The secretary of state boiled with moral indignation, American pride and war bluster. The defense secretary huffed that America has “moved assets in place” and is “ready” to punish the strongman. And though the president says he has yet to decide whether to attack, leaked details of the coming military action were all over the newspapers: Within “days,” US Navy ships will launch a barrage of Tomahawks at selected targets.
Have George W. Bush and his band of cowboy neo-cons retaken the White House?
If only. This time the secretary of state is John Kerry, who launched a political career opposing the Vietnam War. The defense secretary? Chuck Hagel, who revived his career by quitting his party after the Iraq war
Well both Presidents never tortured anyone to my knowledge. There was people in the military that were torturing people in Afghanistan during the Bush era....are the cowboy neocons now?
Ask Pres. Obama and he'll tell you his policies are nothing like Bush's policies. He doesn't torture prisoners! and so on. Of course, neither did Bush for the most part, and Obama never asked Congress to make waterboarding and other procedures illegal, so he can resume doing that any time he likes.
But the President speaks with forked tongue. In all the important ways his policies are Bush's policies. What a bunch of hippo crates these guys are!
I'm generally a peacenik but I am willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt.
He was a community organizer and not an oil magnate from a family with a history of making obscene profits from war. He removed Ghadaffi without spending trillions and killing lots of children. He has been trying to close Gitmo though the Republican brass won't let him. Oh, and he has no connections to Halliburton.
I'm generally a peacenik but I am willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt.
Benefit of the doubt? You mean your principles go under the bus for Zero.
He cheered on the people who removed Ghadaffi, people who will be killing lots of children. And US ambassadors.
The Republicans are standing in his way on GITMO? So are the Democrats. Not a single blue state will agree to take those prisoners.
And a connection with Halliburton is bad only because left wingers falsely demonized Halliburton so much.
But don't get me wrong. I don't necessarily think Obama would be wrong to do this, especially if what it really amounts to is a proxy fight with Iran. But then that comes out of my principles, not yours.
Well, ya know...there's ALWAYS going to be those people who give 0bama a break, solely based on the color of his skin.I'm generally a peacenik but I am willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt.
So you were OK with Hussein gassing those Kurds? You were totally fine with the rape dungeons, the public starvation, the direct threats to the United States and her allies? You don't think those people are at least a little better off? Furthermore, when we went into Iraq we had support from our allies. Where's the support for going into Syria? UK? Russia?I hate war but recognize that sometimes it is necessary. What I am opposed to is wars for profit that won't benefit anyone. I'd trust a community organizer who helped those less fortunate over someone who has connections with oil and the Carlyle Group.
Well, ya know...there's ALWAYS going to be those people who give 0bama a break, solely based on the color of his skin.
So you were OK with Hussein gassing those Kurds? You were totally fine with the rape dungeons, the public starvation, the direct threats to the United States and her allies? You don't think those people are at least a little better off? Furthermore, when we went into Iraq we had support from our allies. Where's the support for going into Syria? UK? Russia?
The only reason 0bama is considering airstrikes in Syria is because he's already got the reputation of being all the other world leaders' bὶtch. Sooner or later, he's gotta send a message that he really does have a pair.
Somebody somewhere opposed a war, therefore that person must oppose all military action forever! We're being invaded? You can't try to defend our nation, you were opposed to Vietnam!
No...but you can't condemn one war for being "useless," and then campaign for starting another one that's far MORE useless.
What if I don't perceive the other one to be useless?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?