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.
Because the previous Republican leaders dropped the ball in Afganistan and decided to attack a nation that was of no threat to us instead of eliminating the Taliban and Al Quida once and for all.
Okay -- but then what was the point in having Obama elected? It's been FOUR stinking years that he's had to bring our guys home.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,462,476 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onthevergeofanervous
John Hudson at "The Atlantic" has, but his angle is entirely wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit
I guess you don't make any effort to keep up and, apparently, neither does Breitbart. This attack was so well covered at the time that Google News lists 3254 news articles about if during that time period, including this one from "The Wall Street Journal."
Good question. Our guys are being slaughtered over there and the only thing liberal media will do is find ways to make it all positive so Obama can be elected and viewed as a hero.
We're not there to win a war, and we do not need soldiers stationed there.
But see, it's not that they didn't cover it, the (aptly named) OP is complaining that they didn't cover it from the Right (wing) "angle"!
Be honest had this happened when GWB was the POTUS the press would have been much more harsh in their reporting. I am not a Republican but only someone willfully blind can not see the difference in how the press deals with Obama and how they were with Bush.
I am and always have been against the notion of hearts and minds. You can't bomb the hell out of people and expect them to love you for it.
He didn't start that war and he's not responsible for the way it was mismanaged for the first 7 years.
So..given what he inherited, what do you think he should have done differently? What COULD he have done differently?
He could have done what he promised -- instead of mismangeing the war for 4 more years, he could have brought our guys home.
Because our liberal media will not actually do any reporting, you probably don't realize that he's sending 4000 more soldiers just from one military base alone over to Afghanistan now. We all know Obama isn't trying to win any war over there - but someone must be getting rich from it so he's keeping it going, no matter how many American lives it costs.
Your unquestioning worship of him for one -- and also your fellow liberals that think Obama walks on water and all is wonderful. Your liberal media won't report on the problems and if they do, they ignore the fact that we've had a democrat in the White House for the past 4 years.
He didn't start that war and he's not responsible for the way it was mismanaged for the first 7 years.
So..given what he inherited, what do you think he should have done differently? What COULD he have done differently?
That mismangment you discuss and I agree it was mismanged still resulted in fewer deaths in 7 years than Obama in 3 1/2.
Rules of engagement would be a good place to start.
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.
Support the Troops.
