The friendship of George W. Bush and Michelle Obama (CNN)
No wonder it never seems that votes count, we really only have one party.
(CNN)Saturday's dedication of the National Museum of African-American History and Culture brought together the president who signed into law the funding for the museum and the president who was in office during its completion.
But the gathering of the 43rd and 44th first couples also saw the reuniting of two unlikely friends.
Over the past eight years, former President George W. Bush and First Lady Michelle Obama have been seen becoming increasingly chummy. At public events, the two can often be found sitting next to each other, sharing a laugh or lending a hand to hold.
Saturday's ceremony was no exception. During the event, Obama reached over and grabbed Bush into a hug as their spouses clapped and looked on.
Continue Reading
I'm sad for you that you can't imagine two people being friends despite political differences.
It used to be completely normal that people who had political differences were friends - they viewed themselves as political opponents not enemies. Sad how that has changed.
I'm not surprized Dubya and the Obamas are friends. Dubya is not a racist. Apart from speaking Spanish fluently (and singing the anthem in Spanish) he was also the first to appoint African-Americans to high office - Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice. Both paved the way for Obama.
@biophil - what political difference? Both Obama and Bush were supporting Wall Street. Look at the administration and ministers, anything difference? The fact that they belong to different parties is just for people, to give them an alternative.... "Don't like this one, take another one"
In reality, the fact that all political desicions were made in favour of global banks and big transnational corporations under rule of both of them is undisputable
conspi-theorist VERY WELL WRITTEN . I AGREE
@me-tarzan - haha, thanks mate! Follow me, I am writing on this kind of topics ;)
I didn't say that.
This is OP's logic:
I'm disputing point 1, which has nothing to do with the Bushes, the Obamas, or your grand conspiracy.
Ok, ok - from purely logical point of view I agree with you.
PS. There was no conspiracy in what I said - pure facts.
Fair. But it could be part of a grand conspiracy, and given your username, I'd expect you to be all over that.
Interesting, but I wouldn't over state this. I can look up dozens of photographs of Obama and family standing and smiling with dictators. Doesn't mean that they necessary support said dictators, just photo ops. Could be the same with this.
I am sure on some level they are friendly, as they both experienced the immense pressure of being in the white house. Personally, I can never forgive Bush for the Iraq invasion, a war crime IMHO. I bet he's a nice person on a personal level, however.
Obama just continued Bush's policies. There isn't much difference in parties. :-)
Definitely, the gap between democrat and republican is pretty narrow, but there is a gap. I don't think democrats would have gone to war in Iraq, I don't think republicans would have pushed for anything like Obamacare, etc.
Neither party has a monopoly on stupid wars. The Obama administration took out the government in Libya, has destabilized the government in Syria, is funding a war in Yemen, and is waging a war in Pakistan. The Clinton Administration bombed Kosovo and re-installed a ruthless regime in Haiti that they had the CIA remove from power to begin with.
That is really my point, both parties are acting the same. One party appears to be a little more for domestic activism and the other for international activism, but basically both want to expand government. Most of the differences are trivial or contrived.
I think what the apologists for one party or the other forget is that the current candidate for President has never met a war SHE did not love. She voted for the Iraq War, she helped the Obama administration arm the Syrian insurgents that turned out to be ISIS, she destabilized Libya and she supported her husband's actions in the Balkans. The other knucklehead is not much better, though he does seem to understand that Iraq was a huge mistake.
Me, I "think locally, act locally" and understand that when one member of Congress represents 750,000 people they are no longer public servants but oligarchs. I refuse to participate. To paraphrase Lysander Spooner, a man is no less a slave because he chooses a master in a term of years.
Kosovo was with the backing of the international community, and in response to clear acts of genocide. So no. Libya was going to collapse either way, probably best for us to stay out, but we were trying to buy brownie points with whoever came into power after. Compared to other failed stayes, Libya isn't "as" bad, and American influence has helped cobble things together.
Going on genocidal wars clearly isn't the answer, but neither is burying our heads in the sand.
We were told that Kosovo was genocide committed by one side, the evidence for that is scant at best. So calling them "clear acts" is simply parroting the media hype before we went in and indiscriminately bombed people. Libya is a huge mess, we have created a hotbed of radicalism and saying it was "going to collapse either way" is simply not true. Gaddafi was in no danger of going away.
It is not burying your head in the sand when you avoid entangling alliances with terrorists and shun waging war on people you have never met. Our foreign policy is a policy of meddling and wrong. The fact is that there has never been a war that Hillary Clinton did not support or encourage. Saying one party has a penchant for war is absolutely incorrect, they both do. Historically the Democratic Party is America's War Party, recently (in the last half century) the GOP has joined them in their never ending quest to police the world. Do not mistake my position as support for either party, they are equally corrupt and worthless.
