27 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

seeing those pics of obama’s cabinet makes me want to vomit. i really have a hard time believing that our nation has sunk so low as to actually elect someone with his lack of experience and charactor. i really believe that bush did what he thought was the right thing for our nation, and i think he really cared about the american people, not winning a popularity contest. i do hope history will be kind to him one day, he has ertainly deserved it.

I wonder how Blair is getting on as a Middle East Envoy….

also is it me – or does Blair’s medal look like a dog collar?
And is Bush trying to get Blair to do poodle tricks by clapping his hands?;)

Actually Gaffauk, it’s just you and it doesn’t surprise that you would insult this moment. Tony Blair deserved to be honored with this prestigious award. Obviously the reason for our praise and appreciation shown to Blair will be lost on those that can’t come to terms with what has been done to further freedom across the world and the courageous roll Blair played in it.

“The medal of freedom, established by President Harry Truman in 1945 to reward service during the second world war, recognises “an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, or to world peace, or to cultural or other significant public or private endeavors”. Several are awarded annually, sometimes to non-US citizens. Former recipients include Nelson Mandela in 2002, the boxer Muhammad Ali in 2005 and the US playwright Tennessee Williams in 1980.

The medal is not the first Blair has received from the US. In 2003 he received the Congressional gold medal – the highest civilian award that can be given by Congress.

*********Blair took time out of his schedule as the official envoy of the Quartet in the Middle East – on behalf of the United Nations, the US, the European Union and Russia – to receive the medal.*******”

I doubt the UN, US, European Union and Russia think of Tony Blair as a dog that just recieved a new collar. Looks like he is still soldiering on for the betterment of world peace. Are his critics better men? I think not.

Now I don’t ever want to receive a Medal of Freedom, from anyone. When they make up the list of Medal of Freedom winners, can they put an asterisk next to the ones Bush awarded?

@Monica – accounts:

Don’t hold your breath waiting for such an award. Here we have another nonsensical post from the chattering brats. President Bush has more grace and dignity in the fingernails he clips off than his critics have in their entire bodies and souls. Anyone receiving this award from him does so with the understanding of what he has been through during the eight years of his time in office. All the unfounded hate and accusations tossed at him without knowledge and understanding of facts, these recipients also experienced it to some degree. They proudly accept it, note the photo.

@ Missy

I didn’t know you thought so highly of the UN, EU and Russia.
And surely Blair and such a moment is fair game for a harmless jibe compared to the snide remarks aimed at moments of Obama and his cabinet getting ready to take office.

What’s sauce for the Goose….

Tony was always there when America needed a friend. I copped your photo.

@GaffaUK:

Tell me Gaffauk, how did you divine what I think of the UN, UK and Russia from the comment I made?

Your “harmless” jibe follows years of jibes directed at Tony Blair and the President that weren’t so harmless as both leaders were attempting to protect you, me, a world of others as well as giving two nations their freedom.

Your “jibe” wasn’t harmless, it was crude and rude. BTW, Emmanuel was part of the shenanigans that took place during President Bush’s transition, the remark Mike made wasn’t snide it was a comparison and that, doesn’t compare with your “ahem” harmless jibe.

Gaffa: After reading some of your comments on Wordsmith’s post about Bush and Africa I was asking myself whether your real purpose was as you stated to promote a democratic dialogue or to simply try and stir the pot with cheap shots.

I am no longer in any doubt as to the answer.

I know you are capable of making constructive, even thought provoking coments and yet here we have several prime examples of the opposite.

I expect better from you.

P.S. I don’t want to hear any excuses about how someone else started it. You have to learn to be responsible for your own actions before pointing fingers at others. And at 36 years old it’s about time you mastered that lesson. Put down the video games and behave like an adult for the remainder of the Bush Thankathon or do us the favor of keeping silent.

@Monica – accounts:

When they make up the list of Medal of Freedom winners, can they put an asterisk next to the ones Bush awarded?

And the asterisk footnotes what exactly….? That it was awarded by the president who is responsible for liberating 60 million people from brutal regimes and saving millions more in Africa? A recipient could only dream of having such a distinguishing asterisk, lest his medal be confused for one handed out by Jimmah.

