Why won't right wing support a War President?

Onceler said:
Again, this just isn't reflective of reality.
Click to expand...

No, here is the reality...

You helped elect a man who vowed to bring the troops home from Iraq because it was an unjust war and we had no business being there. He initially promised, within the first 90 days of his presidency. As his campaign progressed and he had obtained the full support of the anti-war left, he began to 'alter' his promise. By election day, he had whittled it down to what was essentially the Bush plan all along, to stabilize Iraq and start a draw down over the course of a few years.

Since being elected, Obama has authorized more troops to be sent TO Iraq, as well as Afghanistan. MORE boys going off to die in an unjust war... not LESS! (Not that I am opposed to the action, I think we need to send whatever we need to win the war.) But we end up at the same place, whether Obama was president, or had Bush enjoyed another term, or McCain were elected. As I told you YEARS ago, the US is going to do what the US needs to do, to secure US interests in the region. It doesn't matter how much you protest this, it doesn't matter how much literal propaganda you churn out, or how much hate for Bush you gin up, the US is going to ultimately do what is in the US best interests. The President is but ONE office holder. Granted, he is a biggie, but he doesn't ultimately have the power to do something counterproductive to US interests, most of the time. Yep... the old "checks and balances" thing, you recall?

But now, I agree, it must be very disheartening to you bleeding hearts from the anti-war left, to have your Messiah betray you like this. I hate to say it, but.... I TOLD YOU SO!
 
Dixie said:
No, here is the reality...

You helped elect a man who vowed to bring the troops home from Iraq because it was an unjust war and we had no business being there. He initially promised, within the first 90 days of his presidency. As his campaign progressed and he had obtained the full support of the anti-war left, he began to 'alter' his promise. By election day, he had whittled it down to what was essentially the Bush plan all along, to stabilize Iraq and start a draw down over the course of a few years.

Since being elected, Obama has authorized more troops to be sent TO Iraq, as well as Afghanistan. MORE boys going off to die in an unjust war... not LESS! (Not that I am opposed to the action, I think we need to send whatever we need to win the war.) But we end up at the same place, whether Obama was president, or had Bush enjoyed another term, or McCain were elected. As I told you YEARS ago, the US is going to do what the US needs to do, to secure US interests in the region. It doesn't matter how much you protest this, it doesn't matter how much literal propaganda you churn out, or how much hate for Bush you gin up, the US is going to ultimately do what is in the US best interests. The President is but ONE office holder. Granted, he is a biggie, but he doesn't ultimately have the power to do something counterproductive to US interests, most of the time. Yep... the old "checks and balances" thing, you recall?

But now, I agree, it must be very disheartening to you bleeding hearts from the anti-war left, to have your Messiah betray you like this. I hate to say it, but.... I TOLD YOU SO!
Click to expand...

You're just projecting, as usual. And exaggerating.

Obama hasn't veered from what he campaigned on in a dramatic way, as you are portraying. Those who wanted the troops out tomorrow are disappointed, but Obama was elected on essentially what he promised, and I'm happy w/ it.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
Darth Yurt????
Click to expand...

he must have found my secret saber


sith-army-knife.jpg
 
uscitizen said:
They don't seem to support Obama much. esp the teabaggers. And we do still have a war or two going on don't we?
Click to expand...

No..we don't have any wars going on right now....

Iraq war was over in the first 3 weeks, now its occupation

Afghan. is about as much a war as Iraq was during Clinton Years...
 
Onceler said:
You're just projecting, as usual. And exaggerating.

Obama hasn't veered from what he campaigned on in a dramatic way, as you are portraying. Those who wanted the troops out tomorrow are disappointed, but Obama was elected on essentially what he promised, and I'm happy w/ it.
Click to expand...

You are either not reading the news or deluding yourself.
 
LOL

We have no war on terrorism anymore people, did you not get the memo from the leader, it is now known as "man-caused disaster". Don't that make you feel safer.
 
webbway said:
LOL

We have no war on terrorism anymore people, did you not get the memo from the leader, it is now known as "man-caused disaster". Don't that make you feel safer.
Click to expand...

no no no. 'man caused disaster' is the new definition of a terrorist attack.

'overseas contingency operations' is the new name for the war on terror.
 
Onceler said:
You're just projecting, as usual. And exaggerating.

Obama hasn't veered from what he campaigned on in a dramatic way, as you are portraying. Those who wanted the troops out tomorrow are disappointed, but Obama was elected on essentially what he promised, and I'm happy w/ it.
Click to expand...

Yes, Obama HAS veered away from what he originally articulated as his policy on Iraq. You wouldn't notice, because you have been busy giving him a colon-rectal exam with your head. He originally stated he would withdraw American forces within the first 90 days. Then it magically changed overnight, to 6 months.... now we are up to several years, and essentially what the previous administration had planned on all along. But now... it did sound good to you at the time! Oh yeah, you were going to show us 'conservtards' a thing or two with Obama as president... you and Keith Olbermann were going to demand the troops come home right now! And... it didn't happen, just as I told you it wasn't going to happen!

Regardless of Obama or Cyndi Shehan, regardless of Micheal Moore or Keith Olbermann, the Iraq war is destined to take the course most conducive with US interests, and there isn't a fucking lot you can do about that. It's just how it is!
 
The current plan is not "several years."

When you have to keep exaggerating to make your point, you know you don't have one.
 
Onceler said:
The current plan is not "several years."

When you have to keep exaggerating to make your point, you know you don't have one.
Click to expand...

Yes, the current plan is to stabilize Iraq and begin to draw down troops by 2011, it will be several years before all the troops are home. This was essentially the plan worked out by the Bush Administration with the Iraqi's, nothing has changed, except that Obama has sent another "surge" of troops into "harms way" over there. But I doubt Keithy-poo has mentioned that, he's been too busy trying to crucify Rush lately.
 
uscitizen said:
Hmmm....

But a valid question.
Click to expand...

Low priority on his part. Iraq he was supposed to be out of within days. Now he says he's escalating Afghanistan. So how much time did he devote to that last night, oh yeah, 0. Same as he cares about the troops in harm's way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top