Now That Obama is President What Happened to the Anti War Movement?

[Oddball]

Those were 'old-time' Dems who still put the good of the country first before partisan hare-brained ideology.

... who were challenging "old time" republicans who were fiscally conservative and would scoff at the specter of a Sarah palin and the celebration of failure.

Can't disagree there. Now we got the best two-party system Wall St. and the 'banksters' can buy.

Right...Which is largely why the insider elites in both parties worked to get Goldwater drubbed.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Left/Democrats are only "Anti-War" when the other side has power. This has been proven time and time again. They are frauds. I've always said that. They'll pop up again at some point when the other side regains power. It is what it is.

This post is a typical 'LibocalypseNow', a full and complete partisan opinion wherein he makes universal claims and suggests that the Left and Democrats are one and the same. It is one, of several reason, he lacks any credibility.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

... who were challenging "old time" republicans who were fiscally conservative and would scoff at the specter of a Sarah palin and the celebration of failure.

Can't disagree there. Now we got the best two-party system Wall St. and the 'banksters' can buy.

Right...Which is largely why the insider elites in both parties worked to get Goldwater drubbed.

Absolutely correct. Now it seems we all vote on who we don't hate as much-as opposed to who we like more. And I think BOTH parties but themselves before the country.

 

[Meister]

Every since they declared the surge (you remember, the escallation of combat troops, bribes and concessions to all three groups fighting there) a success in Iraq you hardly ever hear a peep about the continue violence in Iraq from the corporate media.

You can find them here:

Antiwar.com

I still think there are those who want the run up to the Iraq Invasion investigated.

I still think there are those who want President Obama to exit both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Myself, I've alway been of the opinion that we need to stop most all of our interventionist policies overseas and bring the troops home.

I want the invasion of Iraq investigated.

I want US troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The difference is that I give Obama no pass on war and our terrorism just because he's not Bush, or because he's not a republican. What he's doing is every bit as mindless and evil as what Bush did.

First of all let me say that I think the Iraq War was a mistake from day one. But, I would like it to be investigated, also. I would like to decipher fact from fiction with Iraq. If there were lies, I want to know what the lies were, and from whom. If it really was about the oil...what happened? I want the Haliburton exposure to be brought to light. I would also like the left to know that Haliburton has been used for decades with non bid contracts.

I do want the troops out of Iraq and Afganistan.....it's throwing money down a bottomless pit, with no upside in that region.

 

[Toro]

Same thing that happened to all the conservatives who worried about the deficit and less freedom when Bush was in charge - they rolled over without a peep.

I love it when I make an arguement and someone dismisses it not by commenting on the subject but by an attempt to invoke a moral equivelancy. No matter what the case Democrats always spend more than Republicans. While Republicans were known for their big spending Democrats own that territory and then some. Though I do fear by responding to your attempt at moral equivelancy I am allowing you to do what you came here for. To hyjack the thread with a nonrelated comment.

Sorry that you cannot see the message.

It is simple - When those with whom you agree do something, you are more likely to rationalize away those actions. Likewise, you will tend to oppose something more when people with whom you disagree do it.

It doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum one is on, this is what people do.

As for "Big Spending Republicans," it is the Republican Party that has held itself out as the party of fiscal responsibility. The Democrats are supposed to spend like drunken sailors, remember? As good as it is to see them starting to get religion, Republicans wallow in hypocrisy on the deficit, given that they have been wantonly reckless with the nation's books for 30 years.

 

[Trajan]

Oh, come on, 9/11 was originally considered an international CRIME, and with all unseemly haste it was turned into a justification for WAR, a nebulous WAR, one without any recognizable end or definable objective. This was done for a reason. Thars GOLD in them thar hills, for certain folk, and justification for all manner of skull fuckery.

Oh boy, " international CRIME"..excellent barb never head that one before.

yea I mean wth is wrong with us? we get our citizens blown up and.....what? we call inspector Clouseau? Maybe we should have let the UN, whom cannot find the nerve to even publish anything finding an Arab, Persian or Palestinian culpable of anything, yea that would certainly have settled it.

Oddly enough, the blind in one eye asshat behind the first attempt is behind bars, and we didn't have to go into debt with China (or airlift pallet fulls of our national treasury, which nobody STILL knows what happened to, $8 billion of it) to FUND it. Not to mention the blood and futures of our young.

