Skip to comments.Did Bill Maher Just Trump Bush on Islam?
Posted on 04/23/2013 5:20:35 AM PDT by Servant of the CrossEdited on 04/23/2013 5:30:29 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
As you probably have heard, a few days ago Bill Maher shocked his liberal guest -- and much of the world -- by stating very correctly and succinctly that it is "liberal (BS) to equate Christianity and Islam with respect to terror.
The bluntness, not to mention the shocking accuracy of the statement from this particular source, had the social media universe all lit up over the weekend. It was surely my first "fist pump" ever in response to Maher.
Moreover, it is very instructive when juxtaposed with a not so shocking statement made in an interview over the same weekend by former President George W. Bush in the run-up to the opening of his "Presidential Center."
And that horrible blunder, no doubt promoted by Rove, destroyed any chance the GOP had to defeat the communist currently occupying our White House.
As well presented by the author, by choosing this 'strategery', he also failed to defend conservatism, capitalism and the American way against the attacks of both the external Islamist supremacists and the internal socialists.
yeah the Bush admin, was damaged in so many ways. like father like son. RINOs all.
still a gazillion times better than the current scum.
The only really good thing Bush did, apart from tax reductions, was kicking terrorist ass. No one was singing “Sweet Caroline” after 9-11, especially GWB.
It seems like the USA is up to its eyeballs in a deep alliance with the Saudis, seems no president can say otherwise
Yep. This philosophy was Bush’s worst trait. By far. A sitting president is essentially the CEO of the nation and the party and has an obligation to present a public argument to defend their decisions and policies. The Bush White House was negligent in staying silent or choosing not to fight some attacks that damaged the country and irreparably harmed the party in which he was chosen to represent.
I genuinely like George W, but this has made me so frustrated.
W made the correct choice, imho, not to ‘defend’ himself. It’s like arguing with fools.
As far as supporting Conservatism, he was never a conservative. He claimed to be a compassionate conservative. Of course he was very compassionate with other people’s money. That’s why I didn’t vote for him in 2000. I did grow to like the guy in time.
Has Obama restored our image abroad yet?
Different scenario IMO. We celebrated (rightly so) when we got Bin Laden. We had a long road ahead of us after 9/11.
Well said. He just chose to ignore an essential part of his obligation as CEO, and therefore, in spite of some successes, he was a failed CEO.
So... Not equal? How can that be? Everything and everybody are equal! A nice day = a lousy day. A good meal = a bad meal.
A happy, child-producing hetero marriage = giving each other hepatitis, meningitis, hiv and a 40-year lifespan. Bad teachers = good teachers. You get the idea. If you don’t think this way then you’re not open-minded!
One liberal who has learned to think for himself.
But the majority of liberals will go on refusing to accept reality even if it is staring them in the face.
Maybe I interpreted his meaning wrong.
That's an interesting question, but I think not quite the point. It's not that Bush's failure to defend himself CAUSED McCain to use - it's that Bush's failure - he and Rove called it the "new tone" - is part of the same establishment disease that McCain also has - McCain's version was called "reach across the aisle." It is also the same disease that caused Mitt to call Obama "a nice guy who is simply over his head." The dots connect, well.....HERE:
Don’t get too excited, he’d more likely want to piss on the next Christian he sees than to want to hear the message of the Messiah...
To a small degree, you are right....BUT: The problem with that assessment is that A: he never did have the strength of conviction to SAY the right thing....and B: you can't take what he said this week out of context of all that he refused to say for eight years in office.
First taxes, now Islam.
Maher may be evolving. He may turn out to be a Lib who got mugged — an applicant for NRA and the Tea Party.
[I still would not watch him. He is on the same level as David Letterman. I have never watched more than a few seconds of Letterman since he has been on late night. I don’t see either of them as funny.]
Bush was not much better then the current rodent in the White Hut, his drug benefit was the LARGEST transfer of wealth in the history of the world, let’s not forget his auto bailout and TARP, his support of amnesty, he and his dad destroyed the Reagan policies that RR had in place.
His dad, him and his brothers are nothing more the New World Order socialists just like Karl Rove......
Do not forget that the republicans in both house’s aided the democrats in the passage of Obamacare, “Death to Patients” act.
Thanks, and interesting that over on Lucianne, a site with many more estab type defenders, about half the folks are angry at this one. More understanding of the truth on FR than Lucianne IMO....
It’s hard for me to get over the fact that he didn’t lie about the WMD, but then because it was moved to Syria he couldn’t talk about it and instead let the left keep on with their taunting... And then to say later on that he had “made a mistake” - when no mistake on our part was made in re: to Iraq made it that much worse...
To this day I have to tell people - there WAS WMD - what we found (and we did find some!) was a drop in the bucket compared to what had been moved to Syria... Even now - when Obama’s own people say - these chemical weapons were from Iraq - they choose to ignore everything.
Bush didn’t lie, but because he didn’t defend himself (or maybe couldn’t for some reason) there won’t be any hope of getting some people back on the side of reality in re: to Iraq and Afghanistan - or even looking forward to what we’re dealing with today in our own country, or with Iran, and definitely not going to help them understand Libya, Egypt, and now Syria itself...
