Blame Anyone But Biden

Chris

Administrator
Staff member
Blame Anyone But Biden
The president knows he’s disposable – and surrounds himself with scapegoats.
By Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

Biden and his cronies are busy blaming anyone and everyone else for Afghanistan.

Culprits for Biden’s folly thus far include the Trump administration, intelligence people (who warned him this would happen), the military (which also warned him this would happen), and Trump supporters whom the media implausibly alleges he was too afraid of to defy.

By next week, the media will find some way to blame Afghanistan on the unvaccinated, on systemic racism, and Ron DeSantis. Except that all the excuses aren’t working this time.

And that’s a problem because blaming other people for his failures is all Biden knows.

The Biden administration is one long search for scapegoats to protect the old goat at the top.

When gas prices soared, the Biden administration turned to OPEC to lower prices by raising output. OPEC’s response was a contemptuous shrug that didn’t even acknowledge the little man in the big house while making it clear that it’s happy with the way things are.

Biden has no leverage with OPEC. He can’t open up American production because he’s in thrall to the Big Green lobby that is gobbling up a trillion dollars of the economy with its subsidized Chinese junk projects. A huge chunk of Biden’s infrastructure dollars are going to Big Green.

Some OPEC members have crucial security concerns about Iran. But Biden has made it clear that he’s going to appease Iran. If Iran goes nuclear, it will be able to choke off much of our oil supply from the region. And even before then Iran’s expanding terror sphere threatens OPEC members like Saudi Arabia which were shelled by Iran’s Houthi terrorists in Yemen.

The Biden administration cut off support for the campaign to dislodge the Houthis from Yemen.

Even without nukes, Iran’s terrorist proxy wars risk creating all sorts of instability. And that will affect energy prices and lead producers to act conservatively out of fear of the next crisis.

Biden won’t allow American energy companies to compete with OPEC. And he isn’t offering any real sense of security to OPEC members in the region. Why should OPEC raise production?

But Biden wasn’t serious about expecting OPEC to raise production.

A recurring theme of his failed administration has been finding someone else to blame for his disasters. The lousy economy, the pandemic, and the collapse of Afghanistan are always someone else’s fault. The Biden administration’s messaging machine exists to play politics with the pandemic while blaming its latest setback on DeSantis, Trump, or disinformation.

The Biden administration didn’t expect OPEC to do anything. They were just seeking another scapegoat for Biden’s bad decisions. The media will receive its administration talking points blaming high energy prices, not on Biden’s Keystone XL pipeline cancelation, his hostility to the domestic energy industry, and the rising instability due to the rise of Iran, but on OPEC refusing to boost production. But who made America dependent on OPEC and, by extension, Iran?

The same politician who made Americans trapped in Afghanistan dependent on the Taliban

Biden wanted credit for withdrawing from Afghanistan when he thought it would make him look good. Once the Taliban took over, he began whining that he had “inherited” the withdrawal.

The only thing Biden inherited, based on his family tree, was a lack of moral fiber.

The dumbest and most destructive elements of the withdrawal, the evacuation of soldiers before civilians, the stealthy withdrawals from bases, the refusal to coordinate with NATO allies, had nothing to do with Trump or even the general idea of a withdrawal. It was Biden’s call whether to withdraw the troops before the civilians, and it was the absolute wrong one.

Even in the final hours before the fall of Afghanistan, Biden could have secured Kabul.

The Taliban kept indicating that they didn’t want to enter Kabul. Whether they really meant it or were testing our response, this was the opportunity to send in forces, secure Kabul, and create a safe evacuation zone for Americans. Instead, Biden dithered. Having American soldiers secure the city would have made it very difficult to then pull out the troops.

Biden and his people decided that it was better to abandon Americans behind Taliban lines and hope that they can negotiate their way out, than to be stuck being responsible for Kabul.

Since then the Taliban have reportedly handed over security in Kabul over to the Haqqani Network which is a component of the Taliban that is intertwined with Al Qaeda, has carried out numerous terrorist attacks, and is holding an American hostage.

But Biden prioritized forcing a harsh break at any cost over the lives and safety of Americans.

Now that the strategy has failed, in the sense that it’s widely unpopular, the Biden administration is searching for scapegoats. Biden is blaming intelligence and the military. The intelligence people are blaming the military and the diplomats. The diplomats are blaming the military. And the military knows that its job is to take the fall for every stupid thing that the politicians do.

