Obama vs Bush's record on Security

Bush:

Was either complicit with 911 or allowed it to happen.

Got in the way of the 911 investigations, we still have it all covered up- issued 50000 gag orders over it.

Let Osama Bin Ladin go.

Lied us into Iraq, wasted trillions on it.

Scrapped the UCMJ, authorized Torture and Domestic Spying and didn’t veto the horrid Patriot Act

Did massive damage to the US reputation and standing.

Allowed freedom of the press to fall precipitously, was killing EU journalists in Iraq.

Crashed the global economy unleashing austerity but it was consistent with the Enron scam and World Com etc.

Presided over the Guantanamo blunders, indefinite detentions etc.

Apparently destroyed tones of evidenced.

On and on and on one blunder after another, especially the austerity inducing incredibly stupid and destabilizing tax cuts for the rich.

Obama
Brought the US economy back from brink, restored corporate profits.

Supposedly got rid of Bin Ladin instead of letting him go- but note he didn’t stand trial.

Largely wound down Iraq, but started Afghanistan, likely over gas and failed to wind down Gitmo.

Engaging in targeted killing and drone strikes in Pakistan.

Has pulled back from Syria generally.

Has appeared tough on Israel.

Really didn’t decrease defense spending, if anything increased it.

Finally but quietly started to roll back the moronic tax cuts for the rich.

Has been pro green energy which is a key decentralizing hardening cord cutting strategy to pull back from
the terror inducing austerity. And it least it against lead in the gas etc.

Has shined a light on the domestic violence situation especially by police against people of color and has avoided terrorism as the new race bating and fear mongering and had generally pulled back from Bush’s strategy of constant fear inducement to create political capital and help elevate the value of capital.

Look at the Republic candidates:

Rubio- stupid and has pure war orientation, even trying to claim WWIII has started.

Cruz, no better than Rubio.

Christie, forgotten New Jersey.

Carson- seems to know nothing of foreign policy and have absolutely no sense on it, also mechanistic to the point of Monarch Slave.

Romney wanted war with Iran and was willing to risk WWIII to get it, acted like a puppet to a foreign power was a chop shop man that thought American wanted him to liquidate it as well.

Trump- Bombast that made his money pampering the rich also war inclined.

Fiorina A trillion a year is starving the US military despite it being double what the rest of the world combined spends- let Americans eat cakes kill the safety net treat average Americans like property.

McCane, a little more level headed.

Paul, half crazy half sane.

McCane was the only viable candidate they’ve had in 8 years.

So many of the Republican candidates don’t seem to have a concept of what nuclear war is or what it would mean, they come across as totally insane.

The world is heating up.

Corbyn cancels Saudi Arabia’s Oil contract

US issues sternest warning possibly ever to Israel

Turkey shoots down Russian fighter jet in what Russia deems an act of betrayal.
Yemen Governor assassinated.

Events in the US paint a picture of civil servants killing each other with supposed terror themes.

The logic of electing conservatives to deal with other conservatives (terrorists) doesn’t make sense. Its like electing Hitler because he’s hired some jack boots.

There’s a lot of plain wrong in here (McCane, anyone?) but I’ll just highlight this one:

  • Trump made his money serving the rich
  • Socialists want to make money (for the state/government) but stealing from the rich

Which is worse?

That assumes the rich earned or have a right to most of the money associated with their name. Its simply not the case. So-called redistribution is simply a correction of distribution. Even if the state burned or took out of circulation most of the money it collected it wouls be better than allowing true large scale non contributors to collect it. Note for instance that so called tax cuts for the rich lead to wage reduction and breaking of the economic cycle. If the rich have a choice between paying more taxes and paying higher wages they choose higher wages.

But Bush in the great destabilizing retire system theft redefined any savings for a company as eligible to be called profit which lead to the mass theft of private pensions and pressure on the social security system which being unprecedented theft is massively destsbilizing. Bush and the 1000 plus CEOs involved in that should be tried and with the likelt guilty verdict doing life prison terms.

But “the rich” is an arbitrary designation. You may be rich to some guy from Bangladesh. Does that entitle him to decide that you profited from saving money on sweatshop items so he has the right to take your mobile phone?

Taxes also don’t make any difference how someone made money, it’s clearly not about making justice but simply taking money from others.

Hey how about this:

  • Bush invented Al Qaida
  • Obama invented ISIS

Within a society its very far from arbitrary. I think taxes are all about how people make money and trying to keep that honest. If people in general have enough income or more than enough taxes are hardly a problem just another non impinging overhead- always a threat but not necessarily a practical problem. And there are lines around a society. A society can simply say no billionaires doing business here or keeping the billions if we have hungry people. That decisions simply means that a would-be billionaire will have to consult with more people to throw an equivalent amount of economic power around. This business with Zuckerberg saying he will give away 99 percent of his Facebook Stock is hilarious because it puts the cult of billions at risk everywhere from the crucial PR standpoint. Its also him saying he his way better than they are.

As for Bush invented Al Qaida and Obama invented ISIS, I kind of like that. Both scream for the transparency that will prevent them from ever arising.