Sorry for the mini-rant... I have respect for George W, even though I disagreed with him on some things - especially domestically. Compared to Obama - well, there is NO comparison as one was a President and the other is a traitor. On this issue though I absolutely think he should have defended the war vociferously, and berated the press when they attacked him day after day.
It couldn’t have done more harm than where we are now, imo.
I hear ya. That was the beginning of the frustrations with their anemic PR strategy. I have no clue why they let so many falsehoods take root. It was horribly damaging to our country.
I reluctantly ended up at the same conclusion. There was a lot of successes and a lot to celebrate during those eight years, but in the end it was a failure. Mostly due to the complete collapse of public opinion. I generally look at Bush’s term in two parts, the first four years were largely good (obviously, we can pick at some of his domestic policies as problematic). As a party, we also faired well gaining seats in 2002 and getting to 55 Senate seats by 2004. Largely, he performed as a successful CIC and leader. The second term was a flop. The floor dropped out on all fronts. The economy sank, the war policy (despite the right call on the surge) was horribly unpopular, and the party collapsed. I give him high marks for the 1st four, and a solid F for the second.
You are exactly correct! There was, there was obvious proof of WMD’s with the gassings prior to the war. That’s all that needed to be said. He should have never apologized for that. Only a fool would believe otherwise. But, then again, half of this country are fools.
Yes, a reluctant, unhappy conclusion indeed. What Bush (and Rove) never realized is that what you say as President is as much, and maybe MORE, important than what you do. When you are a Republican President, you represent all conservatives, the concept of free enterprise, a strong national defense, etc - whether you really believe in those things or not. That’s how our system works.
When Bush refused to fight in the arena of ideas, he was selling conservatives, free enterprise, etc, down the river.
Bill Haher speaking common sense!
Maybe Ann Coulter has stumbled upon a new way to convert libs.
You know, I don’t give a crap what Maher thinks when he spouts lib spew..
I don’t care when he removes his head from his rectum...
Convert them to her shrill RINO ways? She has lost majority of her credibility endorsing Jumbo Christie and the likes.
Or looked at another way, absolutely 100% on topic of A: Bush Library opening, B: Maher’s comments, C: Boston terror attacks D: media reaction to Boston terror attacks E: Freepers response to article.
Relevance is what it is.
And what did we have to celebrate after 4/20?
I think he's growing up. He'll never be conservative but he's gotten to the point where he can now see that there's a lot of idiocy on the left. Previously, he was blind to it. I'll never watch him either.
We caught the terrorists?
That's true, but this reinforces my theory, it does not weaken it. I am focusing on the ideas that Bush, Bush 41, McCain, Rove, all RINOs, have in common. It's not about blaming Bush for all of it, it's about identifying it as a common disease. Bush and Rove just unfortunately were in position to make that quisling attitude the official Republican Conservative POV for 8 solid years. You cannot understand what I'm saying if you are so obsessed with personal blame.
Yes, I agree. He has embraced God and is a good Christian...but his “turning the other cheek” rather than “Smite them” did not help. I sooooo wished he would have fought back on those personal attacks. Every single time.
I’m not obessed with anything...I’m just sick of the blame Bush Mantra. If I understand your theory correctly (now), you are painting them all with a big RINO brush. I couldn’t agree more.
Well, yes the RINO brush is part of it - and there’s more to it than that, but on that track. And ironically, the “blame Bush” mantra of the left only works as well as it does because of how Bush and Rove handled the bully pulpit - or mishandled it - for their 8 years. So yes, I’m blaming Bush, for allowing the opposite side of the blaming Bush phenomenon to happen in the first place.
The sad fact of the matter is the media is so partisan that it wouldn’t have mattered if or how Bush fought back. Plenty of people were out front defending the most absurd accusations but the media just ignored it.
We kicked the behinds of the people who sponsored them, and put the fear of God into the rest. Apprehending the perpetrators is no sign of success. The perpetrators are very small fish; they're a dime-a-dozen, and to their handlers they're perfectly disposable.
I must agree and disagree - the media bias makes it all the more imperative that our side fight back. The media was just as anti tea party in 2010 as they ever were anti Bush - and yet, the campaigns of 2010 did fight back, did not back down, never played nice, and won. Really, you should go here:
Won? Yes, they won the 2010 elections, more than any other single group, entity, movement, person, indeed they did. No doubt.
Does that mean every day is a tea party win? No, but that’s an absurd standard.
Does that mean final victory? No, but that’s never the case.
Does that mean they won everything? No, never claimed such.
Does it mean that how they won is a fabulous lesson when compared to the Bush, Rove recipe? DAMNED RIGHT IT DOES, and that’s the point.
Agreed, but Bush (fittingly) threw out the first pitch after 9/11. And was cheered. People want a return to normalcy. Having two terrorists in your city doesn’t allow that. I don’t see the problem celebrating when those two causing the problems (at the time) are caught/killed.
On John Gibson’s show tomorrow, I think around 1:30. Please tune in.
Thanks for the update, I’m sure you’ll represent yourself well.
THANKS!. Gibson was fun to talk to - even if wasn’t 100% in agreement with me.