There’s plenty of blame to go around, beginning with Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and General Milley, Secretary of State Blinken, and CIA Director William Burns. But their underlying failure was following orders. Milley had boasted of undermining President Trump by refusing to go along with his proposals, but he was happy enough to enable anything that Biden wanted.

The intelligence reports were there. And it’s impossible to imagine the military brass and their aides didn’t understand the risks of a scenario in which the Taliban trapped Americans behind enemy lines while only a meager force of 600 American troops remained to protect them.

They gave Biden what he wanted. And now Biden is blaming them for giving it to him.

Whether it’s oil or Afghanistan, Biden became the agent for enabling leftist ideological goals. His value, like that of any good agent, lies in being able to “humanize” a radical agenda with his grins, gladhandling, and malapropisms without looking like a radical. But that just makes him the final fall guy when the tattered remnants of his charm aren’t enough to deflect attention from the leftist wizards behind the curtain. And then it’ll be time for him to retire and spend “more time with his family”. His family being his crackhead artist son who almost cost him the election.

Biden knows he’s disposable and surrounds himself with scapegoats. And that leads to a work culture in which no one goes out on a limb to avoid becoming one of Biden’s scapegoats.

Why did none of the brass, the intel people, or the diplomats stand up to Biden?

Why does every interview or press conference by an administration official seem like a parade of excuses for inaction? The safest thing for anyone to do is to do nothing and let the blame rise, like hot air, up to Biden who, for at least one term, is considered too big to fail.

Biden’s age and mental state have created an unprecedentedly weak administration.

Few expect him to run for a second term. And whether he’s replaced by Kamala, another Democrat, or a Republican, there will be a clean sweep leaving few of the old gang.

A weak king inspires little loyalty. Biden’s loyalists don’t expect him to be around for long and they have little incentive to prop him up for a second term that isn’t likely to ever happen.

They have no loyalty to Biden, he has none to them, and none of them have any to America.

https://www.raptureforums.com/politics-culture-wars/blame-anyone-but-biden/
 

JimFromOhio

Well-Known Member
Still feel this is all planned out to eventually kick Biden out of office and install KH.
I feel that this may be the case as well. God help us if this happens. Nobody will be able to say anything against anything she does. If you do you’ll be a racist. None of our leaders have the stomach to be called this so they won’t oppose anything she does.
 

GotGrace

Well-Known Member
The intelligence reports were there. And it’s impossible to imagine the military brass and their aides didn’t understand the risks of a scenario in which the Taliban trapped Americans behind enemy lines while only a meager force of 600 American troops remained to protect them.
This is what I don’t understand at all is that he didn’t believe the intelligence.
His value, like that of any good agent, lies in being able to “humanize” a radical agenda with his grins, gladhandling, and malapropisms without looking like a radical.
This is exact what I saw in him and could not understand how other people could not see it and voted for him.
They have no loyalty to Biden, he has none to them, and none of them have any to America
This is the saddest part of all that they have no loyalty to this great country. They will all rush out the door when their time is done to write and sell their books.
 

GotGrace

Well-Known Member
Blame Anyone But Biden
The president knows he’s disposable – and surrounds himself with scapegoats.
By Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

Biden and his cronies are busy blaming anyone and everyone else for Afghanistan.

Culprits for Biden’s folly thus far include the Trump administration, intelligence people (who warned him this would happen), the military (which also warned him this would happen), and Trump supporters whom the media implausibly alleges he was too afraid of to defy.

By next week, the media will find some way to blame Afghanistan on the unvaccinated, on systemic racism, and Ron DeSantis. Except that all the excuses aren’t working this time.

And that’s a problem because blaming other people for his failures is all Biden knows.

The Biden administration is one long search for scapegoats to protect the old goat at the top.

When gas prices soared, the Biden administration turned to OPEC to lower prices by raising output. OPEC’s response was a contemptuous shrug that didn’t even acknowledge the little man in the big house while making it clear that it’s happy with the way things are.

Biden has no leverage with OPEC. He can’t open up American production because he’s in thrall to the Big Green lobby that is gobbling up a trillion dollars of the economy with its subsidized Chinese junk projects. A huge chunk of Biden’s infrastructure dollars are going to Big Green.

