I usually try to ignore the rhetoric spewed across the editorial pages of the Orange County Register, but the following from yesterdays editorial, Obama’s focus on fairness, not on a foul record, requires rebuttal.
The president drew applause, justified in our view, across the aisle when he said that for the first time in nine years Americans are not fighting in Iraq, and Osama bin Laden no longer poses a threat. Both successes were set in motion by the previous administration, which he failed to acknowledge.
I can understand the distaste that the author of the editorial may have for President Obama, but to dismiss two major accomplishments of his Presidency by trying to assign credit to the buffoon who created the very messes he’s cleaned up is simply absurd.
While President Bush did negotiate the plan for withdrawal from Iraq at the end of his term, he did so to prevent even earlier action to get our troops out of Iraq once Obama took office. So if any credit at all is due to Mr. Bush, it is for keeping our troops in Iraq even longer.
As far as “Getting Osama bin Laden” is concerned, President Bush deserved no credit at all. While he invaded Afghanistan to “get Osama,” he cut and ran to Iraq and let Osama get away. The Register is quick to assign blame for the current economic situation to President Obama because he has been in office for more than half of his term, but assigns partial credit for the elimination of Osama bin Laden as a threat to the President who ignored him as a threat to begin with, and forgot about him almost as soon as he started “looking” for him.
Using the logic employed by the Register’s editorial writer, we should give full credit to former President Ronald Reagan for creating, encouraging, and arming Osama bin Laden in the first place. Let’s not forget that it was Ronald Reagan who armed and supported Saddam Hussein with the very weapons of mass destruction that George W. Bush went looking for.
It is rare that we learn who actually is responsible for the drafting of Editorials in the Orange County Register. In the case of this one however the author revealks himself in another over the yop blog post, Obama the Angry.
Mark Landsbaum writes:
During the State of the Union speech last night we had the TV turned up very loud so I could hear the speech while following along in the released transcript on my computer screen and taking notes at the keyboard while simultaneously roughing a draft of our editorial today.
Landsbaum goes on to promote the stereotype of the “angry black man” to describe the President’s address. He complains:
“During the 65 minutes he spoke, I developed something of a headache.
“It seemed to me the president virtually shouted his entire speech. I though that maybe it was the louder-than-normal TV volume. But all the same, it seemed as if the guy was, how should I put it? Angry.”
Mark, try turning down the volume and investing in a hearing aid.
The transition from investment by ending oil industry tax breaks with tax credits for development of renuable and clener enregy sources is sound economic policy. Oil was initially not a profitable venture, that’s how the tax breaks initially came about. Giving tax breaks to businesses that invest in American jobs is sound policy. Just cutting taxes at home and hoping that business will do the right thing is what got us in the ecomnomic mess we are in today.
So Mark Landsbaum, stop pumping up the volume on your TV set, get off your little soap box, and step into reality. The black man isn’t here to take your freedom away, he just wants to curb the freedom of people and businesses to screw over the 99%.