Now I don’t ever want to receive a Medal of Freedom, from anyone.

I’m sure you can rest easy at night, as that’ll never happen.*

* EVER!

@Missy
I divined that from you referring to the UN, EU and Russia as doubting Blair as dog. If you don’t think much of the UN, EU and Russia then who cares what they think? Politics is all about debate and jibes. I will try to balance some of comments to being positive but also think you guys shouldn’t throw stones in glasshouses. I don’t think Blair is an pro-Islamic satanist who is going to send us to doom. I think Blair got carried away and probably genuinely believed he was doing the right thing. Although unpopular he still won 3 elections and is far better than his unelected colleague Gordon Brown.

@ Mike
Like you I like to mix it up with serious debate and cheap shots. Yet I try to be consistent. I don’t want to see the world in black & white. It’s more interesting to see the spectrum of colours. If someone engages me in serious debate then often I reply in kind…but there are exaggerations and hysteria – or good photo ops to good to miss – then sure a cheap shot is fine.

I know you guys adore Blair but you must know that you mainly adore him for his stance on the GWOT. Remember at heart he is a socialist and a lot of his views are very different from those on here. In essence his is what you might call a Moonbat. Similarly even with Bush I am happy to give credit where I think credit is due – whereas a classic Bush-hater would never admit to any of that. I just hope some of you here also give Obama some credit to what he has achieved and what he might achieve in the next 4-8 years.

Gaffa: You say you try and be consistent. Does that mean you are consistently offensive on purpose? Take for example your comment in response to the woman who expressed her religious beliefs about Bush. You came close to the borderline of mocking those beliefs.

Yes, I do like to mix it up and I have no problem calling a moonbat fool by it’s name but I wouldn’t come to visit your house and insult the other guests at the table (unless of course they asked for it).

Wisdom that comes with maturity may help you know better when it is time to tease and needle and when it is better to remain silent. You seem to ignore that maxim often.

P.S. I also admire Tony Blair for his steadfast support of the U.S. apart from the war. He understands, as Churchill did, that the U.K. must at all costs maintain it’s special relationship with the U.S. And I also like how he was portrayed in the film “The Queen.”

Well yes I have a blind spot when it comes to religion – but I see politics and religion as the same. Why can someone’s politics be disected but somehow you can’t question a belief system? Yet those who are religious are happy to use the Bible/Koran etc as proof of facts – well we can’t have gay marriage because the Bibles says this….And it was fairly mild remark to be honest – and a fair question under the jag. I admire the US more than the UK in terms of you seperate State and Religion in theory but in practice the US is more religious and this seeps heavily through into politics. And the ‘Queen’ was a good film and Michael Sheen portrayal was very good – he’s also good in ‘Frost/Nixon’ which is worth seeing.

If you want to question someone’s belief system you need to demonstrate a great deal more sensitivity than you did in the incident in question. I have no doubt that is one reason you got Old Trooper riled up. That and the fact that you purposely goaded him as well.

If your objective is to foster a discussion on an issue that’s one thing. If your goal is evidently to mock or demean someone’s beliefs that is another.

P.S. I won’t be bothering with Frost/Nixon. I met Nixon and I don’t need any Hollyweird types to revise what I know about the man. The original Frost Nixon interviews need no Hollyweird gloss.

Gaffa,

Gay marriages have nothing to do with religious beliefs. It is a Natural value not a religious value. Two men or two women cannot have kids together and make a family. Nature said so. A marriage should be between a man and a woman. It is common sense.

Same for abortions. They have nothing to do with religious beliefs. Abortions are wrong, period. That is a Human value, not a religious value. No one has the right to kill an innocent child. Abortionists have no human values. BTW, liberals in general have no values whatsoever, they are amoral people and selfish idiots; they cannot discern between right and wrong.

All that being said let’s not get too far off topic OK?

Mike! You usurped the “thread nanny” title from me!

