When it comes to terrorism, President Barack Obama is in a no-win situation. Rest assured that the neo-cons are going to make sure of this. That's part of their overall strategy for the next four to eight years.
Here's the way it's going to work: If at the end of Obama's term(s) in office, the U.S. has been hit by one or more additional acts of terrorism, neo-cons are prepared to lay all of the blame at his feet. If, on the other hand, the U.S. has remained free of terrorism during Obama's watch, those same neo-cons will credit none other than George W. Bush. He won't just get some of the credit – he'll get all of it.
How do I know this? Well, one need not be a mind reader to figure this one out. For one thing, people like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh have already signaled that this is part of their game plan. However, the easiest way to predict what they will do is to look at what they've done in the past.
They blamed Bill Clinton for 9/11 even though the terrorist attacks of that infamous day happened nearly eight months into Bush's presidency. Had there been another one during Bush's terms, guess who would have been have been the fall guy for it. Pat yourself on the back if you said it would have again been one William Jefferson Clinton. And it wouldn't have mattered how deep it was into the Bush presidency.
As it was, of course, there were no subsequent terrorism attacks on U.S. soil. As a result, neo-cons and their ilk are falling all over themselves in praise of the former president. I have no problem with their giving credit where credit is due, and I think Bush is deserving of much of it. However, I do have a problem with fanatical partisanship and that results in absurd hypocrisy.
Terry Mitchell is a software engineer, freelance writer, amateur political analyst, and blogger from Virginia, USA. He posts a least one article a day to his blog - http://commenterry.blogs.com - on subjects such as current events, politics, technology, society and culture, religion, health and well-being, self improvement, personal finance, trivia, and sports.
You can now have any article and blog post he writes – in advance, if you would like – for use in your book, newspaper, magazine, ezine, newsletter, website, or whatever!! This includes the thousands of articles and blog posts he's previously written. Contact him via this website or his blog for details.
Fanatical partisanship always leads to absurd hypocrisy. It's like a river that runs into an ocean.
Nice article, and no matter what anyone says, there will always be those who believe Bush was the worst (or best) president in history, Clinton was the best (or worst) president, 9/11 was Clinton's (or Bush's) fault, etc. In other words, those who are close-minded in their partisanship cannot be convinced with facts since rabid (fanatical) partisanship doesn't deal with facts, it deals with raw emotion. Too bad, and hopefully it changes. One can only hope.
A neo-con is a faux-conservative who is so paranoid that he thinks the U.S. must constantly be taking pre-emptive action and intervening in world affairs in order to maintain its safety. I'm not an isolationist, but I sure would look like one compared to a neo-con.
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
tweet this!
