The utter hypocrisy in our media and on the left is on display with the above graph.
The United States has now lost more military men and women in Afghanistan under President Obama than during 8 years of the Bush Administration.
We couldn’t go a day without frontpage headlines emblazoned across every paper and on every nightly newscast about the death toll in Iraq. Each new report vilifying Bush.
Now?
Not so much blame for our current President.
Hmmmmm, I wonder why?
Proof at Say Anything:
A couple of years ago, every casualty in Iraq was front page news. Tallies of casualties could be seen on the front pages of newspapers, commentators would slowly recite the names of the fallen, even Doonesbury would print a list in the Sunday comics. It was Bush’s war then, and people needed to see just how heartless he was wasting the precious lives of our service men and women over there!
Where is Code Pink? Where are the Cindy Sheehans of the Left? Why is no one camped out on the road to Martha’s Vineyard, or his Hawaiian vacation villa, or the many golf courses he frequents? Is it that there are just too many of them? Or was it never really about the deaths of soldiers for the Left? Was it all just a crass excuse to try to gain and retain political power for themselves and their cronies by playing on our sympathies?
Hopey-Changey got elected and now the death count ain’t all that big a deal.
Ridiculous hypocrisy.
See author page
Of course it is not a big deal, but, only to the lostleft among us. If they had brains (think about this for a moment) they’d be a very dangerous bunch. They are just way into themselves to bother with other, let alone the very individuals that protect their freedoms. I wish there was a pill that would cure their derangement but there is none and the least we can do for them is pray to the Almighty for his compassion upon their souls.
The pretender-n-theif is one of those lost souls, to think he obides to a ideology that was dedicated to satin alone is a scarey enough now add to the mix the influences he has over several groups of victims, that could lead to many deaths of others of weak mind. Now, who is the weaker mind here, those who salivate over his personality and actions of those who oppose?
Gone are the days of the fence sitters. You are either an American with a can-do mentality, or you are going to pay a heavy price for your lost soul of the alinsky ideology.
Curt: Thanks for the link! It’s hard not to call it hypocrisy when there is no moral outrage over “Clinton’s war”, outrage out the wazoo over George Bush, and then a certain cowardly silence when a Democrat assumes the Oval Office again.
I like to go to this site because it’s a great place to find out what conservatives are saying. I usually only lurk, knowing my perspective isn’t really appreciated (I hear liberalism isn’t a difference of political opinion to some, but a “derangement”), but then sometimes I get a few beers in me and I think, what the hell, maybe y’all care.
If you actually do care about what the left is thinking and are open to a more nuanced view than “all liberals are evil hypocrites,” then I’ll tell you that most on the left are on a spectrum. There’s the disappointment on the center left and cynicism of the far left, who only voted for BO because farther left candidates didn’t have the charisma or the real-politik to play the dirty game of presidential elections.
US troop losses in Iraq will be far lower in the BO years than under the GB years for the same obvious reasons that they’re up now in Afghanistan. That is, there are less troops driving around to get hit with IEDs in Iraq and more troops to be ambushed in Afghanistan. But why less media coverage? Is there really less outrage?
From where I stand, I say decidedly no. Whereas before there was a binary situation, with outraged liberals and pro-war conservatives and frustration about our presence in Iraq (considered overwhelmingly in the left as an illegitimate war), now there’s a buffer of moderate semi-hawk democrats who consider Afghanistan the “good war,” the only war we should have entered to begin with.
Is it a liberal conspiracy that this is getting less attention than during the GW presidency? Sure, maybe, but then there’s other factors. Like war weariness meaning people just don’t consider it newsworthy anymore, Afghanistan approaching it’s 10th year. And the bad news from around the world and at home that keeps piling up. And anyway, most of the actually liberal media (that “professional left that Gibbs decried recently like Democracy Now and R.Maddow) is attacking BO for being like GW but with a more pleasant tone.