@bmwrider Hmmm... Evidence of war crimes have been found by numerous neutral authorities. Whether or not it was a genocide or acts of genocide with a different goal in mine (i.e. forcing migration rather than eliminating a group) is debatable. Given that both Kosovo and Serbia are relatively stable countries, that have enjoyed progress in regards to their economies and overall human development indicators, I can't feel overly terrible about that. Not the United States or anyone else can act as the world police. The KLA were terrorists, IMO, but that doesn't mean that Serbia should have been allowed to commit war crimes.
Gadaffi had already lost most of his support before the U.S. was seriously involved. Remember, the Arab Spring swept away the Murabak regime, which we were generally quite friendly with. The regime was collapsing before the U.S. got involved. More likely, the motive for involvement was to have a seat at the table after it was set and done.
Does that make intervention worth it? Not IMO, but there's a huge, huge, huge, huge, huge, huge, gap between the Iraq war and aerial bombing campaigns in both Kosovo and Libya, with both having broad international support, and neither a conflict that we picked and started.
The Iraq War that was a bi-partisan boondoggle. Sitting it at the feet of either party is simply gamesmanship. The fact is that the CinC could have pulled American forces out of Iraq 7 years ago. Today there are American military forces in Iraq (as well as Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Qatar, and Northern Africa just to name a few places) but the American public is fed the myth that the war is over. Interesting because American military men and women are still dying there.
I think your opinions on Kosovo and Libya are based on incomplete information or on the misinformation that was perpetrated by the media prior to the conflict, hence the reason why I provided you links for further information. What the media tells us and truth are usually mutually exclusive.
If as you purport the idea was to have a seat at the table when the conflict was done, that did not work out at all. Your huge gap is simply seen as huge because the value of life between locals and Americans is huge, huge, huge. I am not saying you are right or wrong, but the deaths of Libyans at the hands of extremists who the American government funded and encouraged is criminal. It happens all over the world. The last two administrations have left a path of death and destruction internationally, the fact that a current candidate for the Presidency is the architect of much of that death and destruction tells me a lot about the party that nominated her and the people who support her.
I will conclude by stating I simply do not care that governments across the world endorsed war, the fact is that government is responsible for more murder than all other forces on earth combined. Just because the "international community" endorses it (the same international community that endorsed the Iraq War no less) does not justify it or make it right. Your willingness to believe the Clinton spinmeisters regarding Kosovo (which resulted in widespread atrocities committed by the ethnic Albanian forces) while rejecting the Bush spinmeisters is interesting. Me, I reject them all.
@bmwrider your "links" are from highly suspect, partisan sources. Sorry, I'm not going to trust random Steemer typing behind random name, linking random partisan people who profit from stirring up the pot, rather than multiple independent investigators from numerous different organizations. Yes, yes, it's all a conspiracy, and no one can ever refute you because that's just more conspiracy stuff, people trying to trick BMWrider.
Pulling out of a country you already invaded isn't so simple. You have some sort of responsibility to those people to at least attempt to provide security, stability, etc. Bush should be charged for war crimes. In hindsight, independent investigations have found that Bush had a very personal vendetta against Iraq, and wanted to invade from his first day in office. The vast majority of companies that benefited from the war in Iraq were also Republican shill companies. There is no evidence, and no motive to suggest that Al Gore would have invaded Iraq.
The huge gap between Iraq and Libya owes to A) our involvement [ singlehandedly starting the war, boots on the ground, occupation] vs [trying to ride the wave of the arab spring, providing limited support during and after the war in coalition with an international community]
Instead of engaging the issue directly, you try to use a misdirection with the morality of lives of the citizens. This is the same type of crap the media pulls, our politicians pull, and everyone else.
Ahh, the logical fallacy of genetics, I am done. You showed that you are unaware of the sources when you used the term partisan, Dr. Thomas Woods is an independent party and loathes both political parties. Nice try though.
Why you are bringing up Bush is beyond me, it appears in the world of brinkerbd there is an allowable 3X5 card of opinion, anyone not on his side is obviously on the other. People like me who equally loathe both parties don't make sense to you. I get it Obama and Hillary Democrat - Good. Bush and Trump Republican - bad. In my opinion they are all bad.
The death of native lives may not concern a Democrat in America, but they certainly concern the people in the nations that your guy meddles in. There is a reason why the last two administrations are loathed throughout the world, the Bush/Obama foreign policy is a policy of death and destruction. Good job for your guy, he outdid his predecessor. Stop excusing the behavior of one by claiming the other was worse.
BTW, you may be a steemer, I certainly am not.
@bmwrider LOL, yes you certainly are done. You were done the moment you tried to throw a term back in my face that you don't understand. Go look up the word "partisan".
Who was it that bombed Libya? Why did the US military bomb Libya? Perhaps it was because they wanted to bypass the dollar. Check it out. :-)
Thank you for all those that up-voted this.