Some OPEC members have crucial security concerns about Iran. But Biden has made it clear that he’s going to appease Iran. If Iran goes nuclear, it will be able to choke off much of our oil supply from the region. And even before then Iran’s expanding terror sphere threatens OPEC members like Saudi Arabia which were shelled by Iran’s Houthi terrorists in Yemen.

The Biden administration cut off support for the campaign to dislodge the Houthis from Yemen.

Even without nukes, Iran’s terrorist proxy wars risk creating all sorts of instability. And that will affect energy prices and lead producers to act conservatively out of fear of the next crisis.

Biden won’t allow American energy companies to compete with OPEC. And he isn’t offering any real sense of security to OPEC members in the region. Why should OPEC raise production?

But Biden wasn’t serious about expecting OPEC to raise production.

A recurring theme of his failed administration has been finding someone else to blame for his disasters. The lousy economy, the pandemic, and the collapse of Afghanistan are always someone else’s fault. The Biden administration’s messaging machine exists to play politics with the pandemic while blaming its latest setback on DeSantis, Trump, or disinformation.

The Biden administration didn’t expect OPEC to do anything. They were just seeking another scapegoat for Biden’s bad decisions. The media will receive its administration talking points blaming high energy prices, not on Biden’s Keystone XL pipeline cancelation, his hostility to the domestic energy industry, and the rising instability due to the rise of Iran, but on OPEC refusing to boost production. But who made America dependent on OPEC and, by extension, Iran?

The same politician who made Americans trapped in Afghanistan dependent on the Taliban

Biden wanted credit for withdrawing from Afghanistan when he thought it would make him look good. Once the Taliban took over, he began whining that he had “inherited” the withdrawal.

The only thing Biden inherited, based on his family tree, was a lack of moral fiber.

The dumbest and most destructive elements of the withdrawal, the evacuation of soldiers before civilians, the stealthy withdrawals from bases, the refusal to coordinate with NATO allies, had nothing to do with Trump or even the general idea of a withdrawal. It was Biden’s call whether to withdraw the troops before the civilians, and it was the absolute wrong one.

Even in the final hours before the fall of Afghanistan, Biden could have secured Kabul.

The Taliban kept indicating that they didn’t want to enter Kabul. Whether they really meant it or were testing our response, this was the opportunity to send in forces, secure Kabul, and create a safe evacuation zone for Americans. Instead, Biden dithered. Having American soldiers secure the city would have made it very difficult to then pull out the troops.

Biden and his people decided that it was better to abandon Americans behind Taliban lines and hope that they can negotiate their way out, than to be stuck being responsible for Kabul.

Since then the Taliban have reportedly handed over security in Kabul over to the Haqqani Network which is a component of the Taliban that is intertwined with Al Qaeda, has carried out numerous terrorist attacks, and is holding an American hostage.

But Biden prioritized forcing a harsh break at any cost over the lives and safety of Americans.

Now that the strategy has failed, in the sense that it’s widely unpopular, the Biden administration is searching for scapegoats. Biden is blaming intelligence and the military. The intelligence people are blaming the military and the diplomats. The diplomats are blaming the military. And the military knows that its job is to take the fall for every stupid thing that the politicians do.

There’s plenty of blame to go around, beginning with Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and General Milley, Secretary of State Blinken, and CIA Director William Burns. But their underlying failure was following orders. Milley had boasted of undermining President Trump by refusing to go along with his proposals, but he was happy enough to enable anything that Biden wanted.

The intelligence reports were there. And it’s impossible to imagine the military brass and their aides didn’t understand the risks of a scenario in which the Taliban trapped Americans behind enemy lines while only a meager force of 600 American troops remained to protect them.

They gave Biden what he wanted. And now Biden is blaming them for giving it to him.

Whether it’s oil or Afghanistan, Biden became the agent for enabling leftist ideological goals. His value, like that of any good agent, lies in being able to “humanize” a radical agenda with his grins, gladhandling, and malapropisms without looking like a radical. But that just makes him the final fall guy when the tattered remnants of his charm aren’t enough to deflect attention from the leftist wizards behind the curtain. And then it’ll be time for him to retire and spend “more time with his family”. His family being his crackhead artist son who almost cost him the election.

