Washington Examiner: For the Left, war without Bush is not war at all:
I just saw on Drudge that 710 military deaths have occurred in the Afghanistan region thus far, yet the news on this topic currently is rare. It only matters if a Republican is in the White House, it seems.
Not too long ago, some observers worried that Barack Obama would come under increasing pressure from the Left to leave both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, it seems those worries were unfounded. For many liberal activists, opposing the war was really about opposing George W. Bush. When Bush disappeared, so did their anti-war passion.
I just saw on Drudge that 710 military deaths have occurred in the Afghanistan region thus far, yet the news on this topic currently is rare. It only matters if a Republican is in the White House, it seems.
Labels: liberal hypocrisy, politics
posted by Helen at 8:25 AM
23 Comments:
Ditto the 9/11 conspiracy theorists (a/k/a "morons"). Think about it. If Obama were in office when 9/11 happened (or any other liberal Democrat, for that matter), we would still have the theorists and their theories would have been the very same.
Except they wouldn't be, almost to a man, liberals. They'd be conservatives, citing Obama's refusal to place his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance and his refusal to wear flag pins all as evidence of his clearly anti-American agenda.
9/11 conspiracies were never about a clandestine agenda. The agenda was the BURNING MAGNESIUM INCANDESCENT HATRED OF A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT. Ground Zero didn't have a thing to do with it.
No surprise here. How about this for a headline "Liberals not yet ready to criticize current hero, news at ... well, never.".
From the news perspective the health debate is much hotter than anything else going. It's going to sell more than "Obama continues to try and clean up mess made by previous administration". That's the spin the Whitehouse would put on any middle east criticism aimed at them.
Maybe the Tea Parties could add anti-war to to their protest agenda. It's still costing us big $$ with very little ROI
141 murders have occurred in Baltimore City alone since January 1, 2009. We don't hear about that either, and that is right here in the USA.
141 murders have occurred in Baltimore City alone since January 1, 2009. In DC, New Orleans, and Detroit, that would be called a quiet period with not much going on.
It's going to sell more than "Obama continues to try and clean up mess made by previous administration".
Getting out of a war is easy. Just call the troops home. A phased withdrawal could be complete in less than 6 months. This would even include time for one or two massive offensives to cripple the remaining taliban outposts. They only thing they would be giving up is stability in the region. But if all you want is return on investment, we can put off invading them again for at least 10 years. Then it would be a different President's problem.
Cham,
If that's the case, why were these deaths such a big deal under Bush?
Nobody talked about them under bush either. If you do the math you'll find the Baghdad is a much safer place. Oh, and on a per capita basis this year, Detroit, DC and New Orleans are much less deadly than Baltimore.
@Cham: I take your point, and I believe it is a relevant one; however, there is a distinction to be made between Baghdad and Baltimore. In Baltimore, I would imagine that the murder rate arises from the preponderance of cases where killer kills victim based on convenience, expedience, circumstance and motive (motive being a very wide field of choices).
In Baghdad, you have the same thing, except motive is usually one thing: We don't think you belong here (and in those cases, the victim is not, in fact, a long-term resident).
Whenever I hear of the murder rate in Baghdad, I strongly suspect it is the number of Americans who are killed strictly for BEING THERE, not Khalid the Shiah barber who was whacked for not paying the protection money, or Nura the florist who was pipe-bombed for screwing up the wedding arrangements.
Cham, I think Dr Helen's comment :"why were these deaths such a big deal under Bush?" refers to the military deaths in Afghanistan, not the Baltimore deaths you were referring to. The discussion at hand is the uproar and protests over the war in the middle east during the Bush administration and the apparent lack of protest and press coverage now. Bringing statistics about deaths in Baltimore is a strawman argument.
Liberals have someone in the Whitehouse and they are loath to criticize him loudly (right now). It's not news, it's just the nature of political affiliation. How many tea party or tea party like protests happened under the Bush administration? President Bush posted record spending increases and deficit increases.
Also notice that President Bush was ultimately heavily criticized by the previously friendly conservative population. Obama runs the same risk (with liberals) but his sins will need to be at least as egregious as the previous administration before it's likely to happen.
The bigger irony is that Afghanistan is the modern day Vietnam, the quagmire, the endless, unwinnable nightmare. How many more soldiers must die before we tuck our tail between our legs and leave?
If I had my way I'd pull all the troops this afternoon and Iraq could rot. For some reason American Presidents, once they get in office, like war no matter what they say when running for election. Neither Bush nor Obama claimed to want to start or maintain wars while campaigning for their first presidential elections. America waited and waited and waited to get out of Nam, eventually Nixon grew some gonads and made a tough decision. It was still way too little way too late.
We'll end up doing the same thing in Iraq.
710 military deaths have occurred in the Afghanistan region thus far,
Obama lied, people died.
Get the U.S. out of Baltimore now!
Dave Cornutt said...
Get the U.S. out of Baltimore now!
Now THAT is funny :)
Cham said...
For some reason American Presidents, once they get in office, like war no matter what they say when running for election.
That is a rather ignorant and heartless comment. No President likes war but most recognize that the failure to be involve in one or the premature withdrawal from one can have far more dire consequences than opting out. As President, Obama has access to much more information about the war effort than you and I. The fact that he campaigned so strongly on getting out and is now not doing that shows me that he is looking to not worsen a difficult situation.
