Back in 2006, Bill Whittle wrote a brilliant piece entitled “Seeing the Unseen” in which he dismantled many of the typical Liberal mantras, most of which could/can be found proudly and ignorantly plastered on the back of their car bumpers. This post by Mr. Whittle was the first one I read by him and it made me an instant fan of his work. Read on and you will soon see why:
Somewhere in Texas, a Village is missing its Idiot. I chose this one first since it’s the only one that has a particle of real wit. But the Bush is an idiot meme is very tired, and the most cursory look causes it to fall apart like — how can I make them understand? — like a lemon almond biscotti left too long in a grande caffe verona.
For starters, you can of course point to the fact that the man did graduate from both Harvard and Yale, but that was with a C average, and clearly, the idea of being merely in the middle of the pack of those getting advanced degrees from America’s two preeminent universities cuts you no slack from those community-college theater major drop-outs who love to level the charge.
So let’s leave that aside for a moment — Poppy’s connections and all that — and take a moment to look at this, if you will:
[Go HERE to see the picture]
This is a Convair F-102 Delta Dagger. It is a second-generation, supersonic fighter-interceptor. It cruises at 845 mph.
There were some minor aerodynamic problems with the F-102. For example, at certain power settings and angles of attack — like, say, take-off –- the jet compressor would stall and the aircraft would roll inverted. It is no picnic, skill-wise, to fly a modern F-16 with advanced avionics and fly-by-wire flight control systems. The workload on the F-102 was far higher. The F-16 has an accident rate of 4.14 occurrences per 100,000 flight hours. The F-102’s accident rate was more than three times that: 13.69 per 100,000 hours. 875 F-102A interceptors were built; 259 — almost 30% – were lost to accidents or enemy action while serving in Vietnam.
George W. Bush flew hundreds of hours in the F-102.
Now look at this:
[Go HERE to see the picture]
This is the cockpit of the F-102 Delta Dagger’s successor, the F-106 Delta Dart (I could not find an F-102 panel, but they would have been very similar)
Now, picture yourself in this chair, at 40,000 feet, traveling at one and a half times the speed of sound. Now imagine that someone has painted the windows white — you are flying on instruments. Now imagine that not only do you have to be able to fly blind, by referencing these instruments, but that you also have to stare into that orange jack-o-lantern of a radar, and interpret a squiggle that will lead you to your target. Now imagine that in addition to not hitting the ground, or your wingman, and watching the squiggle, you also have to turn those switches on the right side panel to activate weapons systems, to overcome enemy countermeasures — without looking outside, as you hurtle through air at -40 degrees F, air so thin that should you lose pressure, you have about 4-6 seconds of consciousness before you black out and die.
I maintain that the instant George W. Bush closed that canopy and took off on the first of his many solo hours in an F-102, it is quite impossible that he was either an idiot or a coward.
Here is a random question from the instrument rating exam I had to pass a few years ago.
Refer to figure 91:
[Go HERE to see the picture]
What should be the approximate elapsed time from the BOSEMAN (BZN) VOR to the DUBOIS (DBS) VORTAC if the wind is 24 knots from 260 degrees and your intended True Air Speed is 185 knots? (The magnetic variation is 17deg. E)
A. 33 minutes
B. 37 minutes
C. 39 minutes
(It’s C., obviously)
If he had been a civilian rather than military pilot, Dubya would have had to have passed 60 questions like this with at least 70% correct. Questions on weather, radio communications, mechanical systems, aerodynamics, pilot physiology, airspace, navigation and a hundred other things. But, since he was military, he also had to know how to operate that primitive in-flight radar, plus weapons systems, rules of engagement, electronic warfare, hydraulics, fuel systems — it goes on and on.
People like Michael Moore and Bill Maher and Keith Olberman would not be able to figure out how to close the canopy on an F-102. These people would be weeping with fear when those afterburners light up and you barrel down that runway hoping that engine doesn’t flame out and roll you inverted into the asphalt, or when you’re rocketing through the soup at 300mph watching two little needles chase each other, praying the next thing you see out the window is a runway and not a mountain goat.
George W. Bush is not stupid. It’s not possible to be a moron and fly a supersonic jet fighter, and everyone knows it.
What George W. Bush is, however, is inarticulate. English is his second language. From what I can see he does not have a first language. Abraham Lincoln spoke in simple frontier language in an age of rhetorical flourish. Like Bush, he was considered a bumpkin and an idiot, and like Bush, he realized that there were times when having people misunderestimate you repeatedly was a real advantage. That’s goal-oriented. That’s playing the deep game. That’s cunning.