Individualism is almost its own religion in this country...until it is more profitable and politically expedient to other objectives to make any given topic a collective venture. Even when that is unjustified. Even when that is unjust. Even when that gets innocents killed for no good or rational reason. As long as it is profitable to some, salable to many, and serves the overriding and unspoken objectives of those in power, and that includes the current crew, individual lives and the good of all will be sacrificed for political expedience and the profits of those who stand to risk the least while gaining the most.

It is what it is. I make no distinction between parties at this point.

This has nothing to do with parties, I agree. what, you really think if gore had been in the oval office we would not have gone into Afghanistan?

The only thing that wold have changed is the anti war effort would have been more muted, now, granted and I agree that Iraq really set people off, and after a year or so with no results ala wmd and the start of the terrorism, I can see that, but Afghanistan is no longer a good war either, or is it?, or ever was , BUT thats muted now too, the fringe, even as I posted, libertarians and anti war , or looking at the tape anti American anything, see it as a waste, and frankly at this point so do I. If Obama woulds have sent the original request for upwards of 60k troops would we be seeing anything more in the way of people in the streets etc.? No, because it wasn't numbers, or the war per se', it was bash bush.

And the protests are not even honest, which i think is the point...wheres all the NGO's screaming at incarceration without due process or a court date etc.? Obama has said straight way even if a jury finds them innocent, he'll never let them go. Wheres the outrage?

the profit and salable, means what exactly?

 

[georgephillip]

Now That Obama is President What Happened to the Anti War Movement?

Ha! When Bush was in office it was "Bush is a War Criminal and we should pull out now". Now the Anti War crowd is ...... well ....... no where to be found. Thats despite the fact that Obama raised the number of troops in Afghanistan. I guess war was used as a way to attack Bush but now that Bush is no longer president there is no need march on washington? This shows you how dishonest the anti war movement was. War is only bad until a socialist is in office. It reminds me of the time the socialist/communist anti war organizations of WWII changed their mind about war overnight after the NAZI's invaded the USSR.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_VHEts3fqk&feature=player_embedded

Anyone truly confused about the existence of the antiwar movement can find the ANSWER March 19th.

Don't be surprised if thousands of Americans march and demonstrate on that Saturday and the corporate press finds other things to write about.

There's also the undeniable liberal tendency to judge this president NOT by the content of his character and policies BUT, rather, by the color of his skin.

 

[loosecannon]

Now That Obama is President What Happened to the Anti War Movement?

Ha! When Bush was in office it was "Bush is a War Criminal and we should pull out now". Now the Anti War crowd is ...... well ....... no where to be found. Thats despite the fact that Obama raised the number of troops in Afghanistan. I guess war was used as a way to attack Bush but now that Bush is no longer president there is no need march on washington? This shows you how dishonest the anti war movement was. War is only bad until a socialist is in office. It reminds me of the time the socialist/communist anti war organizations of WWII changed their mind about war overnight after the NAZI's invaded the USSR.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_VHEts3fqk&feature=player_embedded

congratulations, you finally got something right after weeks of falsely parading around as if you were some exceptionally honest and fact based kind of thinker.

You are still batting about .050, but with practice you might someday become a respectable hitter. Well at least you can dream.

 

[rdean]

It is ironic that bush was such a unifier of people who's only common cause was thier undying hatred of bush and a select few of his cohorts (Rove, Cheney, Bolton). This spasmic orgasm of hatred brought groups together who really have very little in common. It brought communists and blue collar middle america trade unionists together, palestinian agitators and gay rights supporters together, anarchists and big government supporters together, and other combinations that leave your head scratching.

Once thier Emanuel Goldberg was gone the 8 year hate couldn't overcome the differences in poltical motivations that such a vast movement consisted of. What is left is the true hard core anti-war people, the anti-war (unless its against caplitalists, then in that case PEW PEW I'MA FIRIN MY LAZOR), and a few other fringe nutters.

It also brought together many families of grieving parents whose children were tricked into going to Iraq. Don't forget those.

Nice loaded statement there. How do you trick members of a voluenteer military into doing things the military is supposed to do?

And of those famlies you discuss, the most popular person of the group, Cindy Sheehan has been abandoned and left high and dry by those who held her on a pedestal. I wonder why?

That's an easy one. You trick Americans into believing there was a connection between 9/11 and Saddam.

"You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror". --George W. Bush, September 25, 2002.

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties." --George W. Bush, September 17, 2003.