Biden knows he’s disposable and surrounds himself with scapegoats. And that leads to a work culture in which no one goes out on a limb to avoid becoming one of Biden’s scapegoats.

Why did none of the brass, the intel people, or the diplomats stand up to Biden?

Why does every interview or press conference by an administration official seem like a parade of excuses for inaction? The safest thing for anyone to do is to do nothing and let the blame rise, like hot air, up to Biden who, for at least one term, is considered too big to fail.

Biden’s age and mental state have created an unprecedentedly weak administration.

Few expect him to run for a second term. And whether he’s replaced by Kamala, another Democrat, or a Republican, there will be a clean sweep leaving few of the old gang.

A weak king inspires little loyalty. Biden’s loyalists don’t expect him to be around for long and they have little incentive to prop him up for a second term that isn’t likely to ever happen.

They have no loyalty to Biden, he has none to them, and none of them have any to America.

https://www.raptureforums.com/politics-culture-wars/blame-anyone-but-biden/
Daniel Greenfield is great. He tells it just like it is and I love that in a person.
 

Awaiting Transport

Active Member
Maybe. However, anybody want to guess who will be her VP? My guess is Hillary Clinton. If so, Harris will need to watch her back and stay away from open windows.
In reference to Hillary becoming VP, that's not possible due to the LAW regarding presidential succession. The new president cannot simply 'name' a new VP. When either the president or VP leaves office as Spiro Agnew did, the Speaker of the House (Ford, back then) became VP. When Nixon resigned, Ford became president.

Which brings us to Nancy Pelosi. I've read a couple of online articles in recent weeks that indicate that she might be thinking of stepping down. To that, I say baloney. But, the LAST thing she wants is to become VP. She has far more POWER to control what laws get written and what's in them as speaker than she ever could as VP.

Strictly my opinion without any other input...I would expect Nancy to 'step down' and the person of her choice be 'elected' to take her place as speaker. THEN they would use the 25th amendment to get rid of Joe. The Speaker then becomes VP. The election in the House that follows would put Nancy back on her throne. Call it "Bruces' Postulate".

For what it's worth, it's been postulated by a couple of online authors that Hillary could run for a House seat, win and get voted speaker, Then Joe get removed making Hillary VP. But whatever means, Kamala would step down and Hillary would get her lifelong wish come true. It's also been postulated that Trump do the same thing in Florida! Many doubt that Joe is physically/mentally able to stay in the White House until January 2023. Either way, it would be interesting to be here to watch it all happen. But given world events today from acts of God and acts of men, I don't think we'll be here for Christmas!

Regarding initial post about Biden blaming everyone, it brings to mind a quote from a sheikh used to open an article on another site that seems to sum up the mess in Washington quite well:

“Hard times create strong men, strong men create easy times. Easy times create weak men, weak men create difficult times. Many will not understand it, but you have to raise warriors, not parasites.”—Dubai Founder, Sheikh Rashid
 

jab777

Well-Known Member
Just a minor correction: Gerald Ford was not Speaker of the House. He was the Republican leader in Congress. Nixon picked him to replace Agnew. So I believe it is possible for whomever is president to pick a replacement.
 

Andy C

Well-Known Member
In reference to Hillary becoming VP, that's not possible due to the LAW regarding presidential succession. The new president cannot simply 'name' a new VP. When either the president or VP leaves office as Spiro Agnew did, the Speaker of the House (Ford, back then) became VP. When Nixon resigned, Ford became president.

Which brings us to Nancy Pelosi. I've read a couple of online articles in recent weeks that indicate that she might be thinking of stepping down. To that, I say baloney. But, the LAST thing she wants is to become VP. She has far more POWER to control what laws get written and what's in them as speaker than she ever could as VP.

Strictly my opinion without any other input...I would expect Nancy to 'step down' and the person of her choice be 'elected' to take her place as speaker. THEN they would use the 25th amendment to get rid of Joe. The Speaker then becomes VP. The election in the House that follows would put Nancy back on her throne. Call it "Bruces' Postulate".

For what it's worth, it's been postulated by a couple of online authors that Hillary could run for a House seat, win and get voted speaker, Then Joe get removed making Hillary VP. But whatever means, Kamala would step down and Hillary would get her lifelong wish come true. It's also been postulated that Trump do the same thing in Florida! Many doubt that Joe is physically/mentally able to stay in the White House until January 2023. Either way, it would be interesting to be here to watch it all happen. But given world events today from acts of God and acts of men, I don't think we'll be here for Christmas!