How many tea party or tea party like protests happened under the Bush administration? President Bush posted record spending increases and deficit increases.
Frankly, I think that Tea Parties would have happened under Bush if he had had more term remaining when TARP was passed. Also, if McCain had been elected, and signed the same bills Obama has, we would also still have seen them.
Remember how much outrage there was about the Amnesty Bill, the Harriet Myers nomination, and the Dubai Ports deal. There was protesting already going on at the idea of such a massive bill being passed when TARP was signed, and the TEA Parties would have happened under any President who kept pushing to spend more.
As President, Obama has access to much more information about the war effort than you and I.
Wasn't that what Bush and Cheney tried to make us believe? That they had some sort of secret information about Iraq that they weren't able to release to the public and that is why we had to go to war? I'm not buying it, didn't then, won't know.
The longer we stay in Iraq the more it is going to cost both us and them. If you notice, years after we left Nam the country has become a thriving tourist and manufacturing hub, and the Vietnamese were able to do it all on their own with out the help of Big Brother America.
Wayne wrote: "Frankly, I think that Tea Parties would have happened under Bush if he had had more term remaining when TARP was passed. Also, if McCain had been elected, and signed the same bills Obama has, we would also still have seen them."
Yes indeed. And the media would be reporting the meetings VERY differently! I wonder if Bush or McCain would actually, you know, listen.
Trey
So you think that we should be out of Iraq and out now? To hell with those there that want the same things many of us take for granted? Things like freedom of speech, self defense and the pursuit of happiness? Our being in Iraq and giving those people an opportunity to have a democratic government and displacing the prior regime has saved far more lives than have been lost. The list of atrocities committed by Saddam against his own peoples is too well documented for me to have to list here but I will include a sample:
- 1978-1979
Up to 7,000 Iraqi communists were executed by orders of the Ba'athist regime.
- 1982
The specific atrocity for which Saddam was hanged: 148 Shias were murdered in the village of Dujail.
- 1984
Up to 4,000 political prisoners in Abu Ghraib jail were tortured and killed. Saddam's favoured methods of torture included cutting off genitalia, gouging out eyes and acid baths.
- 1980-1988
Some 1.7m died on both sides during the Iran-Iraq war, started by Saddam.
- 1987-1989
At least 100,000 Kurds were slaughtered in the so-called Anfal campaign. Some were gassed, others cast alive into mass graves.
- 1988
On March 16, in the worst single atrocity of the Anfal campaign, 5,000 Kurds were killed when Saddam ordered planes to drop a mixture of mustard gas and the nerve agent sarin on the town of Halabja.
- 1990-1991
About 25,000 Iraqi troops are thought to have died in the seven-month Gulf War, which began when US-led forces entered Iraq following Saddam's invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990. Estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths have varied wildly - up to 200,000. The coalition death toll was 378 and many troops suffered from the unexplained "Gulf War syndrome".
- 1991
Tens of thousands were killed as Saddam attempted to put down a popular rebellion following his defeat by the US-led forces in February 1991. More than 100,000 Shias were killed; a similar number of Kurds died. About 200,000 Marsh Arabs were killed or made homeless.
- 1993-1998
About 3,000 prisoners were machine-gunned to death at Mahjar prison in central Baghdad.
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/4751,opinion,saddam-era-the-death-toll
Losses to the U.S. since the invasion have be just over 4000. What ever this number would be, it would be too high but in comparison to the number of lives saved and to adding another democracy to that region, most people looking at the facts would have to admit that it was needed and continues to be. If pulling all of the troops out now undermines and undoes all that has been done, than the troops must be left to continue to hold on to what has been gained.
As to Vietnam, you are right, it has been a virtual paradise since the US left in 1975:
Modern research has located thousands of mass graves from the Khmer Rouge era all over Cambodia, containing an estimated 1.39 million bodies. Various studies have estimated the death toll at between 740,000 and 3,000,000, most commonly between 1.4 million and 2.2 million, with perhaps half of those deaths being due to executions, and the rest from starvation and disease
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge
The fact that he campaigned so strongly on getting out and is now not doing that shows me that he is looking to not worsen a difficult situation.
Shows me that he was talking out his ass when he was campaigning.
This comment has been removed by the author.
No shock here. To understand liberals you only need remember one thing:
"The Left doesn't really believe in the things they lecture us about"
vietnam is a virtual paradise since the us army left....but the us dollars stayed behind and built factories and employed people.
i have a pair of soccer boots made there just recently.
i believe the hope is that we will be making soccer boots in iraq at some point...but with the religious climate there at present i doubt it....ever.
if we pull a substantial military presence out of iraq they will go back to tribal warfare, on the backs of camels if need be.
some countries (i mean people in countries, but i have to be careful here....) adapt well to industrialisation, while others seem to resist it wholesale.
there are those who say that it was american influence that created the instabilities in the first place, in places like iran and iraq and vietnam, cambodia, laos, south america, africa and so on.....
......but are europeans and americans the only types to be able to reasonably live democratically and with new tecnologies, without some sort of supervision lest they revert tribal warefare?
Post a Comment
<< Home