Obama's War Is America's War

[DamnYankee]

Hmm... Same thing I said when they called Iraq "Bush's War".

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S clashes with the liberal base of his party are the kind of sporting event that Washington loves. But what Mr. Obama is confronting is less his party and more a stubborn reality that many in his party are unwilling to accept: There are forces in the world that continue to wage war.
washingtonpost.com

 

[Annie]

Obama is going to realize that a significant percentage of his supporters, perhaps the majority were not just against Iraq, they are anti-war. Any war, for any reason.

 

[driveby]

Annie you're correct except Obama already knows, that's why NBC's Iraq war coverage went from hourly to zilch .........

 

[Article 15]

Annie you're correct except Obama already knows, that's why NBC's Iraq war coverage went from hourly to zilch .........

That happened long before Obama got elected.

 

[driveby]

Annie you're correct except Obama already knows, that's why NBC's Iraq war coverage went from hourly to zilch .........

That happened long before Obama got elected.

It happened when they could no longer spin that the surge was not working. Also had it been Bush that sent 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, it would have been front page news and Cindy Sheehan would have been the dems poster girl once again.

 

[Iriemon]

Hmm... Same thing I said when they called Iraq "Bush's War".

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S clashes with the liberal base of his party are the kind of sporting event that Washington loves. But what Mr. Obama is confronting is less his party and more a stubborn reality that many in his party are unwilling to accept: There are forces in the world that continue to wage war.
washingtonpost.com

There's a big difference of course. Bush started it.

 

[Article 15]

Annie you're correct except Obama already knows, that's why NBC's Iraq war coverage went from hourly to zilch .........

That happened long before Obama got elected.

It happened when they could no longer spin that the surge was not working.

Agreed ... and that was long before Obama got elected ....

Also had it been Bush that sent 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, it would have been front page news and Cindy Sheehan would have been the dems poster girl once again.

Nobody has given a rats about Cindy Sheehan for years now.

You are omitting that many on the left were saying that Afghanistan was being ignored by Bush and that our commitment in Iraq was holding us back there. Many believe that is where the real fight is. Had Bush just sent 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan I agree he would have been attacked for it but prolly not for the reasons you think. I think he'd be attacked for expanding the war in A-Stan while refusing to contract or end the war in Iraq. Other than that I would have applauded him for sending more troops there. Obama, on the other hand, has already gotten the ball rolling a bit to end the Iraq War by the second half of next year. He campaigned on focusing more on Afghanistan so this should really be of no surprise to anyone.

Don't confuse anti-Iraq war or anti-Bush with being the same as anti-war.

 

[HUGGY]

Hmm... Same thing I said when they called Iraq "Bush's War".

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S clashes with the liberal base of his party are the kind of sporting event that Washington loves. But what Mr. Obama is confronting is less his party and more a stubborn reality that many in his party are unwilling to accept: There are forces in the world that continue to wage war.
washingtonpost.com

There's a big difference of course. Bush started it.

That's a minor detail to many neo cons. I've seen several "pundits" on fox and cnn speculating when america will start calling Iraq Obamas war. Never. It will always be Bush's war.

These snakes are so confident in thier propaganda that they really believe there will come a time when we will forget Bush and Cheney lied us into this illegal war.

 

[DamnYankee]

Hmm... Same thing I said when they called Iraq "Bush's War".

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S clashes with the liberal base of his party are the kind of sporting event that Washington loves. But what Mr. Obama is confronting is less his party and more a stubborn reality that many in his party are unwilling to accept: There are forces in the world that continue to wage war.
washingtonpost.com

There's a big difference of course. Bush started it.

Yes, of course he did.... In an alternate reality world....

 

[DamnYankee]

Hmm... Same thing I said when they called Iraq "Bush's War".

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S clashes with the liberal base of his party are the kind of sporting event that Washington loves. But what Mr. Obama is confronting is less his party and more a stubborn reality that many in his party are unwilling to accept: There are forces in the world that continue to wage war.
washingtonpost.com

There's a big difference of course. Bush started it.

That's a minor detail to many neo cons. I've seen several "pundits" on fox and cnn speculating when america will start calling Iraq Obamas war. Never. It will always be Bush's war.

These snakes are so confident in thier propaganda that they really believe there will come a time when we will forget Bush and Cheney lied us into this illegal war.