Where is Cindy Sheehan? She’s screaming that our withdrawal from Iraq is a quiet version of “mission accomplished,” with a huge permanent remaining US presence including an embassy bigger than the Vatican that must be protected, 10s of thousands of armed troops including special forces assassin squads and 100s of thousands of private military contractors. She didn’t curl up just because a democrat got elected, but she’s not getting attention anymore.
Just because a right wing blogger doesn’t hear about anti-war protesters in the much maligned MSM doesn’t mean that anger over body-counts, nation building and being over-extended in foreign entanglements is gone. If anything, this should just go to show that the MSM isn’t the left’s pet. Plenty of media companies have a vested interest in a return to constant yet sustainable “low level” conflict.
If there was one thing, that I hoped electing a democrat prez would do, that would be shutting up the antiwar hypocrites. And it did.
They said very little about Iraq during it’s first couple of years, and in-fact supported it. (I have too many quotes that support this, so don’t bother), but as soon as Bush was re-elected, the leftist politicians jumped whole hog over to the side of the “fringe”, and turned it into a mainstream platform.
They wanted to lose the war for political reasons, and the enemy was thus motivated, and the Iraqi people de-motivated…along with our troops.
It took the surge to convince both the enemy and the Iraqis, that Bush meant what he said, and that the Left’s cynical and treasonous actions would have to be overcome by our troops dieing some more. And die, they did.
There ARE no anti-war protests for the MSM to pander to, and if there was, they would ignore it. CodePink is onto getting Brown elected now, and has cut off funding Sheehan. Like we already knew, she was only a cheap tool for them.
We “rightwing bloggers” don’t get our info from the MSM. We tossed them years ago, and we sure have no hesitation to going over and reading what leftist’s write in their blogs.
We on the Right never once assumed the MSM was the the Left’s “pet”.
-We KNOW they are one in the same, and have been since Duranty.
If the anger isn’t gone, it’s sure as hell dormant. If there was a tenth of the outrage shown over “Bush’s war” the MSM couldn’t help but stumble over it.
The “convictions” of the anti-war left are either less than genuine, or trumped by liberal politics. (Or both)
Neither is appealing.
😥
The “right” wept and pressed forward.
The “left” saw a chance at political gain, and now wonders why we hate them so.
More tears, thanks for sharing Pat. Right after watching this I clicked onto the video of the young vet addressing Obama. He was endorsing McCain, but his message to Obama before his endorsement was what I believe is in the hearts of our warriors. With a few words he says a lot.
PV: Where do they come from?
And the Bitch from Code Pink says they deserve to die! Never forget her and the traitorous scum she fronts for!
They come from our mind-numbing
educationindoctrination system, and later given regular booster shots through ourmediapropaganda industry. Together with the power-hungry cynical democrat politicians who keep their monster well-fed and protected.My “favorite” CodePinko modus, was to stand outside the Vet hospital making a racket so that the healing warriors couldn’t sleep.
In a nearby city where we have a store, there was an anti-war demonstration with “Bring home the Troops” signs carried by the demonstrators on the first Friday of every month – until O was elected.
There hasn’t been one since.
Code Pink at Walter Reed:
Remember that name, Kevin McCarron.
A wounded vet responds to CP protests:
http://baldilocks.typepad.com/baldilocks/2005/08/dissecting_code.html
Watch the discusting video:
http://clipshack.com/Clip.aspx?key=787B703E2CB8DB3F
Afghanistan was sideshow under Bush. That is one of the causes of the problems that we are facing now in Afghanistan. Bush allowed the Taliban to regroup and rearm. We are now fighting a much stronger Taliban and even with those extra troops that bush refused to send and that Obama has sent things are not going well. Americans are just fed up with those 2 wars that Bush started and after 8 years could not finish
There was far more outrage on the left over Iraq because were invading a nation that hadn’t attacked us, had no real capability of attacking us, and had no apparent connection with the people who had done so. The invasion was something that had to be sold to the American public. That was done with a carefully orchestrated media campaign, using questionable intelligence and alarming threat assessments to deliberately pump up the level of fear that existed subsequent to 9/11. There’s also the incontrovertible fact that “regime change” in Iraq was a stated part of the Neocon agenda before 9/11, and before Bush and Cheney were even elected. That agenda was clearly spelled out by The Project for the New American Century, of which Dick Cheney was a founding member. 9/11, though having no connection with Iraq or Saddam Hussein, provided them with the opportunity they’d been waiting for.