I personally have gotten to the point where Bush’s malapropisms cause me to look at the floor and shake my head with an affectionate smile, in much the same way supporters of his predecessor used to do with every new revelation of coerced sex from former employees. He is what he is. But he is a damn sight more intelligent than the graphic designer in the Mini Cooper with the Village Idiot sticker. Me, personally, I look at the man’s entire catalog of flaws in the same way Lincoln looked at Grant and his drinking: I can’t spare this man. He fights.
So to me, anyway, given the above information I feel that anyone calling President Bush a moron and an idiot comes off sounding like — well — a moron and an idiot.
What a great tribute. What a great song. And dammit, this made me want to cry.
The Bush years were truly the days of my so far young life. In 1999, I graduated college, moved to Michigan and started my career at Ford Motor Company. From 2001-2008, I was ages 25-32. I grew as a person, I grew as an engineer and designer at work, I was blessed to date 2 wonderful women and in 2003 I was blessed to be able to buy my first home. I look back on those days with fond memories.
Now, here I am unemployed and on the brink of losing everything I built up the past 8 years.
The past 8 years were truly The Days of My Young Life, and, as such, it truly pisses me the hell off whenever I hear people bitch and moan and whine about the Bush years as some kind of hell of which we have never experienced in the history of mankind.
God Bless you, President Bush. I miss you, sir…
I didn’t agree with all of his policies, and his lack of defending himself against attacks aggravated me beyond belief. But… never once did I ever believe that he did not love this country and never once did I ever believe he was using the Presidency for bad reasons. (I can not say that about our current President and his entire Administration) Even with his Amnesty policy, I didn’t feel he was doing that for bad reasons, I just felt he was sorely misguided and naive about the short- and long-term implications of the policy.
But he had such a respect for the office of the Presidency and handled himself with such class. He and his family. And his love, admiration and respect for our military always made me admire and respect him even more.
I just think it is a shame that he will not be given his due as a President, and a great American, until long after he has passed on.
“I couldn’t agree more with all of you, thanks for commenting on the post. Pres. Bush was not perfect, far from it, but any of his critics with a shred of intelligence know he was doing all he could for the USA, never once did I feel he would nationalize anything, or take away anything, or worse yet round me up into some camp.
No comparison with the new pres. we are being ruled by a child, with a bad agenda. Its called Reparation, and all the fools who voted for him out of guilt will suffer worse because they didn’t see it coming.”
I think what has been sorely lacking among the American populace the last 10 years or so has been “perspective”. As you said, President Bush was not perfect. But, no politician — or person for that matter — ever is, or can be expected to be so.
I didn’t follow politics at all until 9/11/2001. That woke me out of my ignorance and apathy. Since then, since I have started paying attention and informing myself on a daily basis, there have been many things which have shocked me and which have saddened me and which have angered me. But, what I have learned and where I have matured in my knowledge and understanding of politics is that things need to be put into both context and perspective.
Unfortunately, too many people remain ignorant, remain uninformed and lack perspective. I think that is what hurt the most during the Bush Administration. He was no worse than any other President in history, but, in my opinion, was definitely the man we needed during the past 8 years to handle the tough times we faced. Did he always do the right thing? In my opinion, no. However, I believe he did the right thing more times than not, and, I believe he always did what he thought was the right thing for the betterment of this country.
I cannot say that at.all about this current Administration or anyone in Congress right now. I honestly despise all of them, in addition to the sycophantic mass media propagandists and the many kool-aid drinking American voters out there.
Here’s a fantastic montage put to music by Nick Jacob:
Of course, Obama’s propagandists in the mass media rushed to his defense, twisting themselves into pretzels to explain why Obama could never, ever make such a mistake… EVAH! Ace rips that BS apart here: Stupid: ABC News Spins on Obama’s Check-Out
ABC News is pretty sure he’s only watching his own footing, despite the fact that he has stopped moving and is safely positioned on the stair when he looks down in the direction of the 16-year-old’s booty. Oh, maybe he’s looking at her footing. Or someone’s footing. Or anything, except that which it appears he’s looking at.
Not only that, ABC News is pretty sure this is purest gallantry on Obama’s part; he’s just trying to make sure that Pretty Young Thing successfully navigated the stairs.
How dare you for suspecting otherwise.
Ace also makes a good point here about the blatant corruption in which the mass media partakes whenever one of their heros is in the White House:
I seem to remember the media spinning in the same who-are-ya-gonna-believe-Obama-or-your-own-lyin’-eyes when he clearly bowed to the Saudi king, too.
In the nineties, liberals and the media (BIRM) engaged in semantic parsing to try to explain that Clinton wasn’t really lying when his words were clearly dishonest. (Depends on what the meaning of “is” is; I was never alone with Monica Lewinsky, not once, except when I was playing hide the cigar with her, but I never “felt” like we were alone; depends on how you define “sexual relations.”) In these cases the media offered “context” and “fresh ways of looking at the evidence” all of which, of course, were intended to discredit the obvious truth at hand.
