I don't like the hypocrisy. Obama asking for billions more to continue fighting Bush's wars, didn't he say he would bring the troops home? I also don't like the way he went about sucking up to the Saudis who committed 911. I thought Bush was bad for tolerating them but Obama acts like he's their butler. Finally, where are the other Democrats who don't seem to notice this stuff I just mentioned. I'm no Republican, was actually hoping Obama would not be like Bush. But woe alas, Obama is like super Bush on cocaine.
Don't be dense. Obama can't just up and bring them home. It would create a power vacuum in the area. He has a moral duty to ease the American presence out of Iraq without destroying the country in the process. He's doing exactly what he should: planning a phased pull-out. Moreover, Obama never said he'd bring the troops home from Afghanistan, in fact, he repeatedly stated that we should have been more focused on that nation to begin with. He's actually keeping both of those promises. Saudi Arabia, for better or worse, is one of the USA's key allies and one of it's largest suppliers of oil. What did you expect, Obama to tank the entire American oil industry? Smack the King in the face? Snub him? (In case you hadn't heard: Oil is the world's largest industry, pretty much the most important thing to the typical American consumer, and one of the fundamental building blocks of our economy; people lose elections over this issue, and Obama has to worry about those kind of things) Obama did the right thing. Moreover, Saudi Arabia's importance goes beyond Oil. They are a key intelligence and security partner in that region. The USA has spent the better part of the last century courting The Kingdom, it's comforting to see Obama not destroy it to satisfy a few fringe liberals. I do recall people like me telling people like you from the beginning that once Obama started getting the ultra Top Secret daily briefings on world affairs, he'd probably end up doing the same thing Bush did. Nobody listened. I'm happy to say I told you so. ~String
While both parties are corrupt and are owned by the same corporate campaign contributers Republicans politicians and voters are stupider and meaner than Deomcrats while Democratic politicians (but not their voters) are more cowardly than Republicans. Democratic politicians politicians are not willing to fight for what they believe in if they in fact believe in anything. Republicans politicians are willing to fight for things they don't even believe in.
Thats probably an accurate observation. Thats definitely an off topic ad hominem attack on a poster by a moderator.
1) Obama is not "the Democrats". The Democrats are seriously split. 2) Obama is handling several fairly important matters very differently from the Republican manner of the past thirty years (the Reps are not seriously split). 3) Obama is a rightwing, authoritarian politician - conservative, in the Eisenhower sense. No, they aren't. That kind of nonsense helped get W elected over Gore, for one obvious example. It installed Richard Cheney at the center of power of the United States of America. In a foreigner, it's ignorance and incomprehension. In an American, it's irresponsibility - a slack and glib carelessness.
Oh, you get a copy of the Top Secret Daily - that's why you know that. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Bush himself said not to worry about foreign policy, that once whoever got elected knew what he knew, they'd end up pretty much continueing his policies.
I would hardly consider what obama is doing a continuation of the George II foriegn policies. Obama has to manage the mess he inherited. As SuperString pointed out he must orchestrate an orderly withdrawal...no easy task in a disorderly country. Obama is talking with countries George II would not even lend a ear too while in office. And his focusing his attention on Afganistan and the real threats to national security. Obama is offering negotitating rather than dicatating, a big change from the George II foriegn policy.
Obama asked for almost 100 billion more in war funding. That is a bit more than what plane tickets home would cost. Face it, he's no better than George Bush when it comes to war mongering. If he gave the word we'd be out of there tomorrow. He is the one calling the shots. Afghanistan never was a threat to national security. Neither was Iraq. China is, and he is doing nothing about that. Remind anyone of Bush? What has Obama been effective at negotiating? Aside from North Korea firing off a rocket which most people consider bad juju and maybe opening up Cuba to tourists again I don't see much progress, except maybe if you like Cuban cigars.
