Louie Gohmert Tries to Bash President Obama, Instead Proves How Incompetent George W. Bush Was

louie-gohmertIt’s an absolute embarrassment to this country that Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) is a member of our Congress. While that can be said for many politicians serving in our government, it’s especially true for this babbling idiot.

But the truth is, the only reason why Gohmert represents Texas’ 1st District is because of Republican gerrymandering just over a decade ago. Before that shakeup, the district he currently occupies was considered the state’s 4th District and strongly favored the Democratic party.

Just for the record, that’s how elections are rigged.

Well, recently during an interview with a Virginia radio talk show, Gohmert basically said that President Obama is actively trying to help ISIS and that George W. Bush probably wouldn’t have gone to war if he would have known his successor would be so “incompetent.”

“So, thank you very much, Mr. Kaine, but you need to tell your buddy in the Democratic Party to actually start fighting our enemies and quit helping our enemies and help our friends instead and quit worrying about a new AUMF,” Gohmert said. “He would be able to defeat ISIS if he just starts helping our friends and stops helping the enemies.”

“Everybody else wants to ask that question of, ‘Gee, would you have gone into Iraq if you’d known what you know now?’,” he continued. “And I think if President Bush had known that he would have a total incompetent follow him that would not even be able to negotiate a status of forces agreement with Iraq and start helping our enemies and just totally put the Middle East in chaos, then he would have to think twice about doing anything if he had known he would have such a total incompetent leader take over after him. That should be the question.”

I would like to congratulate Gohmert on proving that he seems to know absolutely nothing about what’s gone on since 2003 as it relates to Iraq.

Let’s start off with the president “helping the enemy.” So far we’ve conducted over 3,700 airstrikes against terrorist groups with plenty more planned ahead. I’m not sure how ordering nearly 4,000 airstrikes can be considered “helping the enemy.” Seriously, what does Gohmert want him to do, send in ground troops? I can’t help but notice that while he had plenty of criticism for the president, he offered absolutely no specific examples of what President Obama is doing wrong or any details as to what he should be doing instead.

But the best part might be him saying that Bush probably wouldn’t have gone into Iraq if he knew the next president was going to be so incompetent.

So, is he saying that when Bush started the Iraq War in 2003, he knew it was going to last for six years? Funny, I remember someone landing on an aircraft carrier just two months after the war had begun, declaring “Mission Accomplished.” Besides, he wasn’t even intelligent enough to know what to do once Saddam was removed from power; that’s why we spent the next six years at war in that nation – Bush’s incompetence.

As for the Status of Forces Agreement, sorry, but that was signed by Bush. He’s the president who set the time-table for when our troops had to leave, not President Obama.

Ultimately, much of Gohmert’s rant was based upon attacking the “incompetence” of President Obama – based on mistakes made by Bush. So, in other words, while trying to levy some sort of outrageous attack on the president, all Gohmert really did was showcase just how incompetent George W. Bush was.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • Why5ks

    Gohmert said something totally stupid, in other news every word has a vowel in it.

  • strayaway

    When Obama helped overthrow Khaddafi with his executive bombing of Libya, that country became so destabilized that it is now hosting IS training grounds. Obama had been funneling US weapons to anti-Assad rebels in Syria. At the time Benghazi occurred, Islamists seized hundreds of US state of the art surface to air missiles there probably waiting to be shipped to Syria. Kurds are great but Assad has been our number one ally in the fight against IS. It makes no sense to be trying to topple our ally against IS. Even Col. Custer wouldn’t have done something that stupid. Obama’s support of the ‘Arab Spring” in general has been a US foreign policy disaster.

    In addition, weapons have been given to anti-Assad rebels who are billed as anti IS moderates. The problem has been that these weapons often wind up in the hands of IS forces. One ‘moderate’ rebel leader we gave weapons to fled to Syria leaving all US weapons behind for IS. Other ‘moderate’ forces have joined up with IS.

    A curious thing is how underreported the Ramadi takeover was. That was a huge victory for IS capturing a city of 470,000 68 miles west of Baghdad and cutting off Baghdad from west central Iraq, Syria, and Jordan. And IS now controls 50% of Syria after taking over Paymyra yesterday. That wasn’t well reported either. That’s two huge gains for IS in one week.

    • grumpydog

      Apparently you have forgotten, or are choosing to ignore, the billions of dollars in weapons that Reagan sold to Iran. Was that the right thing to do? Nope. Almost every president sells weapons to foreign countries. The right thing to do? Probably not, but it makes the arms manufacturers happy as hell, and when they are happy, they donate to politicians.
      Just try to not get to hypocritical with your facts.

