Obama Never Is To Blame

If you said Obama has inherited this mess when it comes to the oil spill you are right, but not for the reasons you think. It was not inheriting an oil industry that was under regulated it was decades of heavily regulated oil policy that forces companies to drill off shore because our congress will not let us drill in our own yard,an approximately 100 yard drill area in ANWR, Alaska. Meanwhile Obama's friends in Venezuela, Cuba, and Russia are taking advantage of oil in their own areas. Obama's own party is to blame for not allowing us to drill on land so that we would not be so dependent on foriegn oil. I am not one to blame Obama for this, or his lack of response, or emphasize how many rounds of golf that others did when Bush was in office.

Obama Supporters, at what point does Obama lead and show what he is doing than falling back on what appears to be every liberals favorite excuse for failure, now even in their own marriages, blame it on Bush. Two stimulus packages, cash for clunkers, and several bailouts later and instead of admitting that was not the answer, Bush is blamed.

I did not hear bush blame the poor infrastructure in New Orleans, that made things worse during Hurricane Katrina, on the decades of corruption and lack of leadership by the Mayor of the city and Governor of the state that prevented money going to fortify the Levees. Federal funds went there, yet there were approximately 50 failures of those levees.

It is true that Obama does not deserve all the blame but, he did spend trillions of dollars in a short period of time and was in charge when we lost are AAA credit rating. There has been no effort to share any of the blame for where we are. It is as if Obama is sitting at home like you and me and watching things happen. What we need is a president that will honor his/her oath of defending the constitution. This will help the economy because the nature of the constitution is to restrain government from interfering in the business of the people and protect their rights so they are free to pursue that business. The constitution is for regulating the government and to stop the government from regulating the people.

With our current president, there always seems to be someone else to blame. Leadership does not look for someone to blame but, offers solutions and works towards them.

- Micheal Garry

George W. Bush: Commander-in-Chief of Two Wars Won

Mission accomplished! George W. Bush won two wars in the two terms he was president. How can I say this statement without being told I am crazy? Well it is pretty easy to explain how he won two wars. First you have to ask yourself how we define victory in war. I was always under the impression that they either surrendered or we took them out.

Let's take a look at bot Iraq and Afghanistan to see if they measure up to the definition of victory and if so what than do we call what we are doing over there in those countries. Iraq, there was a dictator that our closest allies and most of congress, up until it was not politically correct, believed had already or was in the process of getting weapons of mass destruction. The point of this topic is not to make an argument of why we went to war with this tyrant but, to make a point that we won the war against him. I suppose the first question and maybe the only relevant question to make the point, is the regime we went to war with in power? If Iraq is in a civil war, does have anything to do with the previous war against Saddam Hussein? The answer to both is, no. The regime was soundly defeated and the civil-war that broke out may be a cause of the war but it is not the same war for the enemies of that war are no longer in power.

Afghanistan, another regime that was the harbor of terrorism and a threat to her neighbors. Again, not trying to justify the war but, question whether or not we can still call it a war. The Taliban have been removed from power in that country. Since defining war, the main goals have been either to get a surrender or take out the enemy. Afghanistan, like Iraq, is now just a theater of combat in a war we can not claim victory on. This war, is the war on terror. A war against an enemy that does not fight honorably with a uniform, but as cowards in some cases sending children to blow themselves up in their place.

The real puzzling thing of it is, we have let the liberals define what now constitutes a victory in war. We are not at war with either countries governments but involved in their civil wars in addition to both countries being theaters for the war on terror. We should send some of our troops home but, like any theater of war, we need to keep fighting the terrorists where they are. We are not fighting in two wars but, we are fighting in one, the war on terror.

- M. Garry