(common quotes of Bush)

According to a March 2, 2006, Zogby International Poll, "90% of American troops in Iraq believe that they are fighting to avenge Saddam Hussein's role in 9/11."

http://www.zogby.com/news/body3.cfm?ID=1075
------------------------------------

So where did the troops get the idea? Are you calling our troops "stupid"? What did you mean by, "How do you trick members of a voluenteer military into doing things the military is supposed to do?" Why are we supposed to attack a country that never attacked us?

 

[The T]

It also brought together many families of grieving parents whose children were tricked into going to Iraq. Don't forget those.

Nice loaded statement there. How do you trick members of a voluenteer military into doing things the military is supposed to do?

And of those famlies you discuss, the most popular person of the group, Cindy Sheehan has been abandoned and left high and dry by those who held her on a pedestal. I wonder why?

That's an easy one. You trick Americans into believing there was a connection between 9/11 and Saddam.

"You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror". --George W. Bush, September 25, 2002.

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties." --George W. Bush, September 17, 2003.

(common quotes of Bush)

According to a March 2, 2006, Zogby International Poll, "90% of American troops in Iraq believe that they are fighting to avenge Saddam Hussein's role in 9/11."

http://www.zogby.com/news/body3.cfm?ID=1075
------------------------------------

So where did the troops get the idea? Are you calling our troops "stupid"? What did you mean by, "How do you trick members of a voluenteer military into doing things the military is supposed to do?" Why are we supposed to attack a country that never attacked us?

Then WHY did Obama stick to the 'BUSH DOCTRINE' in Iraq as he does now with ASTAN?

You are really weak deany.

 

[Londoner]

The OP is either dishonest or confused.

Obama supported the war in Afghanistan from the beginning. The Left was opposed to Bush because the Iraq War was based on fraudulent intelligence.

If the OP wants to see how the Left reacts to its leaders who wage fraudulent wars, look no further than LBJ and Vietnam. You would never see the Right challenge its leaders so violently. The young Republicans are foot soldiers of their Big Government Republican Leaders in a way the 60s Left never was. When Reagan doubled the deficits of his Democratic predecessor, you did not see 1 single revolt. Nobody said a peep when Reagan, in order to pay for absurdities like Star Wars, expanded the debt ceiling twice. You didn't see one Tea Party Revolt when Bush and his Republican Congress spent more than any political party up to that point in history. Let's face it: we know the Democrats are going to spend like drunken sailors, but the GOP's primary platform is less spending and smaller government: yet Reagan and Bush spent and expanded government more than their Democratic predecessors by an unbelievable amount. But the Right never talks about it. They're not allowed to oppose their Leaders, even after the fact. They're so obedient that they scrub history clean -- erasing Dear Leader's crimes of spending, fighting tooth and nail on every message board to cover up Reagan's disastrous deficits. (They love, trust, and obey their government leaders when it provides war plans or Pentagon budgets: the Right is extremely obedient to their version of Big Government. They have allowed their party leaders to spend even more than the Democrats. How did this happen? Is talk radio that powerful?)

The Right never genuinely and forcefully opposes their sitting presidents. Never, ever, ever. You will never see the equivalent of what the Left did to LBJ on the Right. Never. If the Right takes the White House in 2012, you will not see 1 Tea Party revolt -- even if they spend more than their Democratic predecessors, like they always do. The message boards are filled with obedient foot soldiers who don't even know their party's real history of spending. It's scary.

If you want to analyze left wing hypocrisy, you should ask why they haven't held their Leaders responsible for siding with Wall Street over Labor. You should ask why they didn't denounce Clinton for getting in bed with Rubin and big business and deregulating financial markets to the point of causing an epic meltdown. You should ask why they didn't blame Clinton for completing the Reagan Revolution. http://books.google.com/books?id=Ep...&resnum=8&ved=0CFoQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false

(We didn't here a peep over Bush's 2003 Drug Bill & Medicare D. The same Republican leaders who voted for Bush's expansion of Government have been speaking at Tea Party rallies. It's a sick joke. The Right has no idea what Reagan and Bush really spent. Why? Their pundits never mention this stuff. It is scary. These people vote. And they're angry. And they're being manipulated by talk radio and FOX News. They live inside false history and they've gotten in bed with a party whose spending history is criminal. They say they don't trust government, but they believe whatever their party leaders and pundits say. They never question their sources. If Bush blends the identities of Osama & Saddam, they accept it uncritically -- whereas the Left didn't believe a word LBJ said about Vietnam. The dirty little secret of American Politics is that the Rightwing loves it's government leaders. And this love gave Bush a blank check that is bigger than any of them will ever realize. Help)

 

[The T]

The OP is either dishonest or confused.