Attitudes about Afghanistan–for most of the Bush years a comparitively forgotten war–are understandably different. Afghanistan was where the people who had attacked us were. It was their primary focus. They were based there, recruiting from there, and training there, all with the support and cooperation of the Taliban. It’s where our fullest attention should have been focused from the start, when containment and elimination were possible.
The Iraq agenda wasn’t Obama’s or that of the political left, nor was it Obama who neglected to take care of our proper and urgent business in Afganistan in order to pursue it. It is Obama–and American soldiers–who have to deal with all of the consequences.
As with everything else, Obama is getting very little support from conservatives in that effort. Concerns about Afghanistan are secondary to conservative politics. Afghanistan military efforts–whatever they are–will be depicted as wrong-headed and failing if Obama can be tarred with the same brush. Obama can be allowed no victories, anywhere or anytime.
Bush–a wartime president–had his protesters. Obama–also a wartime president–has the Tea Parties.
“Greg,” you lying sack of crap. Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since the Clinton Administration:
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
@Greg:
That’s right. The “regime change” idea was supported and signed into law by Bill Clinton who was hardly a neo-con.
You should read what US District Court Judge Harold Baer, Jr. had to say about that when he ruled that Iraq did indeed have a connection to Al Qaeda and 9/11.
There’s a difference. I don’t think what President Clinton had in mind was the full-scale military invasion of a nation that hadn’t attacked us and was not preparing to go to war with us.
It took the Bush Doctrine to turn our nation into something it had never been before.
U.S. District Judge Harold Baer might rule that the Moon is made of green cheese. That wouldn’t make it so.
@Ryan
Please show the relevant data that Afghanistan was anything BUT slow and contained during the Iraq war. Engagements, attacks, deaths, etc. will do.
You can’t. Cuz the bad-guys were in Iraq.
@Greg
President Clinton made into LAW that the official position of America was regime change in Iraq.
Don’t you idiots EVER get tired of letting people think for you?
As far as this “neocon agenda” that you so willfully parrot, try doing your own goddam reading for once.
Here is Secretary of State Madeline Albright, speaking in 1998:
Here is Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Adviser:
Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, William Cohen was so sure Saddam had stockpiles of WMD that he remained “absolutely convinced” of it even after our failure to find them in the wake of the invasion in March 2003.
Nor did leading Democrats in Congress entertain any doubts on this score. A few months after Clinton and his people made the statements I have just quoted, a group of Democratic Senators, including such liberals as Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry, urged the President…
Nancy Pelosi, the future leader of the Democrats in the House, and then a member of the House Intelligence Committee, added her voice to the chorus:
In a letter to the new President (Bush), a number of Senators led by Bob Graham declared:
Senator Carl Levin also reaffirmed for Bush’s benefit what he had told Clinton some years earlier:
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed, speaking in October 2002:
Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, agreed as well:
Al Gore in September 2002:
And here is Gore again, in that same year:
Now to John Kerry, also speaking in 2002:
Senators Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, also in 2002:
The last two years of the Clinton administration, editorials in the New York Times repeatedly insisted that without further outside intervention, Iraq should be able to rebuild weapons and missile plants within a year [and] future military attacks may be required to diminish the arsenal again.