Kewl….. it’s good to be on “vacation”. :0)

On topic (I think) – it’s good to have a transition – because do we really want a one party state existing in the West? People do ‘tend’ to fall somewhere along the over simplistic left right spectrum. If the Right or Left was in power all the time then it would despotic and lazy I think. To have constant renewal a party needs not to be power all the time. The world didn’t end when Bush was elected and it won’t end when Obama takes office.

For example in 1997 Blair came into power with Labour in the UK after 18 years of conservative rule. The Tories under Major has lost steam and direction. Now over a decade Labour under Brown have lost the support of the Brits and the Conservatives under Cameron are finally fit to be elected again.

Compared to Gore and Kerry – Obama has charisma which is a political asset. Now faced with the weight of the world – we will see if he can translate that into positive action. The Republicans now need to find a candidate for 2012 that they can really get behind and who has a chance of winning.

Compared to Gore and Kerry, a corpse has more charisma, Gaffa… LOL

But I agree. Keeping any pol and political party humble and “hungry” is appropo. However when they get too hungry for power, and then get it? Katie bar the door. That’s when the over confident/over reaching takes place…. as Pelosi is trying to do already.

However your statement that “the world didn’t end when Bush was elected, and it won’t end when Obama takes office” is entirely on the mark. unless……

What remains to be seen is what an almost supermajority Congress comes up with for spending and policy, that Obama says yes to. Some damage via legislation is almost impossible to undo. Policy can be changed. Not so easy with bad laws that have been enacted.

Gaffa: I have no problem with a Parliamentary system. It certainly beats total gridlock when checks and balances break down.

But….on another thread, we are off topic again, we were discussing the fear that the Dems might rewrite the rules to force Republicans into permanent minority status.

@ Mike

Just reading the piece and the threads – it seems to be about a gracious transition. I can’t see anyone mentioning ‘that the Dems might rewrite the rules to force Republicans into permanent minority status’ anywhere,

Gaffa: You didn’t hear that some Democrats want to change the Constitution so Obma could be President for life?

Nope – can you send a link please? ta

@MataHarley

I agree – that is a problem when a party out of power can get too hungry and sell it’s soul. Again (sorry to use UK politics but I know that better) – the Labour party in the UK was shaken by 18 years of Thatcher followed by Major. They lost 4 elections straight. So when Blair came in they ditched a lot of their socialists policies (not all but a lot). Now is that good? Well probably for most Brits who don’t like socialism but the main left and Hard left were well left out. So Blair kind of stole Thatcher’s clothes and remodeled his party to be more friendly towards business. Or did he sell out. Similarly now the Conservatives have been out of power for over a decade they under Cameron are moving towards the middle ground – ‘hug a hoodie’ etc – being more ‘sympathic’ to social issues.

As for US politics – this is more confusing to a Brit like me. So when you have a President who has a majority – are they too powerful but if their party is a minority – aren’t they hamstrung and kind of like a lame duck like Clinton was after 1994? And who takes the brickbats or credit when things go well or badly?

GaffaUK: Nope – can you send a link please? ta

Proposed Constitutional Amendment to repeal the 22nd Amendment

So when you have a President who has a majority – are they too powerful but if their party is a minority – aren’t they hamstrung and kind of like a lame duck like Clinton was after 1994? And who takes the brickbats or credit when things go well or badly?

Majority in congress is one thing — the minority still has the power of filibuster in the senate for highly partisan issues, and some votes will cross the party line anyway. A supermajority in the senate is something else entirely. A supermajority can all but silence the minority, and stop them from introducing, amending, or even discussing legislation. It is pretty dangerous. Unless, of course, your party is the one in the supermajority. Then you would probably think it’s pretty great.

As for a president who is in the minority — They aren’t hamstrung, they still have executive powers that aren’t always directly answerable to congress. The president has the power to enact rules and regulations by executive order, and those orders basically have the power of law unless congress overrules them. Typically, they do have to moderate their positions somewhat and work to bridge the party line. Remember, that for every bill that is divisive along party lines, there are a hundred that aren’t. Both sides typically pick and choose their battles.

As for credit, when everything is going good, everyone takes the credit. when things are going badly, everyone blames everyone else. Doesn’t matter who the minority or majority is.