Iraq (Obama chose to keep Americans fighting there long into his administration, instead of getting everyone home in earl 2009)
Afghanistan (Obama also chose to keep Americans fighting there long into his administration... in fact, accelerating the efforts there.... an effort that had the result of more US casualties than under Bush, and the Taliban regaining much of the country) ---------------
Will said:
"Sucks having 2 war parties, huh?"
There doesn't seem to be a huge amount of difference, does there?
But thank God for gridlock, or there would be more war.
Libya (Obama attacked this country in 2011. The previous president, Bush did not go here at all)
Syria (No US involvement there, largely thanks to Republican "gridlock", but Obama had for a long time wanted to arm ISIS/Al Qaeda to fight against the Syrian government)
Drones (There are several countries Obama has sent drones into beyond the ones Bush had sent drones into).
I've criticized Bush for his lack of knowledge of the Middle-East but President Obama is no better. I mean, any student of history could have told him that one empire after another has essentially crashed and burned in that God-forsaken part of the world (Afghanistan) and that it probably would be any different with us. Of course he kind of backed himself into a corner on that one, huh (his rhetoric on the campaign trail, calling Afghanistan the good/just war, etc.)?
And let us not forget, either, Wilson (WW1), Truman (Korea), and Johnson (Vietnam) and the conflicts that that they got us into (the first and the third being especially boneheaded).
Well, if it is true there isn't a great deal of difference please explain the hatred of Obama and the democratic party yet the blind acceptance of republican talking points on conservative blogs.
Thank you in advance for your considered response.
7 comments:
Republicans do.
Sucks having 2 war parties, huh?
Kinda sorta for sure.
Democratic Wars, let's see:
Iraq (Obama chose to keep Americans fighting there long into his administration, instead of getting everyone home in earl 2009)
Afghanistan (Obama also chose to keep Americans fighting there long into his administration... in fact, accelerating the efforts there.... an effort that had the result of more US casualties than under Bush, and the Taliban regaining much of the country)
---------------
Will said:
"Sucks having 2 war parties, huh?"
There doesn't seem to be a huge amount of difference, does there?
But thank God for gridlock, or there would be more war.
Libya (Obama attacked this country in 2011. The previous president, Bush did not go here at all)
Syria (No US involvement there, largely thanks to Republican "gridlock", but Obama had for a long time wanted to arm ISIS/Al Qaeda to fight against the Syrian government)
Drones (There are several countries Obama has sent drones into beyond the ones Bush had sent drones into).
That's just the current/recent ones.
I've criticized Bush for his lack of knowledge of the Middle-East but President Obama is no better. I mean, any student of history could have told him that one empire after another has essentially crashed and burned in that God-forsaken part of the world (Afghanistan) and that it probably would be any different with us. Of course he kind of backed himself into a corner on that one, huh (his rhetoric on the campaign trail, calling Afghanistan the good/just war, etc.)?
And let us not forget, either, Wilson (WW1), Truman (Korea), and Johnson (Vietnam) and the conflicts that that they got us into (the first and the third being especially boneheaded).
Well, if it is true there isn't a great deal of difference please explain the hatred of Obama and the democratic party yet the blind acceptance of republican talking points on conservative blogs.
Thank you in advance for your considered response.
Post a Comment