Obama supported the war in Afghanistan from the beginning. The Left was opposed to Bush because the Iraq War was based on fraudulent intelligence.

If the OP wants to see how the Left reacts to its leaders who wage fraudulent wars, look no further than LBJ and Vietnam. You would never see the Right challenge its leaders so violently. The young Republicans are foot soldiers of their Big Government Republican Leaders in a way the 60s Left never was. When Reagan doubled the deficits of his Democratic predecessor, you did not see 1 single revolt. Nobody said a peep when Reagan, in order to pay for absurdities like Star Wars, expanded the debt ceiling twice. You didn't see one Tea Party Revolt when Bush and his Republican Congress spent more than any political party up to that point in history. Let's face it: we know the Democrats are going to spend like drunken sailors, but the GOP's primary platform is less spending and smaller government: yet Reagan and Bush spent and expanded government more than their Democratic predecessors by an unbelievable amount. But the Right never talks about it. They're not allowed to oppose their Leaders, even after the fact. They're so obedient that they scrub history clean -- erasing Dear Leader's crimes of spending, fighting tooth and nail on every message board to cover up Reagan's disastrous deficits. (They love, trust, and obey their government leaders when it provides war plans or Pentagon budgets: the Right is extremely obedient to their version of Big Government. They have allowed their party leaders to spend even more than the Democrats. How did this happen? Is talk radio that powerful?)

The Right never genuinely and forcefully opposes their sitting presidents. Never, ever, ever. You will never see the equivalent of what the Left did to LBJ on the Right. Never. If the Right takes the White House in 2012, you will not see 1 Tea Party revolt -- even if they spend more than their Democratic predecessors, like they always do. The message boards are filled with obedient foot soldiers who don't even know their party's real history of spending. It's scary.

If you want to analyze left wing hypocrisy, you should ask why they haven't held their Leaders responsible for siding with Wall Street over Labor. You should ask why they didn't denounce Clinton for getting in bed with Rubin and big business and deregulating financial markets to the point of causing an epic meltdown. You should ask why they didn't blame Clinton for completing the Reagan Revolution. Clintonomics: how Bill Clinton ... - Google Books

(We didn't here a peep over Bush's 2003 Drug Bill & Medicare D. The same Republican leaders who voted for Bush's expansion of Government have been speaking at Tea Party rallies. It's a sick joke. The Right has no idea what Reagan and Bush really spent. Why? Their pundits never mention this stuff. It is scary. These people vote. And they're angry. And they're being manipulated by talk radio and FOX News. They live inside false history and they've gotten in bed with a party whose spending history is criminal. They say they don't trust government, but they believe whatever their party leaders and pundits say. They never question their sources. If Bush blends the identities of Osama & Saddam, they accept it uncritically -- whereas the Left didn't believe a word LBJ said about Vietnam. The dirty little secret of American Politics is that the Rightwing loves it's government leaders. And this love gave Bush a blank check that is bigger than any of them will ever realize. Help)

YOU are either Dishonest or a ******* foreigner.

STFU.

We nailed Iraq Limey.

Keep the shit up? And we'll come after you too...(That is after Obama is gone)...

 

[Publius1787]

Same thing that happened to all the conservatives who worried about the deficit and less freedom when Bush was in charge - they rolled over without a peep.

I love it when I make an arguement and someone dismisses it not by commenting on the subject but by an attempt to invoke a moral equivelancy. No matter what the case Democrats always spend more than Republicans. While Republicans were known for their big spending Democrats own that territory and then some. Though I do fear by responding to your attempt at moral equivelancy I am allowing you to do what you came here for. To hyjack the thread with a nonrelated comment.

Sorry that you cannot see the message.

It is simple - When those with whom you agree do something, you are more likely to rationalize away those actions. Likewise, you will tend to oppose something more when people with whom you disagree do it.

It doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum one is on, this is what people do.

As for "Big Spending Republicans," it is the Republican Party that has held itself out as the party of fiscal responsibility. The Democrats are supposed to spend like drunken sailors, remember? As good as it is to see them starting to get religion, Republicans wallow in hypocrisy on the deficit, given that they have been wantonly reckless with the nation's books for 30 years.

