you to interfere with any of the civilian duties of the President. That would not be a legal action by you.

However you have the legal responsibility – under Article 134 of the Uniform Code Of Military Justice – to protect the troops under your command by relieving the President of his MILITARY command.

Never before have we ever had anyone call upon our military to overthrow our elected president, and regardless of Lewis’ play on words this is exactly the outcome that such an action would be.

Their link will be removed from our blogroll forthwith.

This is sedition and I will not condone it on our blog.

Update: Guss and I have discussed this and are in agreement we no longer want to link to HuffPo.

Hat Tip: Captain’s Quarters.

Tweet This Post

I just read this post by the Anchoress in which she references this post on Newsbusters.org talking about a reporter for Newsweek saying President Bush is mentally ill.

I have to admit my cheeks are flaming red and hot right now after reading this piece of trash.

No one, and I mean no one can possibly diagnose someone as being mentally ill just from watching him and not talking to him.

I’ve been to a psychiatrist for treatment of depression. I still go for med checks every six months and I can tell you a diagnosis was not made in my case until several visits.

Yes, he knew I was depressed after interviewing me the first time, but it took a lot of work on my part as well as his to get to the root of the problem. I am offended by the Newsweek article, and every person with a conscience should be.

I’ll give a quote from the Anchoress:

First, we get an elementary course on “denial:”

Denying the evidence of your eyes is the most extreme form of the coping mechanism called denial. But denial comes in milder forms as well. Parents refuse to believe their child is on drugs; that baggie under his bed contained oregano. A husband maintains his wife cannot be cheating; those late nights she spends with a friend are purely platonic.

Yes, insisting that someone “lied” about intelligence, no matter how many times you’re reminded that the same intelligence was was being fully touted by world leadership for almost three years before the man ever got into office…that’s denial.

Let’s see on what Newsweek is basing its quack diagnosis, shall we?

Bush could, of course, know full well that the United States cannot achieve its goals in Iraq. If so, then he is lying not to himself but to us (for reasons scientists would have a field day with, but that’s another story). But while it’s always risky to psychoanalyze a politician from afar, a few things in his past are consistent with the capacity for denial. When he was 7, his baby sister died of leukemia. Bush, while certainly not denying her death, tried to cheer up his grieving mother, saying everything would be OK. Also, those who abuse alcohol, as Bush has admitted doing, typically need to see the world in black and white in order to stay on the wagon. “It’s how they control their addiction,” says Sulkowicz. “It reflects an inability or refusal to see shades of gray.”

My goodness, that is a masterpiece of ugliness and “nuanced” aggression based on nothing more than someone sitting around musing. In one paragraph – and with the seemingly reluctant admission that all this musing may mean nothing – we get:

1) He might not only be lying to himself (because he must know that his “war is lost,”) but he’s also LYING TO US
(Mr. Subliminal reinforces the “he’s a liar – Bush lied, people died” narrative).

2) When he was 7, he tried to comfort his grieving mother with all the compassion, love and clumsiness of a 7 year old.
(Mr. Subliminal says Bush is mother-hung, traumatized and guilt-stricken by his sister’s death and that’s why he’s retreated into fantasy land!)

When my Elder Son was 7 I lost a baby during pregnancy, and as I wept my son – full of compassion and wanting to do anything to make me feel better – climbed onto my bed and hugged me and told me “it will be alright, Mommy, it will be alright.”

I suppose my son is “mentally ill” too. Either that or Newsweek has made a serious miscalculation, here. Every parent who is honest understands precisely what passed between Dubya and his mother at that moment, and it is nearly obscene to see it painted as anything less than profound and innocent love. It is low, hateful, needlessly spiteful and quite honestly it says much more about the writer than it does about the president.

To me, in my amateur analysis, I can’t help but wonder (as I wondered about Ann Coulter) if there is a humanity gene missing here, or maybe there really is such a thing as a derangement syndrome at work. Either way, that is the sleaziest thing I’ve ever seen. And how horrible for Barbara Bush to read it, to remember that moment and see it dragged so recklessly. mindlessly and spitefully through the muck by such an adolescent mind.

Oh, and don’t forget, the president is a drunk and only sees things in black and white. I wonder how many of our presidents have been secret drunks while in the White House?

I am infuriated and don’t even want to entertain the notion this writer is right. She’s not a psychiatrist and she’s out of her realm in saying the president is mentally ill, but that will be the new battle cry from those with Bush Derangement Syndrome. She fits right in and is leading that battle. She’s disgusting!

Tweet This Post

From Right Wing News we get this quote on the Governor of Kansas and her attempt to blame the Bush administration for not helping during the recent tornado:

Here’s a quote from a New York Times article on the attempt of Kathleen Sebelius to blame George Bush for her slow and incompetent response to a tornado in Kansas,

As State Senator Donald Betts Jr., Democrat of Wichita, put it: “We should have had National Guard troops there right after the tornado hit, securing the place, pulling up debris, to make sure that if there was still life, people could have been saved. The response time was too slow, and it’s becoming a trend. We saw this after Katrina, and it’s like history repeating itself.”

Now comes the observation of a Kansas resident courtesy of American Thinker: Read the rest of this entry »

Tweet This Post