The Times was also skeptical of negotiations, pointing out that it was:
The Washington Post, which greeted the inauguration of George W. Bush in January 2001 with the admonition that:
All this should surely suffice to prove far beyond any even unreasonable doubt that Bush was telling what he believed to be the truth about Saddam’s stockpile of WMD. It also disposes of the fallback charge that Bush lied by exaggerating or hyping the intelligence presented to him. Why on earth would he have done so when the intelligence itself was so compelling that it convinced everyone who had direct access to it, and when hardly anyone in the world believed that Saddam had, as he claimed, complied with the sixteen resolutions of the Security Council demanding that he get rid of his weapons of mass destruction?
I am sick to death with your sides willfully ignorant, and conveniently-forgetful tripe.
Shut the fuck up, about which you refuse to learn about, even after 19 years of documented history.
Removing a sovereign government is not an act of war? Do tell, “Greg.” Do tell.
And more to the point, this is what you wrote:
“Regime change” was initiated as a deep dark neo-con conspiracy, according to you. Fail.
PATVANN your 17teen is super informative to us and any libtard who come here
blaming PRESIDENT BUSH all the time. thank you, bye
GREG IT took president BUSH after the 9/11 3000 death and those hurt for life to mustard that war with SHOCk and AW,
so they remember, NOT WITH THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT, which killed more of our owns.
Whatever.
The bottom line is that most of our attention and efforts were diverted away from a war theater where we knew with certainty al Qaeda was, to start and pursue another war based upon little more than paranoid speculation. So now here we are, 7 years later, praising the administration that made that call, while blaming and condemning another that has to deal with the consequences.
To my way of thinking, it isn’t so clear who it is that has failed to learn what. I’m not ready to give the keys back to people who can’t even grasp the possibility that they might have made some mistakes. That incapacity seems to exist across a wide range of important issues. As near as I can judge from what they’re telling me, no conservative position about anything has ever been wrong, and no liberal position or decision can ever be right.
Greg, read through this web site and then try to tell me that the Republicans were more pro-Iraq-invasion than the Democrats: http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
Amnesia is not an argument, it’s a mental condition.
@Greg:
Have you ever bothered to check out the sidebar on the right of the page? Highlighted Posts? Iraq? Hint, they are there for a reason.
A tremendous amount of study and work went into all the pieces put together by the Flopping Aces authors when writing about OIF. Scott Malensk even authored several books after much research and staying on top of everything, Congressional hearing, every Pentagon report, everything. Studied it all thoroughly.
Here’s a start for you, an opportunity, there’s much more in the archives.
@Greg:
Whatever? Paranoid speculation?
Dood! Come on. You’ve been on this site long enough to know better than to try and get away with that foolishness.
The archives here at FA are filled to the brim with documented evidence regarding Iraq, Al Qaeda, and 9/11. All you have to do is just look.
But, of course, you’re not really interested in looking for the truth. Not really. Because such a journey of discovery would endanger the delicate mindset that you have selected to shield yourself under.
Saddam, for years and years, aided and abetted terrorists. He shielded and sheltered and assisted those who would go out and shed innocent blood. He paid the families of suicide bombers in return for those people being willing to go out and blow themselves up.
He provided safe harbor and allowed terrorists to train on his soil.
Saddam played cat and mouse games with the UN for years until, finally, in the aftermath of 9/11 the potential of a WMD attack on our shores was too great to ignore any longer.
It amazes me that otherwise intelligent individuals cannot, or will not, simply look at the evidence, both what we knew before the invasion as well as what we have discovered post-invasion.
The evidence to support the decision simply based on the WMD issues alone was enough to justify our intervention and, yes, there was a WMD threat. Saddam was simply waiting and watching, hoping that the world would lose interest in him so that he could go right back to working on what he intended to accomplish.
The repeated and continued violations of the UN resolutions were justification.
As much as anything, however, our intervention was justified on the basis of humanitarian reasons if nothing else.
Because of the valiant efforts and sacrifices of our men and women in uniform no longer are there rape rooms and torture chambers in operation in Iraq.
No longer are Saddams’ evil sons feeding people to lions or running them through wood chippers.
No longer are people disappearing in the middle of the night, never to be seen again.
