G.W.B. Was Never THIS “Incurious”

“Even if you have only limply functioning neurons and no press-credentials, a human-organism of blob-shape can ascertain, without even jiggling your blob, that two presidents don’t accidentally “run into” each other anywhere.  Ever.”

Remember how 99% of the political class at ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc. sniffed at how “incurious” President Bush was?  When, in fact, it turns out his G.P.A was a point higher (not much but it matters!) than John Kerry’s?  And it has later emerged that President Bush is an avid, voracious reader (It’s been reported a book a week, typically, favoring non-fiction, and these are books well over 300 pages & without pictures, for any snot-nosed progressive who might be reading this.)

Well, we’ve reached peak “incurious.”  

And, once again, sadly, it is as it relates to those who cover presidents, and not, predictably, as it relates to the intellectual capacity of a president himself  – with or without a “D” after his name.

The most white-hot story in politics right now is Hillary Clinton’s rogue email server. There’s nothing more important or interesting in political circles right now – off-the-air, that is.  

Oh, there’s been some coverage of this profoundly criminal and dangerous breach of national security on the alphabet networks, and even MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” has had some honest coverage of it (but that’s only because they want another Democrat to win, not Hillary, who is insufficiently radical, to them, which is kind of horrifying all by itself.)

And, to be sure, The New York Times has done extensive reporting on the issue, even “breaking” the story back in March (but that’s only because they were fed all the details by that no-necked-short-furry-Machiavellian-troll Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s handler-consigliare, who also hates Hillary, also because she is insufficiently radical – and other reasons.)  

The New York Times has subsequently done some other reporting, from other reporters there, trying to white-wash the whole mess, and it’s a safe bet the white-wash reporters got expletive-laced, screaming, threatening phone-calls, just like the original March story reporter got, who dutifully changed the text without attribution (You’re supposed to tell your readers when you change the meaning of the text of an original story.  The New York Times didn’t. That’s bad.  It’s “Journalistic Ethics 101.”).  The Washington Post appears to have had the same trajectory.  So while hat-tips are owed to MSNBC, The New York Times, and The Washington Post, for covering at all, their motives are suspect; cleary, deeply, cynically, suspect.

So here we are.  It’s the dog-days of summer, Obama’s on the Vineyard, and a Clinton is in legal trouble.  All is normal.

Except it’s not.

It’s really, really not.

The two men who have treated Hillary to her two biggest public humiliations, Bill, who serially cheated on her, and Barack, who beat her from her “inevitable” crown in 2008, “ran into each other” on the golf course.  “Accidentally” says the press.


Even if you have only limply functioning neurons and no press-credentials, a human-organism of blob-shape can ascertain, without even jiggling your blob, that two presidents don’t meet “accidentally” anywhere. Ever. Their Secret Service details know.  Are we to believe nobody on the Obama detail called their buddy on the Clinton detail or vice-versa?  Seriously?  That’s silly, childish even.  That’s unicorn territory. No.  This was a purposeful meeting.  And the fact that there are pictures is also no accident.  Obama has proven capable of keeping the overwhelming majority of his time on all his golf outings private – if he wants to. There’s no way a picture of the two presidents would happens unless Obama wanted it to.  No way.  

So!  What are we to believe about this?  Here are some ideas, as curated by Twitchy, that seem right to me, and gave birth to this blog post of mine. How is it POSSIBLE we have such an incurious press?  I can think of a dozen questions, (without jiggling my blob!) I would love to ask, if only to see the looks on their faces, which might be all the answer we need.  Good grief!    



BOOM! (That’s what I think.)

Nature Abhors a Vacuum

American Thinker hits it out of the park (again!) with this analysis of Obama’s foreign policy – and surprisingly, offers a bit of relief, as encapsulated in this quote: “During the Soviet Empire the rise of Russia would have been very bad news. Today it might give us breathing space, to fix what is wrong at home.” It’s ass-backwards, like everything else in the Age of Obama, but it’s relief none-the-less.  An abbreviated version of the article is below, but if you click here you can enjoy it in its entirety.

August 24, 2013
Dangerous Times: Russia Rising in the Middle East
By James Lewis

Now that America is leading from behind, more serious powers are rushing to fill the vacuum… When America bugs out, what follows is not love and peace – contrary to deeply delusional liberals. What happens is a worldwide scramble for king of the hill. Instability breeds war… Civil war has erupted all over the place – Egypt, Libya, and Syria… And to show his profound concern for all the killing, Obama is sending vacation postcards from Martha’s Vineyard…

The Arabs aren’t smiling. In Egypt, both sides blame Obama. In Libya and Syria, we have alienated both sides, too. Behind the scenes, the Saudis are paying for the Egyptian military to knock down the Muslim Brotherhood, while the oil sheikhs of Qatar are trying to shaft the Saudis… (and) in the absence of American strength and reliability, all the players are turning to Russia…

That doesn’t mean Putin is a nice man, or that Russia isn’t going to pursue greater power. Putin is a Great Russian ruler.China, Europe, and Islam are his biggest historical threats. But in the nuclear age there are threats all around. Putin is therefore looking to take our place as the decisive power in the Middle East… Suppose you are Egypt’s General Sisi, trying to run a nation in chaos. Who do you want to guarantee your safety? A self-loathing, treacherous Obama, or a ruthless but very consistent Putin?

The answer is clear enough…

Obama may yearn to be adored, but Putin wants to be feared and respected. Putin is a man, with masculine values. Obama is not…