Obama/Libya - is it changing conservatives opinions on pro-war thinking? (Ron Paul, middle east)

[Tiger Beer]

Originally Posted by OhioIstheBest

Anyone that says Democrats are anti-war are not paying attention.

So true.

Last election cycle was so irritating listening to McCain, Palin, Guliani, and company talking about how pro-war there credentials were, and claiming dems to not be so.

[texdav]

thnik its more the confusion that has them thinking. Obama never consulted congress;the plannig was after fact;there was never even any case of national security .now we see the US leading but not controlling the fight and o f course the cost. We see contimuig slipage on what the end game is and the arab states flip-flopping plus the europeans aguing evrything.Basically if Bush had done this there would be impeachment screams and hearings already from the left.What I see is a change in Democrtas with only the far left complaining showing how little their numbers really are;myself.

[Kele]

I'll tell you what I find incredibly hypocritical.

Painting ALL of those espouse a fiscally conservative viewpoint as:

a. Pro-war
b. birther
c. anti-[insert your minority of choice here]
d. conspiracy theorist
e. far rightwing religious fanatic.

Assuming anything about anyone based upon the label you give them speaks volumes about your own intelligence and tolerance of anyone who thinks differently than you do.

[Upton]

Originally Posted by Tiger Beer

So true.

Last election cycle was so irritating listening to McCain, Palin, Guliani, and company talking about how pro-war there credentials were, and claiming dems to not be so.

I don't get it..so you're proud that Obama has become a warmonger just like his predecessor?

You want to see some hypocrisy? Here's candidate Obama, a much different man than President Obama..

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power

[Tiger Beer]

Originally Posted by texdav

thnik its more the confusion that has them thinking. Obama never consulted congress;the plannig was after fact;there was never even any case of national security .now we see the US leading but not controlling the fight and o f course the cost. We see contimuig slipage on what the end game is and the arab states flip-flopping plus the europeans aguing evrything.Basically if Bush had done this there would be impeachment screams and hearings already from the left.What I see is a change in Democrtas with only the far left complaining showing how little their numbers really are;myself.

Actually Bush did the same thing..and the Democrats fully supported it.

Basically what I find interesting is that on the right, everyone paints Democrats to be non-war oriented.

I find they are basically the same thing.

-------

To the other posters who think that if I criticize Republicans, I am therefore a Democrat. I am neither one.

I find them both extremely hypocritical. I just find Republicans more hypocritical. I didn't see anything in the past that didn't say that Obama/Dems wouldn't do something like this. It's consistent there.

[skoro]

Originally Posted by Tiger Beer

Incredibly hypocritical, but last election, we saw Guliani and McCain and other Republicans talking about how more pro-war each would be if elected. I wonder if they were to be running right now, we'd be hearing about war costs money, etc.

Look...

The right wing mndset is not at all nuanced or complex.

"If Obama does it, it's bad. If one of us does it, it's good."

Nothing more to it than that.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by Tiger Beer

Incredibly hypocritical, but last election, we saw Guliani and McCain and other Republicans talking about how more pro-war each would be if elected. I wonder if they were to be running right now, we'd be hearing about war costs money, etc.

I bet they would have followed the laws to get permission to attack...

[Memphis1979]

Originally Posted by Tiger Beer

Incredibly hypocritical, but last election, we saw Guliani and McCain and other Republicans talking about how more pro-war each would be if elected. I wonder if they were to be running right now, we'd be hearing about war costs money, etc.

Only until a Republican is back in the white house.

Many conservatives "We should have a no fly zone in Libya"

Obama goes to the world community, gets a consensus, enacts the no fly zone

Now "Oh, we shouldn't have a no fly zone in Libya".

Many of these men and womens hypocrisy knows no bounds.

I at least respect Dick Luger, at least he's be consistent.

[AuDiBelle]

Originally Posted by Tiger Beer

Actually Bush did the same thing..and the Democrats fully supported it.

Basically what I find interesting is that on the right, everyone paints Democrats to be non-war oriented.

I find they are basically the same thing.

-------

To the other posters who think that if I criticize Republicans, I am therefore a Democrat. I am neither one.

I find them both extremely hypocritical. I just find Republicans more hypocritical. I didn't see anything in the past that didn't say that Obama/Dems wouldn't do something like this. It's consistent there.

I don't really care which party you align yourself with or who you find to be more hypocritical. The fact of the matter is that the anti-war protesters (read: liberals) were out in force and extremely vocal during Bush's reign and are for the most part eerily silent now but for a few. That = hypocrisy.

[Jay F]

Not all conservatives were pro-Iraq war. It was the neoconservatives. Neocons have plenty of influence in this administartion.