And this has what to do with the topic? You cant correct a wrong with what you perceive to be another wrong. Thus your failed attempt at a moral equivilency is unnecessary.

 

[Publius1787]

Now That Obama is President What Happened to the Anti War Movement?

Ha! When Bush was in office it was "Bush is a War Criminal and we should pull out now". Now the Anti War crowd is ...... well ....... no where to be found. Thats despite the fact that Obama raised the number of troops in Afghanistan. I guess war was used as a way to attack Bush but now that Bush is no longer president there is no need march on washington? This shows you how dishonest the anti war movement was. War is only bad until a socialist is in office. It reminds me of the time the socialist/communist anti war organizations of WWII changed their mind about war overnight after the NAZI's invaded the USSR.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_VHEts3fqk&feature=player_embedded

congratulations, you finally got something right after weeks of falsely parading around as if you were some exceptionally honest and fact based kind of thinker.

You are still batting about .050, but with practice you might someday become a respectable hitter. Well at least you can dream.

Objection! The poster of the above "BS" acts under the assumption that I strive for his approval and require his praise. Nah.

 

[Toro]

I love it when I make an arguement and someone dismisses it not by commenting on the subject but by an attempt to invoke a moral equivelancy. No matter what the case Democrats always spend more than Republicans. While Republicans were known for their big spending Democrats own that territory and then some. Though I do fear by responding to your attempt at moral equivelancy I am allowing you to do what you came here for. To hyjack the thread with a nonrelated comment.

Sorry that you cannot see the message.

It is simple - When those with whom you agree do something, you are more likely to rationalize away those actions. Likewise, you will tend to oppose something more when people with whom you disagree do it.

It doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum one is on, this is what people do.

As for "Big Spending Republicans," it is the Republican Party that has held itself out as the party of fiscal responsibility. The Democrats are supposed to spend like drunken sailors, remember? As good as it is to see them starting to get religion, Republicans wallow in hypocrisy on the deficit, given that they have been wantonly reckless with the nation's books for 30 years.

And this has what to do with the topic? You cant correct a wrong with what you perceive to be another wrong. Thus your failed attempt at a moral equivilency is unnecessary.

I have just explained to you what this has to do with the topic, but I have to explain it again for you to understand.

Democrats are not holding a Democrat President to the same standard on war just like the Republicans did not hold Bush to the same standards on the deficit and civil liberties because it is human nature to rationalize policies carried out by people with whom you generally agree.

And you were the one who made the ridiculous WWII moral equivalency argument, so quit complaining about others doing the same thing.

 

[Greenbeard]

March 21, 2009:

Shouting "Occupation is a crime" and holding banners such as "Bring All the Troops Home Now," thousands of demonstrators held an anti-war rally in Hollywood, Los Angeles on Saturday.

The demonstrators marched along the famous Hollywood Boulevard to demand an end to the six-year war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

March 22, 2009:

Thousands of demonstrators marked the sixth anniversary of the war in Iraq with an impassioned protest of the nation's military policies yesterday, demanding that President Obama bring U.S. troops home.

The demonstration was the first in Washington of the Obama presidency, replete with many of the same messages of protests during the Bush era. Placards read "War Is Not the Answer," "Troops Out Now" and "We Need Jobs and Schools, Not War."

October 17, 2009:

Pink-wigged protesters and hundreds of others wielding posters calling for peace converged on Copley Square in an anti-war rally this afternoon.

The protesters in Boston -- sporting colorful and sometimes gruesome costumes -- were part of a nationwide protest against the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

March 21, 2010:

Thousands of demonstrators protested the seventh anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq on Saturday in a march through downtown Washington. Many expressed concern that health care and the dismal economy have begun to overshadow the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

December 10, 2010:

Even as President Obama on Thursday attempts to put a good face on the war in Afghanistan, Vietnam-era whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and several dozen other anti-war protesters will be chaining themselves to the White House fence, inviting arrest in the name of peace.

And so on. They're still out there, though given that Iraq was the primary focus of the anti-war movement, it shouldn't be surprising that some of their fervor has subsided.

 

[Defiant1]

Now That Obama is President What Happened to the Anti War Movement?

Ha! When Bush was in office it was "Bush is a War Criminal and we should pull out now". Now the Anti War crowd is ...... well ....... no where to be found. Thats despite the fact that Obama raised the number of troops in Afghanistan. I guess war was used as a way to attack Bush but now that Bush is no longer president there is no need march on washington? This shows you how dishonest the anti war movement was. War is only bad until a socialist is in office. It reminds me of the time the socialist/communist anti war organizations of WWII changed their mind about war overnight after the NAZI's invaded the USSR.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_VHEts3fqk&feature=player_embedded

The progressives have progressed to loving war.