No longer are men being bound and thrown off of rooftops.
The mass graves are no longer being filled.
The Kurds are no longer facing another attempt at genocide.
The marsh Arabs are no longer being threatened to the point of extinction.
The people of Iraq deserved to be free just as much as any other group of people on earth and I’m proud to say that America had a role in helping these people as they were being crushed under the boot of Saddam.
Furthermore, as a direct result of our efforts in Iraq, Libya came clean and got rid of its’ WMD program.
Also, as a direct result of our actions in Iraq, the AQ Kahn nuclear network has been shut down.
In summary, the world is a better place now that the Hussein family lies a-moldering in their graves and 30 million people are breathing freedom for the first time in the history of Iraq.
Yes, Greg, freedom and liberty are still things that are worthy of fighting for even if its’ not your neck that is being crushed.
@Greg:
@Aye Chihuahua, #24:
Differing views notwithstanding, there’s much in that post that’s hard to disagree with, and that I’m not even inclined to disagree with.
There’s got to be some balance with our own national interests, though. I don’t think we can take on every evil, and right all of the wrongs of the world, without serious danger of bringing ourselves to ruin. The internal stresses and fracture lines are alarming already. A lot of them revolve around the consequences of financial costs.
I think nature, or an Iraqi bullet, would have seen to regime at some point. The second possibility might have been expedited for considerably less than the cost of an invasion. His son’s were too crazy and had too many enemies to survive him by long. In the case of North Korea, nature will possibly bring regime change before the year is out. If not, certainly next year.
We could go around in circles about who said what, and when, and why, forever. I guess I’ll leave off for a while with those general observations.
I guess I’ll leave off for a while with those general observations. ~ greg
… Or at least wait until the next Republican president is installed, so you can start blaming him for the mess carter and obummer created / are creating in Iran.
@Greg
No, you’d rather continue to keep them in the hands of people who are damaging this country more than the ‘neo-cons’ ever dreamed of.
No, you have that wrong. We don’t think that a liberal position or decision cannot ever be right. We think that no liberal decision or position has been right thus far, and we see no end to that trend. Big difference.
Hmm. Another debate that you backed away from your initial claims and now are running away from. It may be mean on my part, but I’m just about as angry as Patvann is discussing issues with the ignorant and the intellectually dishonest. Even after pages upon pages, links upon links, debates upon debates, you and your liberal friends do not get it, so we conservatives are left with thinking that you never will get it. As Patvann has stated, don’t you ever get tired of not thinking for yourself?
@Otter, #27:
The Bush administration missed the boat when they rebuffed Mohammad Khatami’s offers for negotiations and reconciliation, back in 2003. Khatami was a moderate and a social reformer. Now we’ve got Ahmadinejad to deal with. File under Opportunities Missed.
@ johngalt, #28:
“Another debate that you backed away from your initial claims and now are running away from.”
I said what I wanted to say, which was probably more than many wanted to hear to begin with. I wouldn’t even have said that, had it not been implied that Obama is taking the mission in Afghanistan less seriously than his predecessor.
@Greg
Shall I now be force to utterly and completely destroy you with several megabites worth of a thing around here we call EVIDENCE of that “moderate Iranian rebuff”?!?!
Please say yes, then start a different Reader Post, you coward. Please God say yes.
We see in post 26 that tiny little glimmer of reality, history, and evidence entering what’s left of your brain, and just as your ‘ID” accepts this new paradigm, some internal demon comes to the fore, and attempts to divert us into Iran. If we now take this bait, your damaged and now exposed little self will feel safe again from the prying eyes of acceptance.
TO THE SHALLOW END WITH YOU!!!
Maybe it’s better if we just pretend Otter never fired one off about Iran and I never fired back, out of consideration for the thread author and everyone else. We could probably look at the same facts and come to different conclusions anyway.