And now, in the late 00’s, the media is engaging in photographic or visual parsing with Obama. A look is not really a look; a bow is not really a bow. It may appear that way to you, but that is just because you are unsophisticated and lack the expert look- and bow- analytical abilities of your superiors, the MSM, and furthermore, you lack a crucial understanding that the MSM has and you don’t: Obama never errs and never appears the fool, ever, never ever ever.
This latter fact — as hard-wired into the structure of the universe itself as the speed of light — trumps all other supposed “facts.”
And finally, the great commenters at Ace of Spades HQ do their usual great job of breaking things down so simply that even a caveman could understand it (but apparently still not the mass media).
People who defend this prick aren’t watching the sequence of events in the video:
1. Jailbait from Brazil walks up steps.
2. Obama does a rubberneck, locks his focus directly onto her ass like a sniper and freezes. The woman who he will soon help down the steps is behind Obama, out of his sight.
3. tick tock tick tock…
4. The woman who was behind Obama steps forward into his line of sight.
5. She reaches for his hand, he grabs it, helps her down.
6. Sarkozy grins and thinks “I like this anti-American radical!”
You can spin whatever you want about steps 4-6 but 1-3 proves that the guy is a filthy goat.
On another topic, the drunk tank is a man light because Ace is back!
Posted by: Crusty at July 10, 2009 03:35 PM
Sarah Palin never said she could see Russia from her house. Did the media ever clarify that it was that slunt Tina Fey who said it and not Palin? No. They ran with the story that Palin said it to make her look like an idiot. And now these same scumbag assholes take that picture of Barry and are telling us what we are really looking at.
Posted by: TheQuietMan at July 10, 2009 03:36 PM
Yep. Let’s also not forget the whole “fake turkey” lie and meme the Left and mass media spread about President Bush and his Thanksgiving in Iraq. Did the media go through and explain that the BDSers were nutjobs and that President Bush wasn’t a tool like our current President? Nope.
Also, in the spirit of Seinfeld, Barack Obama shall now be known as the ASSMAN:
In the future, Mr. pResident, you might want to watch more Seinfeld so you know the rules about peeking at cleavage/ass. Heh
So what if he isn’t gawking (and I think he is). Mock him mercilessly. What comedian wouldn’t do so? Oh, right. Sorry.
Posted by: ed at July 10, 2009 03:47 PM
Heh. Exactly. It really does not matter a whit whether Obama was actually checking her out (but I think most normal guys realize that he was doing so). The point is that this picture is prime mocking material. Only Obama’s sycophantic, knobgobblers (which would include the entire mass media and at least 69+ million American voters) would think otherwise.
How long do you think the media is gonna keep pissing on us and tell us it’s raining?
They spin for Obama on everything — economy, foreign policy, spending, taxes, and now this?
Posted by: Tweets at July 10, 2009 03:50 PM
Simple answer: they will keep doing it until the American public wakes.the.f***.up and stops being willingly useful, ignorant idiots and rejects the spin.
I don’t really know yet whether he was ogling or if it was just coincidence. But here, the MSM pretty much squelched the story until they thought they could debunk it, even though what was happening is still up for debate.
However, with Palin seeing Russia from her house, even though that CLEARLY was not what she said, the MSM let the story gather momentum and become a part of the public record. To my knowledge, there has not been an MSM correction of the misperception to date.
Well, they are the deciders. If someone misstates what Palin says and it makes Palin look uninformed, well, they look the other way. No story there. But Pailn’s wardrobe, they’re all over that one.
Miserable, two faced hypocrites.
Posted by: RM at July 10, 2009 03:57 PM
More good points:
“Look, two points: This is a trivial issue. He may or may not have scoped out a 16 year old beauty.”
True. It is trivial. Where it ceases to be trivial though is in the media reaction. They are not reporting here. They are telling that “no Obama didn’t do this.” They are attempting to cover and make excuses for him. And as you said this is a trivial matter, so why waste time doing that? And if they are bending over backwards to cover for him on a trivial matter, then what else are they covering for him on?
“We lose credibility if we harp on this where the evidence is not crystal clear. It’s OK to make fun, but the compare this to the bow to the Saudi king is over the top.”
The comparison is valid. Not in the act itself, but in the attempt at media coverup for something they shouldn’t be doing. You’re looking at the point from a different angle than you should be.
Posted by: buzzion at July 10, 2009 03:59 PM
Yep. Also, stop with the “we lose credibility if…” whiney BS. Did the Left, Democrats and mass media lose credibility the past 8 years with their BS they pulled about anything and everything with regards to President Bush, any Republican, any Christian, any conservative, any conservative pundit, Joe the Plumber, Carrie Prejean and now Sarah Palin? Nope. They kept smearing and distorting and smearing and distoring over and over and over AND OVER again until their smears and lies and memes — even on the most trivial things — became accepted conventional wisdom. Well, two can play at that game, so get ready to deal with getting a dose of your own medicine, Lefties.