Regarding initial post about Biden blaming everyone, it brings to mind a quote from a sheikh used to open an article on another site that seems to sum up the mess in Washington quite well:

“Hard times create strong men, strong men create easy times. Easy times create weak men, weak men create difficult times. Many will not understand it, but you have to raise warriors, not parasites.”—Dubai Founder, Sheikh Rashid
If Harris becomes president due to Biden stepping down, she picks her new VP, which then is voted on by congress. I seriously doubt Hillary would even remotely consider being VP.


“Whenever the office of President of the United States becomes vacant due to “removal ... death or resignation” of the chief executive, the Constitution provides that “the Vice President shall become President.” When the office of Vice President becomes vacant for any reason, the President nominates a successor, who must be confirmed by a majority vote of both houses of Congress. If both of these offices are vacant simultaneously, then, under the Succession Act of 1947, the Speaker of the House of Representatives becomes President, after resigning from the House and as Speaker. If the speakership is also vacant, then the President Pro Tempore of the Senate becomes President, after resigning from the Senate and as President Pro Tempore. If both of these offices are vacant, or if the incumbents fail to qualify for any reason, then cabinet officers are eligible to succeed, in the order established by law (3 U.S.C. Section 19, see Table 3). In every case, a potential successor must be duly sworn in his or her previous office, and must meet other constitutional requirements for the presidency, i.e., be at least 35 years of age, a “natural born citizen,” and for 14 years, a “resident within the United States.” Succession-related provisions are derived from the Constitution, statutory law, and political precedents of the past two centuries. Since 1789, Vice Presidents have succeeded on nine occasions, eight times due to the death of the incumbent, and once due to resignation (see Table 1). The vice presidency has become vacant on 18 occasions since 1789. Nine of these occurred when the Vice President succeeded to the presidency; seven resulted from the death of the incumbent; and two were due to resignation (see Table 2).

The events of September 11, 2001 raised concerns about continuity in the presidency and succession issues in general. Following establishment of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), legislation to include the DHS secretary in the line of succession was introduced in the 108th Congress: S. 148 , H.R. 1354 , and H.R. 2319 . These bills sought to include the Secretary of Homeland Security in the line of succession following the Attorney General, while H.R. 2319 also made further amendments to the Succession Act of 1947. Other measures sought major changes to existing succession law ( H.R. 2749 , S. 2073 , S.Res. 419 ), or proposed actions not requiring legislation ( H.Res. 775 and S.Con.Res. 89 ). S. 148 passed the Senate by unanimous consent on June 27, 2003, but no action beyond committee referral took place on any of the other measures. The Senate Committees on the Judiciary and Rules and Administration held a joint hearing September 16, 2003 to review the Succession Act of 1947 and the question of succession in general. An informational hearing was also held by the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Committee on the Judiciary on October 6, 2004. For additional related information, please consult CRS Report RS20827(pdf) , Presidential and Vice Presidential Terms and Tenure , by Thomas H. Neale, and CRS Report RS20260(pdf) , Presidential Disability: An Overview , by Thomas H. Neale. This report will remain available for Congress, but will not be updated.

https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL31761.html
 

RobinB

Well-Known Member
In reference to Hillary becoming VP, that's not possible due to the LAW regarding presidential succession. The new president cannot simply 'name' a new VP. When either the president or VP leaves office as Spiro Agnew did, the Speaker of the House (Ford, back then) became VP. When Nixon resigned, Ford became president.

Which brings us to Nancy Pelosi. I've read a couple of online articles in recent weeks that indicate that she might be thinking of stepping down. To that, I say baloney. But, the LAST thing she wants is to become VP. She has far more POWER to control what laws get written and what's in them as speaker than she ever could as VP.

Thanks for clarifying.
 

Lynn

Longing for Home
In reference to Hillary becoming VP, that's not possible due to the LAW regarding presidential succession. The new president cannot simply 'name' a new VP.
Are you sure about this? For some reason I thought the new Pres, in this case, KH, would select a person who would then have to be confirmed by both houses of Congress. If confirmed, then he/she would be the VP.
 
Top