@Greg
Really? Where does anyone say that? I don’t think that I read anywhere in this post topic where anyone even addressed Obama specifically on Afghanistan. I did read where the casualty rates were such a large deal in the media during Bush’s terms, but nary a peep during Obama’s.
As for backing away, you were presented with truths that even you claimed to have a hard time disagreeing with. This isn’t the only time, either.
I’ve been reading posts here for a few months. ‘Randy’ and I did our first tours in Iraq together. At his request I figured it was time to offer my two cents for what it’s worth.
1. There was a report publicly released in April 2006 by Sen Rick Santorum and Congressman Hoekstra confirming our troops had discovered over 500 rounds or cannisters containing mustard and/or sarin nerve gas in Iraq. If one were to go back and listen to Colin Powell’s speech before the U.N. concerning the WMD, he addressed those. Based on that alone, the Bush administration at a bare minimum got it partially right. Those who claimed “Bush lied and people died” got it 100% wrong. ‘Randy’ has previously pointed out the uranium that was removed from there. There were also large storage areas with pesticides. We never saw farmers using pesticides over there. Pesticides are precursors to nerve agent. General George Sada, who was in a position to know more about Saddam’s WMD than all of us, confirmed in his book “Saddam’s Secrets” that he had WMD. Some of what he claimed appears to be supported by sattelite imagery at the time. At this point, anyone still saying Saddam didn’t possess WMD either doesn’t have their facts straight or is lying. Oh yes, the Iraqis were also fond of telling us that the biggest WMD over there was Saddam himself.
2. When we first arrived there, the Iraqis who were on our side would point out the bad guys. They would tell us who the Ba’athist insurgents were and who the members of Al Qaeda were. They knew the difference. Since I don’t recall them coming on the convoys with us from the south nor do I recall them jumping in with the 173rd in the north, it’s safe to say they were there before we invaded. Remember Al-Zaqawi, the first one in charge of AQI? He was wounded in Afghanistan fighting our troops there and fled with his entourage to Iraq BEFORE we got there.
3. As for Iraq not being important, look at a map. It borders Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. Two of the biggest sponsors of terrorism and the biggest financer. Saddam also fired at our planes on a regular basis. What would Russia do if we shot at their planes on a regular basis? Those in themselves were acts of war.
4. As for Afghanistan, apparently bringing the Olympics to Chicago and holding beer summits were more important as those issues were addressed before the needs of our troops in Afghanistan. During the 7 month ‘lull’, the Taliban was able to make gains and consolidate them. So much for having priorities straight.
5. Since the Dems gained control of Washington, the war protests and slanderous statements toward our military by senators and congressman from their party has pretty much ceased meaning they used our situation over there for political gain which is giving aid and comfort to our enemies. Although I disagreed with them, at least the Vietnam era war protesters protested when both Johnson and Nixon were in office. It wasn’t done for political gain. A buddy of mine who was serving in Afghanistan during the ’06 elections said the Taliban was actually celebrating when then Dems won control of Congress. General Patton once said, “I’d rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me”. Updated that statement should be, “I’d rather have a member of Al-Qaeda in front of me than a member of the Democratic Party behind me”.
@Another Vet
HooAaah.
Welcome back.
another vet: wow THE real facts are there, thank you SR. bye
Isn’t it strange how a soldier’s life means more at one time than it does at another depending on who’s side you are on?
@ smorg
The saddest part is that I think it never changed at all.
I won’t make a harsh blanket-statement that all Dims don’t care, (Too many don’t, but many sure do.) but so many of them see our troops as some sort of a victim, a child, or simply stupid, regardless of all evidence presented.
They “care” but for the wrong reasons.
@ Patvann, #37: Obama got 44% of the military veteran vote. Presumably veterans care about people currently in uniform.
I’m sure he got a significant number of current military votes, too, though I haven’t been able to turn up a statistic.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15455.html
@ another vet…
Well stated Trooper. The Newsies have their biases and that is that. Al-Zaqawi was Al Q
and was hosted and supported by former Republican Guard Elite that had evaded capture.