Exactly, which is why the left is pissed off at us for laughing. This takes away from The One’s “divinity”. It means he’s human. If The One is human, it means he’s susceptible to error. OMG! NO! That cannot be! Hence, all the silly assed spin over what is nothing more than a chuckle that Barry’s checking out some 16 year old’s ass. Hey lefties, you guffaw with your ‘sophicated humor’ when a has-been comic insinuates the rape of a 14 year old, but get up tight about this?
Posted by: GarandFan at July 10, 2009 04:27 PM
Who gives a sh*t which way or what he was looking at?? Remember Alinsky’s rules? You guys want to play nice? What the hell have they done, and continue to do, to Sarah Palin?
And I don’t, for one minute, doubt that this narcissist, given the chance, wouldn’t hit whatever the hell he had the chance to hit. Marriage, kids, whatever, be damned.
Posted by: Jane D’oh! at July 10, 2009 06:33 PM
Exactly. Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule and then ridicule some more. And when the Left gets all pissy and whiney. RIDICULE SOME MORE. You ridicule the living hell out of them until they stop the sh*t they started with their BDS, their Sarah Palin smears, their Joe the Plumber smears, their Carrie Prejean smears.
Remember the scene in The Alamo when the Mexican army shot a dud cannonball at The Alamo? William Travis picked it up, put it in their own cannon and told his men to send it right back at those f***ers (he may have used different wording than that). That is exactly what we need to do. No more pussyfooting around. The Left has been doing this for YEARS with NO repurcussions. Time to send their sh*t right back in their despicable faces. They wanted a war? Well it’s high time we GIVE them one.
I continue to see people bitch and moan and complain about how horrible things were economically under the Bush (43) Administration. Some of these same people then turn around and defend the Obama Administration budget when it QUADRUPLES anything that happened under the Bush Administration. Hypocrites, the whole lot of them.
Randall Hoven put together a nice summary of the reality of the Bush (43) economy as well as explaining that the American people who claimed to want less spending, ended up giving complete power of our government in Congress and the White House to the true big spenders.
Great job, morons.
Via American Thinker: Who are the Big Spenders?
[ … ] President Obama made these sentiments clear, as reported by the Kansas City Star.
“It’s a little hard for me to take criticism from folks about this recovery package after they’ve presided over a doubling of the national debt… What I won’t do is return to the failed theories of the last eight years that got us into this fix in the first place.”
Time for some reality checks.
Myth. Our national debt doubled in the last eight years.
Fact. Nope, no matter how you measure it. In fact, if adjusted for inflation, real economic growth and population growth, it didn’t budge at all. …
Myth. President Bush increased spending dramatically. Specifically, he spent more than President Clinton did, dramatically increasing our national debt.
Fact. Only if measured in nominal dollars. But by that measure, or even in inflation-adjusted dollars, Clinton spent more than Bush 41, who spent more than Reagan, who spent more than Carter, on down the line. Measured in a meaningful way, namely as a fraction of GDP, Bush spent less than the pre-Bush average, including that of President Clinton. Similarly, he kept national debt below the pre-Bush average. …
Myth. Republicans spent more on bailouts than Democrats. After all, Bush’s bailout, supported by John McCain, was $850B while Obama’s stimulus was only $787B.
Fact. It is true that 850 is more than 787. But when you get into who really asked for what amounts, and who voted for those amounts, the Democrats are responsible for 80% of all bailout spending – and the worst 80%. …
Myth. Bush spent irresponsibly huge amounts of money on his unnecessary war in Iraq and defense generally, crowding out non-defense spending.
Fact. No he didn’t. What he spent was nowhere near unprecedented, as a fraction of GDP. And he spent more on non-defense than Clinton did, even measured as a fraction of GDP.
Spending on national defense went from 3% of GDP to 4% in President Bush’s time in office. The US spent more than that from 1941 to 1994, or 53 years. A mere 4% of GDP is historically low, not historically high. Even during its lowest point previously, Jimmy Carter’s term, defense spending was 4.7% of GDP.
When we let that figure get low, 1.7% in 1940 and 3% in 2000, we got Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Coincidence? …
Myth. When Republicans were in charge, they spent too much.
Opinion. Yes they did.
But why do I say that? I say that because I am a limited-government conservative. I waited 50 years for Republicans to be in charge so they could do what they always said they would do: cut taxes, cut spending, cut regulations. They cut taxes a little bit in their first year or two, and that was it. I didn’t want them to do the same thing that had been done the previous 50 years; I wanted them to cut, cut, cut.
The above excerpt only includes the general statements. If you want his breakdown explaining the facts, make sure to read the entire article, as he lays out all the numbers for anyone willing to open their eyes and see.