I think that’s safe to say. Seriously. I mean, here we are in 2013, nearly 5 years after he left office and he still controls EVERYTHING. Timothy Egan in the New York Times, no less:
He’s there in every corner of Congress where a microphone fronts a politician, there in Russia and the British Parliament and the Vatican. You may think George W. Bush is at home in his bathtub, painting pictures of his toenails, but in fact he’s the biggest presence in the debate over what to do in Syria.
[Bush] gave every world leader, every member of Congress a reason to keep the dogs of war on a leash. The isolationists in the Republican Party are a direct result of the Bush foreign policy. A war-weary public that can turn an eye from children being gassed — or express doubt that it happened — is another poisoned fruit of the Bush years.
Yes, GW Bush is everywhere. Timothy really believes that the neocon warmongers have transformed into doves because Bush’s policy pushed them to isolationism via weariness. Seriously. This isn’t just obtuse, or disconnected, it’s insane. At this point these Alinsky worshipping liars don’t even know what they make up versus what’s real.
Democratic Strategist James Carville had this exchange with Bill O’Reilly:
CARVILLE: You know, what I would say and maybe a little bit of a different view here. I think what really is freaking people out is the incompetence of the Bush administration in Iraq.
O’REILLY: You’re going to blame Bush?
CARVILLE: Of course, the Iraq thing is why people have so much trepidation about going into Syria. They said the last time we went over there, look what happened. I really think this has something to do with it.
So Carville posits that trepidation over Bush’s incompetence is causing the neocons to go all flower-child now that Obama is in the drivers’ seat.
Then there’s Chris Matthews who went on air and made the case that Republicans “don’t hate war, they hate this guy, Barack Hussein Obama” pointing to a picture of the president standing with Joe Biden, according to NewsBusters. “They just cannot stomach the fact that they might be agreeing with him,” Schultz added. … “The reason Obama can’t build a coalition of allies is because the Bush administration lied to the world about the war in Iraq. We now have a credibility issue because of this crowd.”
So Bush’s lies destroyed American credibility forever while all Obama’s detractors are simply seething haters.
All of it worth a bucket of piss. The more I read of Progressive notions of what motivates Conservatives, the more I see projection. Matthews could be talking about Obama and it would seem more appropriate: “The reason Obama can’t build a coalition of allies is because his administration lied to the world about many things. We now have a credibility issue because of this crowd.” Does this seem so far fetched or detached from reality?
What about Carville? Tweak his statement for Obama and it’s much more plausible: “You know, what I would say and maybe a little bit of a different view here. I think what really is freaking people out is the incompetence of this administration in Benghazi. Of course, the Libya thing is why people have so much trepidation about going into Syria. They said the last time we ran into trouble, look what happened. I really think this has something to do with it.” Again I ask, what’s so hard to believe?
Then Egan’s piece with a twist: “Obama gave every world leader, every member of Congress a reason to keep the dogs of war on a leash. The isolationists in the Republican Party are a direct result of the murky Obama foreign policy. A war-weary public that can turn an eye from children being gassed — or express doubt that it happened — is another poisoned fruit of the Anti-War Movement unleashed during the Bush Presidency.” Is that even a slight stretch?
The answer is self-evident. So here we are, with Bush’s name in the blame spotlight five years after he left office and ten years after the start of the Iraq War. Obama is supposed to be the light bringer. The oceans stopped their rise upon his inauguration. The most transparent administration ever. The greatest orator of our time. The end of Cowboy Diplomacy and the initiation of world trust and peace. A new dawn for the middle class. A new world of Hope and Change. But it turns out that in reality Obama is utterly helpless, hidden in the shadow of the omnipotent evil of George W Bush. Nothing Obama and his experts do seem to have any beneficial impact, whether we’re talking about the economy or foreign policy, to reverse Bush’s incompetent yet supremely impactful influence over events. Influence that obscures Obama’s power(s) a year into his second term.
So is Bush the most powerful President in history, as Carville and Egan would have you believe? Or is Obama helpless against the mindless right-wing onslaught, as Matthews opines? Hey, who cares? Obama got Bin Laden.
…or was that really George W Bush, too?