Pres-elect Obama has vowed to continue the war in Iraq until May 2010 or longer if needed. Opposition to that war has been largely from Democrats. Will Democrats support the war in Iraq now?
Democrats opposed the war in Afghanistan (recall that Sen Kennedy “demanded” negotiations w the Taliban, tens of thousands marched in NYC and CA, and govt’s around the world almost fell-particularly in Pakistan, UK, and Egypt). Again, that perishable opposition came largely from the left of the spectrum. Will Democrats support an open-ended escalation to the war in Afghanistan, or will they demand a timetable for withdrawal?
Democrats opposed the pre-emptive, unilateral military action by the United States, but Pres Obama said in his interview w CNN’s Lara Logan that his foreign policy re Pakistan (where Osama Bin Laden is) would be the same as Pres Bush’s. Will Democrats support Pres Obama if he takes unilateral, pre-emptive action in a sovereign country?
Democrats complained that Pres Bush didn’t do enough to stop Iran’s pursuit of nuclear bomb factories. The UN has tried talks. The IAEA has tried talks. NATO has refused. NATO allies have tried and failed, and even Bush has tried direct talks and failed. Sanctions have been tried. No one else’s talks have succeeded, and so there is no reason to believe that Pres Obama can magically talk Iran into compliance and a path toward peace. Will Democrats support President Obama’s military action aganist Iran or accept that Iran has nuclear weapons and openly uses terror groups as proxy attack means?
I did not support Pres-elect Obama in the election, but I agree with his foreign policy (Bush’s foreign policy continued), and I really wonder if Democrats can?
Author of “Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War
Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War: Malensek, Scott: 9798864028674: Amazon.com: Books
BAWHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
Soon to come: ads from DailyKOS and MOVEON denouncing BHO for continuing the “illegal war”.
NOT!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Code Pink has already sent their detailed list of required Presidential responses for their support…We’ll either see heads exploding, or…as Dems do: He really wanted to do it, BUT IT WAS BUSH’S FAULT!”
Besides historians looking at GWB’s firewall for sanity and democratic nations and coming up that the West was extended in it’s history as a result, the sociologists will be studying the people of our time and wondering what was in the water…like Timothy Leary lives and runs around dumping LSD in city water supplies…I did catch an article a few years back about a mold in wheat that makes you act crazy, that happened to be found to be a real possibility in the food stores in Salem a few centuries ago. Symptoms? Yeah…you might say you were acting like witches or something crazy…
Hope, change? First to go out the window … It is easy to make moron voters out of ignorant people.
At this point the Iraqi’s need to decide on either Bush or Obama, which one would give them the better deal.
Iraqi’s need to decide who they want to stand with: Obama who’d like to get out and work in Afghanistan, or Bush who’d be politically dangerous to side with in the coming elections. It’s going to tricky. I’m betting on Obama finishing the deal.
If it is Obama, whether it’s 16 months, later– to the end of 2011, Obama won’t seat himself in Iraq, as Iraqi’s worry Bush would, he’s more interested in Afghanistan.
The untold story here is Bush, who’s been working on the SOFA for more than a year, probably won’t get to make the deal and it’ll be picked up by a Dem that didn’t support the war– that speaks volumes.
Jan,
Go do your homework, girl.
Iraq will be forgotten in the media, just like Kosovo, which we were going to be out of by Xmas 2000. The troops will remain there until the area is stabilized, unlike Kosovo. Obama does not want any messes to clean up. The remaining troops will have an Obama approved focused-grouped term that makes it seem as if the troops are community organizers rather than warriors. This will appease most of the anti-war groups. As long as funds for the Armed Forces are not totally gutted, the Generals that are running the war now will still lead this conflict to an acceptable end. The media will be busy spoon-feeding the masses of the new utopia the lastest program to help us, and the personal side of the Obama family. on the nightly news. After the eyes of the American people are off of Iraq, and it still continues to improve, Iraq will get to write their own history of freedom in the middle east. The conflict to watch is in Afganistan, what worked in Iraq may lead to a Vietnam like debacle there.
Jan… OMG… LOL!
You picked up some new phrases from our other thread conversation, yet still continue to misrepresent them here. “speaks volumes” indeed. What speaks volumes? That you totally misquote Hadi al-Ameri? Too funny….
But at least you’ve learned enuf to use the phrase SOFA, and not think it’s a couch. You’re improving…. even if not in your comprehension.
Obama probably hopes to hell that the Israelis bomb Iran’s nuclear sites and remove that headache before he takes office. I am pleased with this 360
degree change about Iraq. Only a fool would leave now. Let’s hope he doesn’t change his mind again. However, I would prefer that Bush do the job. He has the tools to do it thoroughly. Bomb the oilfields and the infrastructure along with the nuclear sites. It was ridiculous to wait until Russia sold them missle shields. But the dems would have crucified him if he had done it. For some strange reason the dems are protective of Iran, Syria and Saudi’s oil.
But there is still Russia. AndChina. I hope he has people with some sense who are advising him on foreign relations. But dems and sense just don’t compute.
They will not support our troops with funding, the liberal illuminati never have. This could end badly under the new leadership, and I’m afraid it will.