The Anti-War Left Still Doesn’t Understand Obama and Afghanistan
Despite his reputation from some on the Right as being too dovish on foreign policy, and a ditherer when it comes to the War in Afghanistan, U.S. President Barack has most recently been facing opposition from some on the Left for being (get ready for it) too hawkish on foreign policy, including being too strong handed on Afghanistan. While those same people on the Right believe that Obama is looking for any excuse to get out of Afghanistan, Michael Moore and his followers on the Left, who once elected him President, now see Obama as a war-mongerer who only wishes to further out presence in Afghanistan, while hoping he will use any excuse to get out of Afghanistan.
Uhh, gee liberals, maybe this is happening because that is what he promised last year? Essentially, it’s what Obama has been promising for years, but some elements of the Left, apparently dazzled by sycophantism, either let these words completely slip past their ears (most of them), or else hoped that it was just a lie in order to get elected (Moore probably fits into this category). And now that the time has come to announce troop increases for Afghanistan, they are shocked – shocked, I tell you! – that Obama is doing what he has always said he would do.
Perhaps they had bought into the talking points from the Right – that Obama was dithering – and hoped that he would dither forever. Moore apparently still has this hope, that Obama will change his mind in less than 24 hours, but Mr. Moore will lose his hope tonight. He says that Obama’s speech tonight will turn former supporters into cynics. If so, that is their own fault for not paying attention to a position that Obama has held since at least 2002. It is arguably his mostly strongly held position, and one that hasn’t changed a bit.
When you elect someone to political office, you get the whole package deal, not just the bits and pieces you want. If the anti-war left wanted an anti-war president, they should have looked elsewhere, because they will not get it with Obama.
So Michael Merrit, seems you’re in for the buck with this piece in regards to recognizing hypocrisy coming from the ‘left.’ Good for you!
But are you and everyone else so minded also in for the bundle, or does your desire to expose and route out hypocrisy have a partisan limit?
If Rep. Ron Paul had won last year’s presidential election, we would be forthrightly pulling the plug on both Iraq and Afghanistan. And we wouldn’t have floated sweet cash-flow loans to Goldman Sachs and AIG. And we wouldn’t be creating new beauracracies to raise the delivery costs of medical services.
Et cetera.
So the problem the Michael Moore crowd had with recognizing the hypocrisy of Obama isn’t so strange and abnormal.
And here we see the classic example of why I keep proclaiming that the DEMOCRATS…not far left liberals….but DEMOCRATS….
Latched on to the antiwar movement as the perfect way to gain back power. They then hammered the war relentlessly for 7 years until BUSH was gone and they had all 3 branches of government firmly in their grubby and greedy little hands.
Now that they are in power they are finding…….
Oh My Gosh
Gitmo wasnt such a bad place.
Tribunals are prolly the best thing to do.
Bush really wasnt pissing on the constitution every day.
Wire taps and protecting Americans is a lot trickier then far left or Anti Republican bloggers make it out to be.
Balancing the Budget aint that easy.
Providing Jobs requires catering to BIDNESS and not communist workers.
Iraq might not have been necessary but now that your there….you just dont leave.
and the list goes on and on and on and on.
The far left are IDIOT…MORON…Whackos. They simply are…The subscribe to their own religion…It just doesnt has a different GOD as its centerpiece…It has a mantra.
Saul Alinsky.
And so it goes.
The Democrats are opportunist liars…whose entire focus in life is to keep the POOR in perpetual POVERTY while making that poverty COMFORTABLE.
And so it goes.
He did say that we should take away troops from Iraq and concentrate on the real war in Afghanistan, pre-election. Maybe they forgot.
Recent polls show that 67 percent of democrats either oppose sending more troops or at worst want the levels to remain where they are.
If the base doesn’t support it, (Afghanistan) then why did candidates promise it?
Because Democratic voters and candidates were playing a complex game. Nearly all of them hated the war in Iraq and wanted to pull Americans out of that country. But they were afraid to appear soft on national security, so they pronounced the smaller conflict in Afghanistan one they could support.
Many of them didn’t, really, as the polls show, but for political expediency they supported candidates who said they did. Thus the party base signed on to a good war-bad war strategy.
Iraq Bad. Afghanistan Good.
Now its time to fulfill campaign promises and Obama is being torn in many directions.
See the letter Michael Moore sent to Obama.
Say anything to get elected….Saul Alinsky…..well he did…and he got elected. Now not only does he have his far left base angry but hes got the entire right angry and the MODERATES?
They are jumping ship to the tune of 57-43 percent disapproval of Obama and the democrats.
But the war was nothing more then a means to an end…GAIN POWER AT ANY COST.
Well the cost is now….the loss of power because after all the democrats only really know one thing.
Being the purveyors of perpetual poverty to maintain power.
No
And I wouldn’t call this hypocrisy. More like voluntary ignorance.
Unlikely. They hoped Obama would forget, perhaps, but if so, they were deluding themselves.
If you mean Obama on this, I’m not sure how not changing your position on Afghanistan for seven years is using that war as a means to an end. Even on Iraq, though his plans have slightly changed, he still aims to end it relatively quickly. Which was also one of his positions for a long time.
The fact that these two wars still continue has enraged the Left (and the libertarians, as seen above). I say to them: tough noogies.