Ladies and Gentlemen!!!!
Step right up and watch the battle of the ill-informed…
On this side, we have an Administration that opposed the war in Iraq in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, but in 2009 not only supports it…they ADVOCATE IT. Pres Obama even stopped for gas in Baghdad on his way home from Europe, and he thanked his troops for their efforts to succeed in the very same efforts he opposed: creating a secure and stable Iraq that wouldn’t require a 3rd invasion.
On the other side, we have Congressional Democrats who-like the former Senator/current President-opposed the war in Iraq, but these people STILL DO. Ouch!
So who do we believe? The guy getting his information from the Presidential Daily Briefs, the intelligence community, generals in the field (the same generals President Bush had), and the Department of Defense (led by the same guy President Bush had).
OR
the Congressional Democrats who still get their news from leftist faux news outlets while not bothering to read the Congressional Research Service reports, reports from the Department of Defense, or interviews with intelligence community leaders?
Ooooo, it’s a toughy! And yes, it’s a big one too because President Obama is now asking those Congressional Democrats for more money to fight the wars (we’re not supposed to call them wars anymore, but rather “overseas contingency operations”). Gonna be interesting.
Mr. Obama is expected to seek congressional approval of $75.5 billion for the wars, perhaps as soon as Thursday. The issue is already raising tensions on Capitol Hill, especially among liberals who are sympathetic to the president’s broader agenda but voice concerns about his timeline for withdrawal of troops from Iraq and his plans to beef up forces in Afghanistan.
“I can’t imagine any way I’d vote for it,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, a California Democrat and leader in the 77-member congressional Progressive Caucus. It would be her first major break with this White House.
Ms. Woolsey fears the president’s plan for Iraq would leave behind a big occupation force. She is also concerned about the planned escalation in Afghanistan. “I don’t think we should be going there,” she said.
Similar sentiments echo across the House. Rep. Jim McGovern (D., Mass.) said he fears Afghanistan could become a quagmire. “I just have this sinking feeling that we’re getting deeper and deeper into a war that has no end,” he said.
Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.) dismissed Mr. Obama’s plans as “embarrassingly naive,” and suggested that the president is being led astray by those around him. “He’s the smartest man in American politics today,” Rep. Conyers said. “But he occasionally gets bad advice and makes mistakes. This is one of those instances.”
Author of “Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War
Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War: Malensek, Scott: 9798864028674: Amazon.com: Books
The mainstream media wouldn’t do it. So we are trying to get your important messages to the American people. This post is a suggested read at, http://aresay.blogspot.com/
-Congressional Dems Call Obama War Plans “Embarrasingly Naive”-
I’m SHOCKED! Shocked I tellya, to find that The One is “Naive”
Whodathunkit?
failed Presidential candidate Kerry was FOR $87bn before he was against it
successful Presidential candidate Obama opposed funding before he supported it
If the mission hasn’t changed since May 2003, then why has Obama’s position changed? Oh yeah:
he’s the President,
he’s responsible for the outcome now,
he can’t play politics with the lives of American soldiers now
he has nothing more to gain by misleading people that opposing success can somehow bring it
he’s getting information from people in the know instead of pundits and pollsters
he doesn’t want to have to be responsible for leaving too soon and risking the need for a 3rd invasion
Meanwhile, his former colleagues and miscreants (Congressional Democrats) still have to pander, still have lots to gain, and still aren’t responsible for their actions despite having almost total control over the Federal government.
Oops! Gotta go-popcorn’s ready.
So the people who want America to fall because then there will be world peace are calling efforts to protect America naive?
Liberal hypocrisy (redundant).
Note that these idiots still think he’s the “smartest man in politics today”. Of course that WAS Conyers and to him and his “lovely” wife, I’m sure obambi seems like a genius.
I look at the leadership in North Korea, Iran, Kenya, the Sudan, now the U.S. and see the same mental illness.
The Dems really need to synchronize their songbooks. How can “the smartest man in politics today” also be naive, or does this tell us that all of the other politicians of today are even dumber than The One? (I could almost accept that last theory!)
Actually, I’m a bit puzzled myself as to why we are dukng it out in AfghaniPakistan. I thought Obama’s idea wa to get bin Laden to the US for trial, but then I heard plans about dismantling Al Qaeda, so I need somebody to set me straight.
I understand the rationale behind capturing and trying bin Laden, but I don’t see any sense in trying to defeat Al Qaeda. I think cells will just regrow, fueling the “martyr complex,” or am I alone in believing that believing that our defense budget would better spent on improving intelligence and advanced defense systems?
Jeff V
Jeff, allow me to set you straight…Congressional Democrats, their handlers, and their panderers don’t know or care about the war any more than its usefulness to rile a rabble based on half truths, lies, and scapegoating. The instant that accountability gets tossed their way…they instantly embrace (though NEVER ENDORSE) the Bush approach to war.