      • strayaway

        I didn’t even realize that this article was about Reagan, James Buchanan, or other presidents.

        Truman: “The buck stops here”
        Obama supporters: “It’s Bush’s fault”

      • Bonta-kun

        Gohmert: those six years were the fault of someone who wasn’t even in the next presidential election after it all began.

      • grumpydog

        un American Hypocrites attempt to avoid the issue by blaming it on the “other” party, no matter what their party does. I could give a damn what party you choose to support, what they did, and what they will continue to do, is just as wrong as what the government is doing now.
        Try being an American Citizen, instead of a party tool. You may find it enlightening.

      • strayaway

        I think Obama and Bush should both be in prison; in the same cell if they choose. So which “other”party do you think I support?

      • Rufus McBoofus

        Since when is it wrong to actually blame Bush for the things that are, in fact, his fault?

        Blaming Obama for Bush’s failures is like arsonists pointing their fingers at the fire department. LOL

      • strayaway

        Bush is responsible for many thing. He lied about the weapons of mass destruction. He left the borders open. He spent too much. He promoted the Patriot Act and a general attack on the 4th Amendments. How is that? Satisfied? Obama just made all these matters worse and is our current president. It was grumpy, above, who tried to blame Reagan for what was going on now. That was a bit of a stretch and is what I responded too. Maybe you should have addressed your post to grumpy.

      • Rufus McBoofus

        Nope. Not hardly. You forgot his bungled response to Katrina, his disastrous mismanagement of the economy, his unprecedented wartime tax cuts for the wealthy, his complete failure to heed the outgoing Clinton administrations’ numerous warnings about Bin Laden and Al Queda, his being asleep at the switch on 9/11, his diversion of crucial men, money and material from Afghanistan for his failed war of choice in Iraq, etc., etc. etc. Obama on the other hand, saved Bush’s recession from turning into a depression, rescued American banks and automakers, fixed our healthcare mess and has continued to clean up Bush’s many, many messes and failures with NO help from a useless, racist, obstructionist GOP-dominated Congress. As for Reagan, well he and his man Rumsfeld DID okay Saddam’s first use of Chemical Weapons against the Iranians, so there you go.

      • strayaway

        Obama on the other hand plastered over Bush’s recession by running the country, so far, an additional $25,000 in debt per American while Saturn, Hummer, Pontiac, and Olds division as well as many GM dealerships out of business and turning Chrysler over to an Italian company, sold a lot of Hyundai’s with his ‘cash for clunkers’ program while driving up the cost of used cars poor Americans depend on, and promised to cut $1,500 from the average US family health care plan but increased the cost $2,500 per family instead. Obama is also the first US president to win a Nobel peace prize for continuing a war a couple of years after he promised to end it, to have bombed seven countries, bombed Libya without the consent of Congress, and oversaw disastrous foreign policies including the Arab Spring, overthrowing the elected government of Ukraine, inadvertently helped arm IS, and the resumption of the cold war. All this was accomplished while the 1%’s share of the total US wealth grew at a faster rate than under Bush and other Amarican’s wealth declined especially blacks whose wealth, home ownership and employment rates declined relative to those of whites. So, yeah, Obama is right up there with Bush in dragging this country down.

      • Rufus McBoofus

        ROFL… total nonsense and partisan spin. Nice try.

      • strayaway

        Thanks for the vacuous reply. Hope you took in the news today that Hillary whoops had forgotten to record $26M of “donations” to the Clinton foundation.

        “The foundation, which has raised $2 billion since Bill Clinton left the White House, has emerged as a political headache for Hillary Clinton amid recent controversies over donations. The foundation, along with the Clintons’ paid speaking careers, have provided additional avenues for foreign governments and other interests to gain entrée to one of America’s most prominent political families.” -Washington Post 5/21/15

        The Clintons have made $25M giving speeches since January, 2014. Didn’t Jim Wright get into trouble for selling copies of his book by the truckload to unions. He should have just given speeches to get around bribery charges.

      • Rufus McBoofus

        Thanks for the equally vacuous post. LOL

        As for this whole Hillary non-scandal: who cares? Don’t you know that money is free speech now? SCOTUS said so.

        Nobody cares about all the GOP dark money – just ask Marco Rubio, who’s been ripping off the GOP for decades now – and nobody cares about this nonsense, either.


      • Dave Girvin

        Everything is Bushs’ fault, if you can’t see that your blind, more likely hypnotized by fox news. Why is everything Obamas’ fault except the economic recovery, though small it’s in much better shape now unlike Bushs’ failed presidency.