Oh, hell.... They had plenty of assistance from the liberal war-hawks who were for it before they were against it and who tried to cover their asses by selling you their propaganda that they didn't get the intel, or that they didn't have time to read the intel. It's all bullshit 'cause they knew what they were doing and helped convince "we the people"-- making it our war.

 

[driveby]

Hmm... Same thing I said when they called Iraq "Bush's War".

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S clashes with the liberal base of his party are the kind of sporting event that Washington loves. But what Mr. Obama is confronting is less his party and more a stubborn reality that many in his party are unwilling to accept: There are forces in the world that continue to wage war.
washingtonpost.com

There's a big difference of course. Bush started it.

That's a minor detail to many neo cons. I've seen several "pundits" on fox and cnn speculating when america will start calling Iraq Obamas war. Never. It will always be Bush's war.

These snakes are so confident in thier propaganda that they really believe there will come a time when we will forget Bush and Cheney lied us into this illegal war.

Ahh, the "illegal war" nonsense again ...........

 

[Article 15]

Hmm... Same thing I said when they called Iraq "Bush's War".

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S clashes with the liberal base of his party are the kind of sporting event that Washington loves. But what Mr. Obama is confronting is less his party and more a stubborn reality that many in his party are unwilling to accept: There are forces in the world that continue to wage war.
washingtonpost.com

There's a big difference of course. Bush started it.

Yes, of course he did.... In an alternate reality world....

Yes, if you want to get technical and go back nearly 20 years, yes, this whole thing started with an aggressive move from Saddam Hussein.

That doesn't excuse things though or make the invasion of Iraq any less Bush's war of choice.

 

[DamnYankee]

There's a big difference of course. Bush started it.

Yes, of course he did.... In an alternate reality world....

Yes, if you want to get technical and go back nearly 20 years, yes, this whole thing started with an aggressive move from Saddam Hussein.

That doesn't excuse things though or make the invasion of Iraq any less Bush's war of choice.

No need to go back 20 years. His "choice" was being pushed by leading Dems right up to the invasion.

 

[Article 15]

Yes, of course he did.... In an alternate reality world....

Yes, if you want to get technical and go back nearly 20 years, yes, this whole thing started with an aggressive move from Saddam Hussein.

That doesn't excuse things though or make the invasion of Iraq any less Bush's war of choice.

No need to go back 20 years. His "choice" was being pushed by leading Dems right up to the invasion.

Not all of 'em. The AUMF was FAR from a unanimous vote.

 

[Ame®icano]

What happened with "bringing troops home within 16 months", still on schedule?

 

[DamnYankee]

Yes, if you want to get technical and go back nearly 20 years, yes, this whole thing started with an aggressive move from Saddam Hussein.

That doesn't excuse things though or make the invasion of Iraq any less Bush's war of choice.

No need to go back 20 years. His "choice" was being pushed by leading Dems right up to the invasion.

Not all of 'em. The AUMF was FAR from a unanimous vote.

Please read it again. "being pushed by leading Dems"

That means the heavy hitters.... The ones with the big-time credibility factor with the American people. The ones who influenced the people who, at the time, supported the action taken.

 

[Article 15]

What happened with "bringing troops home within 16 months", still on schedule?

Pushed back 4 months.

 

[editec]

Obama is going to realize that a significant percentage of his supporters, perhaps the majority were not just against Iraq, they are anti-war. Any war, for any reason.

Give most of those anti-war protestors a good war, and they'll be there with bells on.

Unlike most of the warmongering types that those bumpersticker plastered sunshine patriot chickenhawks so admire.

Those tools never met a war they weren't ready to send other people's kids to fight.

 

[Article 15]

No need to go back 20 years. His "choice" was being pushed by leading Dems right up to the invasion.

Not all of 'em. The AUMF was FAR from a unanimous vote.

Please read it again. "being pushed by leading Dems"

That means the heavy hitters.... The ones with the big-time credibility factor with the American people. The ones who influenced the people who, at the time, supported the action taken.

I'm not saying the Dems weren't culpable but getting their support was all part of Bush Admins path to invading Iraq. It was the Bush admin that was THE driving force behind it all. You get a mini "gothca" by bringing up that half the Dems in the Senate voted for the war but at the end of the day it was the Bush Admin that was calling the shots not 20 something Dems in the Senate.

 

[DamnYankee]

What happened with "bringing troops home within 16 months", still on schedule?

Pushed back 4 months.

That's the latest estimate. Wonder how many more times the goal posts will move?