Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 3:19 am

(Reposted here after pre-view for couple days as "facebook note" to facebook friends…  It has been edited and revised to better fit this space/medium.)

It seems they have gotten bolder this week. It seems that all the eithicists must take the month of July and maybe August off from Washington, at least those available to Democrats. Did you hear Howard Dean brag about how their lies about "the economy is all Bush’s fault" has been told enough that polls are showing "a majority" of those polled "agreeing" with "economy is all Bush’s fault" or words like such? Howard Dean didn’t say the part as I just was saying of being happy that they had told their lies enought that people were now accepting them as "truth".

Just bold and very illogical.

I cannot applaud, Mr. President.

Mr. President, it seems it can be logically said that you are lying.  Ignorance, or incompetence may yet be your only other "excuse" - other than "lying".

Mr. President that you even attempt saying economy and deficits are now the fault of Bush’s eight years and with a Clinton in your cabinet does add credence to "incompetent" and also, though, to "lying".

Everybody else:  This now seems to hurt both Clintons even more than both Obamas or even just President Obama as if "all the fault of Bush’s eight years" then, and with "Afghanistan a necessary war", so then necessary that Bush years and spending were all the fault of the Clintons’ eight years.  If Afghanistan is now so "a necessary war" then "9/11" in no way can be said to be Bush’s fault, and, so the spending out of "surplus" and into deficits after 9/11 is/was arguably and quite so much available for political bias to Bush as then and now "all the fault of the Clintons’ eight years."

So since President Obama has put in out there "on the political table" and not just "campaign season" tables what are we to do with the conclusion, logical from his recently still held postures?  Can we but now since "Afghanistan is a necessary war" and "economy all the fault of the past eight years of Bush policies" so conclude that 9/11 was necessarily a bad inheritance from Clintons and that Bush should have proceeded post 9/11 only with "all the fault of the past eight years of Clintons’ failed politics and policies, and gross underfunding and unfunding of defense, intelligence and jobs/recovery spending?

>>>"All the fault of Bush’s eight years" logically implies and sums to really, even now in Obama’s four(?), to now also "all the fault of the Clintons’ eight years.

>>>And, yet Hillary Clinton, Madam Secretary of State Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton, is now in the cabinet, Obama’s Cabinet,  of "all the fault of Bush’s eight years."


>>> And, yet it was maybe more the "Pelosi Congress" that kept Bush and Congress from putting in more of the spending needed to fix the underfunding and unfunding of the Clintons’ eight years and not just as then in time to save Republicans by 2008 elections but also to save our economy with necessary reversal of other irresponsible budget cuts by Clintons in time so to save economy.


Mr. President:  You seem to now have to be an "austerity president" and yet you and your spending and "coziness" with Clintons so far, and so far so so publicly, of now maybe making "selling" such impossible for you, with any "popularity" gain.

>>>Again:  Since Afghanistan is as President Obama said as a "necessary war" then Bush spending after 9/11 also necessary and vital in its reversal of Clintons’ irresponsible "popularity" seeking with "surplus" cuts.  Since "Afghanistan a necessary war" Bush was right to increase spending on military post Clintons’ slashing and cuts but was now maybe just wrong in spending same sums in Iraq instead of in Afghanistan and Pakistan, only.   So Bush/Cheney not "wrong" for deficits from military spending but just for spending any of such needed reversal of Clintons’ surpluses in Iraq instead of just Afghanistan and Pakistan, right?


After 9/11 it was necessary and vital to reverse just some probems from Clintons’ eight years that needed to have Bush do more spending than Pelosi Congress would let him, or to reverse all problems?


Dems needed voters to believe in Clintons’ surpluses past election day in 2008 even if they were causing, logically, almost all of the problems President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton and eternal campaigner "Bill" have been selling as just "all the fault of Bush eight years"?


Problem?  They got bolder and proud with "most Americans agree economy the fault of Bush eight years" and even with such requiring a consideration that if so and so as "intentional" or even just "avoidable" with even just some more spending such as Pelosi Congress wasn’t allowing>>> Then Republicans at fault for Bush’s eight years at fault were then intentionally of working and then administering to "intentionally" and "purposefully" working/campaigning to "lose" Congress and with a such still "avoidable" to losing Congress and The White House in 2008 contests.

>Don’t forget to "follow" on twitter with @jphoganorg and also look for comments and "chiming" on politico.com article threads and ARENA, like today on GOP and K Street article, with comments convenient as "in first twenty."

Comments »

No comments yet.

Leave a comment

Publication may require admin approval; please come back later to view your comment.