George W. Obama and the neutering of the left (Clinton, rating, government)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thank you for an extremely important thread, TnHilltopper. I agree 100%. The wars somehow got covered by the dust of a manufactured depression and have become foggy in the mass consciousness. I have yet to understand the rage the right has for Obama and have often argued that he really is no different than his predecessor, as your post certainly outlines. Obama is a new and improved Bush, a "Bush2.5, Now with Extra Spending!!"
I wish we were an attentive nation, one that didn't allow itself to be easily distracted. I guess we've gotten used to that giant sucking sound, the one that's pulling our money and reputation into an abyss.
I think our abuse of detainees, our trampling on the rights of citizens in other countries, and our well-funded violence and secrecy are the keystones to our demise. The coinciding economic ruin just feels more immediate and personal to the average US citizen.
What is the biggest difference between George W. Bush and Barack Obama on foreign policy, Obama domesticated the left and silenced the right.
Let's not forget that every attempt by the administration and relocate prisoners and conduct civilian trials has been vociferously protested by the right and threatened with Congressional defunding of any such efforts.
Yet the left in America does little to point out these things. I understand why many on the left have muted themselves, as the alternative to silence is criticism of Obama from the left and this doesn't play well politically and would likely hurt the 2012 season. If they don't support Obama and remain silent, the alternative might be a John McCain 100 year type or worse, I get this. However, I cannot help but once again point out that this is the slippery slope of supporting personalities and parties as opposed to positions. We end up politicizing things like war to the point that our wars drag on needlessly costing way more than they should in both lives and treasure.
I am not one to slam Obama for every nit picking thing, but I've always took this position on his views on foreign policy and the main reason I did not vote for him. Obama has done some decent things and moved the political pendulum but when it comes to foreign policy, he is to me little more than an eloquent version of Bush.
Quote:
There never was an anti-war movement regarding Afghanistan. It was directed at the war in Iraq.
No, but Iraq is not improving and Bush's failed war of aggression continues to rage on in piece meal fashion. Afghanistan's promises by Obama, which if we wish to get technical, were based upon conditions on the ground, are of course going to end up leading America to stay well beyond our useful abilities to do anything.
Even when Bush was President, our military and intelligence stated that there was at most 100 Al Qaeda operating in Afghanistan. Bush was open to talks with the Taliban, Obama is or was open to talks with the Taliban, and in the meantime, there was the Marjah offensive that has met with as much success as ending corruption in the Karzai government which is still accepting money in the form of BAGS from Iran.
Point is, with all that was said and all that was implied, Obama ended up being way more hawkish than the right claimed and way more hawkish than the left expected. George W Obama...
What is the biggest difference between George W. Bush and Barack Obama on foreign policy, Obama domesticated the left and silenced the right.
Let's not forget that every attempt by the administration and relocate prisoners and conduct civilian trials has been vociferously protested by the right and threatened with Congressional defunding of any such efforts.
There never was an anti-war movement regarding Afghanistan. It was directed at the war in Iraq.
Horsehockey.
Obama could close Gitmo tomorrow with a stroke of his pen.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,326 posts, read 54,344,425 times
Reputation: 40721
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
Nothing but catchy phrases, slogans and imagery.
Most of the Left I surmise was against the war for one reason - a republican was leading it. Trying to score political points, bring a president down.
How about the FACT that it was totally unnecessary and should not have been a priority after 9/11?
How about the FACT that rather than going after those RESPONSIBLE for 9/11 we chose to invade/occupy a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11?
That's two more than your alleged one reason to start with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
Now that a democrat is in charge you will not ever see the anti-war protest during Bush's time, even though obama is killing more civilians than ever, even though obama is extending and expanding those intelligence programs the Left found so onerous.
Link? I never saw any figures for civilain casualties during the Bush/Cheney regime, you know this how?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
There is a name for their silence, lack of. It is far worse than hypocritical.
And what's the name for the righties who so ardently supported the war who are now whining about it?
More wingnuttery. Obama learned he couldn't do what he campaigned on with regard to Guantanamo. The left realizes what a disaster this guy is on virtually every front so they are frantically trying to transform him into a right winger. It ani't gonna work. He is yours.
He's all of ours.
However, he's far, far too conservative for my tastes.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,326 posts, read 54,344,425 times
Reputation: 40721
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby
More wingnuttery. Obama learned he couldn't do what he campaigned on with regard to Guantanamo. The left realizes what a disaster this guy is on virtually every front so they are frantically trying to transform him into a right winger. It ani't gonna work. He is yours.
Nah, it'd be difficult to make him a right winger. He hasn't gone off half-cocked and started any unnecessary wars. He doesn't believe we should build infrastructure in places like Iraq, calling it a noble pursuit while at the same time telling us buying a Band-Aid for an American would be SOCIALISM!
Nope, not even close to the disastrous right wing malfeasance we've been subjected to.
Sorry. It was in response to an Ovcatto response to you.
Yeah, I know just giving you guff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell
How about the FACT that it was totally unnecessary and should not have been a priority after 9/11?
How about the FACT that rather than going after those RESPONSIBLE for 9/11 we chose to invade/occupy a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11?
That's two more than your alleged one reason to start with.
Link? I never saw any figures for civilain casualties during the Bush/Cheney regime, you know this how?
And what's the name for the righties who so ardently supported the war who are now whining about it?
Burdell, you have been here a good while and you may recall back when I was saying these very things about Bush and being accused of "liberal bias", but I party politics aside, can you see my frustration as an anti-war (these wars) advocate, regardless of political taste?
Possibly because this is largely a duplicate thread.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