 

[Barb]

Oh boy, " international CRIME"..excellent barb never head that one before.

yea I mean wth is wrong with us? we get our citizens blown up and.....what? we call inspector Clouseau? Maybe we should have let the UN, whom cannot find the nerve to even publish anything finding an Arab, Persian or Palestinian culpable of anything, yea that would certainly have settled it.

Oddly enough, the blind in one eye asshat behind the first attempt is behind bars, and we didn't have to go into debt with China (or airlift pallet fulls of our national treasury, which nobody STILL knows what happened to, $8 billion of it) to FUND it. Not to mention the blood and futures of our young.

Individualism is almost its own religion in this country...until it is more profitable and politically expedient to other objectives to make any given topic a collective venture. Even when that is unjustified. Even when that is unjust. Even when that gets innocents killed for no good or rational reason. As long as it is profitable to some, salable to many, and serves the overriding and unspoken objectives of those in power, and that includes the current crew, individual lives and the good of all will be sacrificed for political expedience and the profits of those who stand to risk the least while gaining the most.

It is what it is. I make no distinction between parties at this point.

This has nothing to do with parties, I agree. what, you really think if gore had been in the oval office we would not have gone into Afghanistan?

The only thing that wold have changed is the anti war effort would have been more muted, now, granted and I agree that Iraq really set people off, and after a year or so with no results ala wmd and the start of the terrorism, I can see that, but Afghanistan is no longer a good war either, or is it?, or ever was , BUT thats muted now too, the fringe, even as I posted, libertarians and anti war , or looking at the tape anti American anything, see it as a waste, and frankly at this point so do I. If Obama woulds have sent the original request for upwards of 60k troops would we be seeing anything more in the way of people in the streets etc.? No, because it wasn't numbers, or the war per se', it was bash bush.

And the protests are not even honest, which i think is the point...wheres all the NGO's screaming at incarceration without due process or a court date etc.? Obama has said straight way even if a jury finds them innocent, he'll never let them go. Wheres the outrage?

the profit and salable, means what exactly?

Fair enough.
There's money to be made in war, that's the profit. Propaganda "sells" ideology to the masses, it "sells" the notions that make policy possible to carry out.

 

[georgephillip]

And absolutely nothing Changes if we limit our "choice" at the polls to Republican OR Democrat; HOWEVER, if 100, 200 or 300 incumbents of the US Congress, along with the Chief Executive, were FLUSHED from DC in November of 2012, Change would occur.

Yeah, it is a political leap of faith.

Continuing to "choose" between Republican OR Democrat only confirms Einstein's Theory of Insanity.

 

[rdean]

Nice loaded statement there. How do you trick members of a voluenteer military into doing things the military is supposed to do?

And of those famlies you discuss, the most popular person of the group, Cindy Sheehan has been abandoned and left high and dry by those who held her on a pedestal. I wonder why?

That's an easy one. You trick Americans into believing there was a connection between 9/11 and Saddam.

"You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror". --George W. Bush, September 25, 2002.

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties." --George W. Bush, September 17, 2003.

(common quotes of Bush)

According to a March 2, 2006, Zogby International Poll, "90% of American troops in Iraq believe that they are fighting to avenge Saddam Hussein's role in 9/11."

http://www.zogby.com/news/body3.cfm?ID=1075
------------------------------------

So where did the troops get the idea? Are you calling our troops "stupid"? What did you mean by, "How do you trick members of a voluenteer military into doing things the military is supposed to do?" Why are we supposed to attack a country that never attacked us?

Then WHY did Obama stick to the 'BUSH DOCTRINE' in Iraq as he does now with ASTAN?

You are really weak deany.

Fool. The "Bush Doctrine" means to attack a country that you see as a threat, even if it never attacked you or anyone else.

No president can simply go into office and undo what the previous president did. Especially not with the Republican Party filibustering every move.

But you knew that. You didn't have a "meaningful" point so you just gave a knee jerk pre written response. Lemmings do that.

Obama went into office calling Afghanistan the "good" war. While I disagree with him on that, he has always been honest about it, unlike the right on anything, except wanting to destroy a duly elected president, elected by the majority of Americans. How patriotic.

You call me weak and you are made of smoke.