Hattip to Instapundit. “Speaking to GIs in one of Saddam Hussein’s old palaces, Mr. Obama ticked off America’s accomplishments in Iraq: “From getting rid of Saddam, to reducing violence, to stabilizing the country, to facilitating elections — you have given Iraq the opportunity to stand on its own as a democratic country. That is an extraordinary achievement.””
I will leave for others to explain just how Obama’s Iraq policy differs from what McCain would have done, or from the policy of Bush if he were still in office.
Democrats and Republicans: Two wings of the same bird of prey.
Ron Paul 2012. Just sayin’. 🙂
Anthony, I can’t imagine ever voting for Ron Paul, but I would rather enjoy seeing him issue letters of marque and reprisal:
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2001/pr101101.htm
No difference – in any category foreign or domestic (he just doesn’t give lip service support to conservative social policies like the Republicans do).
Obama is just Bush in blackface with good teleprompter skills.
Reality bites. Dear Leader had been living in his secure Democratic lib bubble- American troops are rapists/babykillers/etc. Then interaction with our fine men and women in uniform. And firsthand looks at their achievements. Thus the glowing terms.
It is easy to see the context is important. He is talking to the soldiers themselves, whose culpability is much less than the leaders they are following. The leaders are the ones who must deal with the fact that it was an unjust war; and while one can (especially after Hitler) put some blame on the soldier who follows the orders of an unjust war, that does not mean one cannot also recognize the good done in that war. Let’s not get consequentialist here and use this as an argument to say the war itself was justified. It wasn’t. Even tyrants can be shown to have done some good, but it doesn’t make them any less a tyrant.
Let’s not get consequentialist here and use this as an argument to say the war itself was justified. It wasn’t.
I don’t think Don wrote or implied anything of the sort.
Awakaman, no racial references in future please.
Mr. Karlson, he was listing the good things accomplished by the war. If he still believes that it was an unjust war he has a very peculiar way to go about it. My guess is he is like many politicians: for a war when we are winning, against a war when the going is tough, and for a war after it is won. Of course, contrary to your position, I believe the war from the get-go was a just war. I would still believe that if our forces had been defeated. I doubt if Obama, in contradiction to many of his supporters, had really deep beliefs about the war one way or another. Since it has been won he is more than willing to share in the bows with the troops. At least when it comes to foreign policy Obama is entirely pragmatic.
Henry,
…the fact it was an unjust war?…
What you mean to say is that is is your opinion that it was an unjust war.
The war was just. One man had the power to avert war and that man was Saddam Hussein. He did not comply with UN resolutions. All the blood is on his hands. In the wake of 9-11 it would be foolish for any American president to HOPE that Saddam would behave himself.
0bama (and the rest of the world) should be thankful everyday that Saddam is gone and that democracy is taking root on the Euphrates.
Henry,
It is easy to see the context is important. He is talking to the soldiers themselves
That’s precisely the point, everything this president says is different depending on audience. In San Francisco he talks about gun and bible clinging hicks, in Ohio he would never say that. His stated policies are based on the audience, his real agenda is unknown, but it’s probably close to what he says at Democrat parties without a lot of press.
The difference is not Iraq, but Iran. McCain would have been only too willing to follow the lead of Netanyahu and Liberman. I hope and pray that Obama will stand up to the Israeli warmongers.
“will stand up to the Israeli warmongers.”
Now why would Israel view Iran as a threat?
Ahmadinejad Quotes:
“Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury.”
“Remove Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations.”
“The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.”
“If the West does not support Israel, this regime will be toppled. As it has lost its raison d’ tre, Israel will be annihilated.”
“Israel is a tyrannical regime that will one day will be destroyed.”
“Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm.”
Oh yeah.
McCain would have been only too willing to follow the lead of Netanyahu and Liberman.
I have heard you claim this repeatedly, but as far as I can tell, the only justification for it is assertions made by people that don’t like John McCain. As evidence goes, that’s pretty weak.
Actually during the campaign McCain called for tougher sanctions against Iran but not for military action until both low level diplomacy and sanctions were attempted. Obama refused to take any options off the table.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1004116.html
http://digg.com/world_news/Obama_Iran_a_grave_threat_and_no_options_off_the_table
This is a single party state. One thing the “republicrats” have learned from the failures of other single party states is that the so-called masses need to be under the illusion that there is actually a choice. So we have two false choices each election: the donkey and the elephant.
The policies are the same regardless; and elephant or donkey, the entire Political Class are made up of jackasses.