      • strayaway

        If i borrowed $25,000 for every member of my family, I would be doing better to. The neighbors might assume i was doing better seeing the new car in my driveway, etc.. Obama has run up $25,000 per American so far to plaster over the recession and make it seem better. The problem is he is handing that bill for that appearance to our kids. I think of it as child abuse. So, yes, the economy seems better but the backside of it is that the bill is due. Why did Hillary and kerry vote, in effect for the Iraq war and why did president Obama keep it going so long instead of ending it immediately as he promised? Why the hell did Obama bomb Libya and create a dozen new messes doing so because of the resulting weak government there?

      • Louis Navarro

        All the lamenting about debt show a fundamental misunderstanding of nation economics. Two words for you to read about: Monetary Sovereignty. as long as the US isn’t printing paper currency thereby increasing inflation, there is little need to worry about the national debt. Fear mongering about the national debt is just the Right’s grand old play to rile up the sheep.

      • strayaway

        “Monetary Sovereignty”: fancy words for the sheeple to toss around to pretend they are smart. The reality is that those $8T have to be paid back even if they were issued digitally instead of by printing paper currency. Most of us get by on paychecks or pensions. If we spend those checks servicing debt, that amount of money won’t be available for spending on something else and will consequently drag down the future economy.

      • Louis Navarro

        Obviously, you’ve entirely missed the core concept. You, strayaway, don’t owe a penny towards the national debt… You are not the federal reserve bank and your checks will not contribute to the fed paying back the debt. The concept isn’t complicated nor is the phrase “monetary sovereignty” a fancy term. Try and keep up with the sheeple here, all the national debt represents are deposits or treasury bonds at the Federal Reserve Bank. The federal government doesn’t borrow dollars, rather, it allows interest paying deposits in T-security accounts at the FRB. If China wanted to call in its deposits all the FRB would do is transfer already existing dollars from T-security accounts and debit back to China. Poof, done. Get it?

      • strayaway

        The US is $18T in debt. Just paying off the interest on the national debt consumes 6% of the federal budget even at today’s low interest rates. That is money that cannot be spent on bridges, education, or anything else. When interest rates climb to historical averages or above historical averages, that percentage will increase at the expense of other federal programs. You can comfort yourself by repeating your magical “monetary sovereignty” mantra but we are still having to pay 6% to just service our expanding debt.

      • Dave Girvin

        Typical conservative, ignore facts like the 2/3 of the national debt that was waiting on Obama’s desk when he walked in the door. So the Bush administration isn’t responsilble for any of the debt I guess, didn’t care our kids would pay it Hillary and Kerry didn’t vote to go to war, they voted to give Bush the power to start the war unilaterally which was based on admitted lies. Obama left Iraq when he did because the Bush administration signed an agreement with Iraq to leave when we did creating a vacuum that ISIS took full advantage of after the de-bathefication and disolving the sunni’s power base which have now joined ISIS. And those mess’s were created long before there was an Iraq, but go ahead and pull the usual “blame Obama” for everything under the sun and Bush’s mistakes as well. As usual the “right” uses fuzzy history and non-facts trying to re-write it. Child abuse???

      • strayaway

        Bush added $5T to the national debt in 8 years, Obama $8T in 6 years. Obama even added some billions retroactively to Bush’s last budget making Bush look worse and Obama better. More US troops died under Obama in Afghanistan than under Bush. Hillary and Kerry voted to give Bush the power to start a war retroactively. So I suppose you won’t vote for Hillary. You are right about the Iraq parliament voting for the US to get out by a certain date during the Bush administration. Obama tried to extend the deadline. Obama then gave IS a great start by aiding Syrian Rebels fighting Assad who was fighting IS and then handing US weapons to incompetents who turned them over to IS. So yes, Obama’ incompetency helped get IS off to a good start.

        If a father spent his paycheck at a bar so there was nothing left to fill the refrigerator at home, he could be charged with child abuse. When Obama ran the US national debt up $25,000 per American, our kids get stuck with his tab. Same thing.

  • Leah Schultz

    Invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam inflamed muslim extremists and the power vacuum created by toppling Saddam and installing a pro Iranian regime

    is what created the ISIS problem

    • Jal Para

      Pullease. Let’s not bring facts into a Gohmert conversation, it’s disruptive.

  • Wendell Craig Woods

    #SIGH -_-

  • amersham46

    There must be something in the water in Texas ,,,,,,,, if you bottled it and tried to sell on the streets of LA you would be arrested for dealing in psychedelic drug