More Bush Problems

So, Bush is all quick to go against world opinion and “liberate” Iraq, but when a nation such as Liberia, seeks actual liberation, the government sends in the troops to protect the U.S. embassy. This is a quote from Yahoo News:

“Liberians are weary after 14 years of bloody turmoil. Many say they won’t be satisfied that stability is possible until U.S. peacekeepers land in the country, founded more than a century ago by freed American slaves.”

What’s up with that, Mr. Bush? Not enough oil in Liberia for you?

Anybody keeping a scorecard on Bad Bush?

If you liked that post, read on...

Slip Sliding Away on April 8th, 2005

PalinGate on October 11th, 2008

Condi Rice on April 8th, 2004

Thanks, George! on July 3rd, 2003


  1. And exactly why should we go into Liberia? What threat to us, or world peace, does Liberia represent? We eliminated a destabilizing regime in a very volatile part of the world when we entered Iraq. What is the benefit to the world of getting involved in Liberia? (And you cannot answer “Saving lives,” because that answer is both immaterial and inappropriate. The US cannot step in to “save lives” everywhere in the world that there is a conflict. We are not the policemen of the world.)

    Mr. Bush is being very wise to invest American strength in only those places where the world’s interests lie. And Liberia is simply not one of those places. To the bleeding hearts, I’m sorry about that, but get over it!

  2. There is plenty of American interest in Liberia and Africa: OIL. Those in the position of power couldn’t care less about saving lives, because if they did they would have stepped in a long time ago. There is only one reason why Mr. Bush has turned his head toward Africa and that is because he smells money, i.e. oil.
    The U.S. only steps in when it’s “interests” are at stake, money to be made or money to be lost.

  3. Jen said the reason we went into Iraq was to liberate the country. Not for oil. Why liberate one country and not another? What is the criteria for liberation? I’m just checking. We may not be the world’s police, but we certainly act that way some times.

    I am apolitical, but I do this for you, Jen. How much baby talk can you hear? Plus, I know you’re like your sister and you enjoy a good arguement.

    Personally, I don’t care if we liberate Liberia, Iraq or Starbucks. I’m an isolationist. Let the world worry about itself. Tough being an isolationist in the nuclear age. I was born in the wrong time.

  4. Go ahead. I finally take a stand and you blame me for Pearl Harbor. Next thing you’re going to tell me, man never walked on the moon.

  5. *LOL* No, Jane says we never walked on the moon!

    Seriously, the US steps in to interfere in world events where it is in our best interest. And yes, oil is a best interest of the US. Until we do something to be independent of the oil producing nations, we will have to be vigilant to protect our oil supplies from interruption. Nothing sinister in that, it’s a reality of the oil age. Now we COULD reduce our dependence on oil with alternative sources, but the eco-freaks raise a hue and cry every time we try–nukes are “too dangerous,” wind vanes disturb the environment for the birds, hydroelectric dams threaten extinction for some species (or so it’s claimed), solar power is intrusive because of the acreage it takes (not counting the global warming it exacerbates), coal contributes to the CO2 and so-called global warming, etc., etc., etc. We could also open up our own sources of oil that we currently have but don’t use (offshore, Alaska, etc.) but again the eco-freaks jump in and cry foul. I guess the only thing the eco-freaks will accept is if the US and the rest of the industrialized world go back to the lovely days of the 19th century and give up cars, electricity, all of the modern conveniences that have led to living longer, healthier and more comfortable lives. We could all then look like the third world–Bangladesh, for example–totally at the mercy of the weather and living just above the extinction level ourselves. As a byproduct, we’d have starvation, disease and deprivation, but hey, we’d be independent and oil wouldn’t matter to us anymore.

  6. Finally, someone who isn’t afraid to tell it like it is. Thanks for the incite. The only thing I take acception to is the fact that we could go to electric cars right now with very little adverse effects to the environment, but the politicians (both Democrats and Republicans) don’t want to give up our dependency on oil because that would mean they would take a hit in their wallets since many of them (in this case, Bush included) are heavy in the oil business.

  7. I didn’t mean that YOU were responsible for Pearl Harbor. 😉 But the isolationists of that time didn’t want us to get involved in what was happening in Europe in the 20 and 30’s. There were even isolationists in the military who kept their heads in the sand and didn’t stay in the forefront by pursuing a more modern tank, and better airpower which should have included fully-funded and functional Naval aviation.

  8. Actually, one of the ugly little secrets about electic cars that the eco-freaks don’t want to acknowledge is that it actually takes more overall energy over the life of the car to run an electric car than it does to run the same car with a traditional engine. Also, the overall process (manufacture, maintenance, operation) actually creates more pollution than the same car with a traditional gasoline engine. But it’s not politically correct to point out that fact, so it gets buried.

  9. I said that one of the main reasons we went into Iraq was liberation. I haven’t decided how I feel about Liberia yet. It’s a completely different situation. While I sympathize with the people and would love to help them, the reality is that we can’t help everyone.

    What made Iraq more dangerous was Saddam’s potential threat to other nations – in the form of WMD (which we will find), invasions (think Kuwait), and terrorism (he provided mass amounts of money to terrorist groups in Lebanon). It wasn’t just the one issue that necessitated war in Iraq and we had 12+ years of him disregarding the UN sanctions and resolutions. Naysayers have conveniently forgotten the 17 UN resolutions that called for Saddam to comply or else. He didn’t, and so we took care of the or else factor.

  10. A note to the lady who commented on Saddam providing funds to to terrorist groups in Lebanon: The Bush Administration gave $43 million dollars to the Taliban – who in turn funded Al Qaeda – in the Spring of 2001.

    To those of you who said that the American army cant just go in and police the world’s problems: If we are to believe Mr Bush’s agenda, his justification for this war, it was to ensure the freedom – the liberation – of the Iraqi people. (But that was only after the American public voiced dismay at the war being called “Operation Shock and Awe”.)

    Further, Saddam was not given a chance to fully comply to the 17 UN resolutions. In fact, the investigators were forced to leave Iraq when attack was immanent. In addition to this, Bush has now conveniently claimed that Saddam refused UN inspectors into that nation. History is written by the victors, but unfortunately this president has forgotten that we have instant access to media records of every statement that his come out of his, or his aides’, mouths in public record.

    The reality is this: Yes, American interests lie in foreign lands. But this does *not* give the American government the right to invade another sovereign nations simply because it wants to protect its interests. Period. Over the past 50 years, various Administrations have had their fingers in sp many conflicts and wars (Viet Nam, Cambodia, Columbia, Somalia, Iraq) it is laughable to claim “no, sorry, we can’t get involved” as a justification for not helping out a people so desperately in need of any aid they can get.

    Scorecard on Bush?

  11. Kelly, thanks for the info. It is true, the U.S. did fund the Taliban years ago. I’m not sure if that was under Bush’s watch, but I’ll have to check that up.

    But let’s not go so far as say Saddam never had a chance to comply with the U.N. resolution. He did have 12 years. We didn’t monitor him as closely as we did at the end during those 12 years, but he never complied or the sanctions would have been lifted.

    As for the woman who said I have attrocious spelling. She is absolutely correct. Not my strong suit. I’m an idea man, not a details guy. That’s why we have proof readers and fact checkers. Heck, with that mentality I could even be president. *lol*

    Lori, I’ll have a spot.

    And, Pops, I’ll have to do a little more research on the energy usage on electric cars. Thanks for the heads up. I always suspect they were hiding something from us.

Comments are closed.