What the hell you expect, he has only been in office for a couple of months. Two, the idiots who attacked this country were based in Afganistan. They orchestrated the 9/11 attack from Afganistan...the fact is they remain in Afganistan and if we leave they will be back to their old antics. George II failed to properly fund the war in Afganistan. Obama is doing what needs to be done in Afganistan which means leaving with a stable government and infrastructure and that costs money. If George II would have taken out Bin Laden when he had the chance at Tora Bora we would be in much better position to end the war in Afganistan. But the point is there are two very different foriegn policies. As for North Korea, they detonated a nuclear bomb under George II's watch. I would much rather have them launch a missle versus detonating a nuke.
You sound like you are one of the tea baggers. I think of the two parties the Democrats are much more straight forward and honest...and in particular, Obama. The thing I don't like about Republicans is that they are always trying to engage others in their self deceptions and delusions. You know the real answers for the positions you have put forward. And you choose to ignore them because they conflict with what you want to belive. You are hardly non partisan.
I expect him to pull the troops out of the war like he said he would before he got elected. A bunch of Saudis with box cutters hijacked some planes one day and crashed them into buildings. That is a breach of airline security. It is not a national security risk. Using a sledge hammer to push in a tack is stupid. Hate to break it to you but Congress controls the funding for stuff like wars. You can't blame Bush for that. We don't have to kill Bin Laden. He is no threat. The man lives in a cave, if he is even still alive. Both wars are going on during both policies, there is no difference. Them launching a missile without a nuke proves all they have to do to nuke the US is to put a nuke on the next missile they launch. Not very comforting feeling is it.
In order to make your arguement work you have to ignore evidence and oversimplify the world. As for funding, you should know it takes two to tango. George II during the period in question, as head of the Republican Party, controlled congress and the executive branches of government. He never once proposed to adequately fund the war in Afganistan. He tired to hide the true costs of his excapades with not one but several funding proposals to congress....all of which were approved by congress and which he signed into law. This is exactly what I find so repulsive about so called "conservatives". Folks like you I hate to call conservatives, but unfortunately you are typical of those who call themselves conservative these days. True conservatives in my book are intellectually honest with themselves and are consistent and worthly of respect. And there are still a few around, though few in number. They dont try to deceive others and their arguements are intellectually sound....though sometimes wrong.
For the past several years Congress has been led by Democrats. What does that tell you about who is responsible for how much the wars were funded. You seem to have trouble wrapping your mind around the fact that Congress controls Federal Government funding of everything. They trump the President. You disagree with me so you beat around the bush in an attempt to insult me. Face it, Obama is responsible for the wars going on now. He can stop them. He chooses not to. He is now responsible for the deaths from those wars under his watch, as well as all the money going down the drain in supporting those wars. To deny that is intellectually dishonest. Man up to what your guy is doing.
Is that the best you can do? Democrats have had marginal control...very marginal control of congress. They had fifty of of one hundred votes plus the vote of an independent in the Senate where a margin of 60 is required to control the body. And they have only had that slim margin for two years. And in that two year period the house has tried to trim back the Republican excesses only to be thwarted by the Senate and the Republican president. You are not being intellectually honest in trying to tag the Democrats and Obama for the irresponsible spending of the Republicans for these last decade. And what you further like to ignore is that Republicans have made huge fiscal commitments that continue to burden government and the taxpayer today...Medicare Prescription Drug Bill. The bills is a blank check on the US Treasury given by Republicans to their buds in the pharma industry...a trillion dollar plus check. Your arguements would have been much more credible had you made these protests durring the Republican reign of terror when these travesties were acutally happening....instead of blindly following your leaders. Yes Obama is now responsible for conducting the wars he inherited. And he promised an orderly withdrawal not a chaotic withdrawal from Iraq. And that he will deliver. And he never said he would not prosecute the war in Afganistan. On the contrary, he said he would pursue it with new vigor and do it in a way that leads to success and not war that never ends. There should be a begining and end to every war. Wars should be fought to win, not just to fight and bleed into perpetuity.