Without a doubt the *Facts* were never reported due to security classifications on some info.
The Current Regime as well as the Newsies do not want *Facts* to get in the way of anything
that gets in the way of their Agenda, nor will they acknowledge the fact that the “Surge” worked.
It is damn good to see “Boots on the Ground” no shit for real folks participating here at FA as well
as solid Troopers like Patvann, Old School Marines like Skookum and others that have served selflessly and honorably. The 173rd is an outfit that I never served with but they have a grand old Airborne tradition and were actually welcomed as Heroes by the Kurds.
HOOAH!!!
All the Way Airborne!
Now back to the “O” Club at USAFA for a last drink and a walk back to the VOQ.
Visiting my Daughter here in Co. Springs, Co. The Air Force treats Old Retired Troopers pretty keen despite the fact that they believe that only fools jump out of a perfectly good Aircraft. I did it for over 30 years and retired as an 0-6. Now I’m just an old fart punching cattle on the 3rd largest ranch in Montana that I own.
@ Rich Wheeler, if you don’t mind cool weather or riding a horse, show up for the Fall Roundup.
Horse, Bed, Meals and entertainment included. Dress is very damn casual.
Yes Greg.
That’s why if you try real hard you can see the words:
There are no exact numbers for active duty, (it’s not noted on ballots) but MilitaryTimes has done a widely respected poll every election asked of the “likely-to-vote” within the active duty community, including National Guard, and Reserves. The sampling size is known to be over 5000 people, so it’s a better sample percentage than any national poll by anyone.
68 to 23 -McCain. (see charts at link below)
Which was (from what I remember) about 15pnts better than Kerry got (around 10%)
You can bet the farm that after last-years 4 month debacle of him making a damn decision to SURGE in some more troops, (and a myriad of other things that suck) that Obama’s numbers are now 10-15%…
If that high. They don’t like their CiC bowing and apologizing, I assure you.
http://militarytimes.com/static/projects/pages/081003_ep_2pp.pdf
@Patvann: #37 Many years ago a caller on a radio talk show asked, “Where are the good democrats?” That question hasn’t been answered yet. Maybe they are like I have been most of my life and didn’t get involved in politics until a few years ago.
Nice sleight of hand, Greg, but it doesn’t answer, to paraphrase Peter, Paul and Mary, where have all the (Left wing) protesters gone?
If the war was immoral under Bush, how is it any less immoral under Obama?
The anti-war Left was (is) either hypocritically insincere or rabidly partisan (or both).
Doing a quick google search you find what further damaged over all troop approval of the present CIC.
In January 09, in the very beginning, six out of ten were wary of Obama. Since Inauguration our troops have had to deal with Obama’s handling of:
A terrorist murdering troops at Ft. Hood
Slow response to sending the much needed troops to Afghanistan then not sending what the General asked for
Playing ping pong with Eric Holder with the Military tribunals/civilian trials of terrorists, halting tribunals of KSM, etc. after they admitted guilt
Miranda on the battlefield, difficult ROE
Gays in the military
By April, 2010 Obama enjoyed the support of 36% of America’s finest, a couple of days ago, I read an article saying Obama has yet to win over the rank and file, I suspect that 36% has dwindled as has his support among the citizens across the US. Our troops seem to be ahead of the population in general, quicker to recognize the problems in paradise.
And, he just ain’t GW,
HooAaah!
Welcome another vet and thank you for your service to this great nation! We can never have enough of you guys in here! Don’t be a stranger and BTW where’s Randy? 🙁
@Missy: #43 “Doing a quick Google search….”
I don’t use Google since they are very liberal and hate the military. They didn’t decorate their logo for Memorial Day or Veteran’s Day until the conservative blogs complained. There are plenty of other search engines to use. Several of them guarantee that they don’t keep track of the searches you make like Google does. Why do they keep track of where you have been on the Internet? Maybe so they can sell that info to advertisers? They can also figure out if you are liberal or conservative.
“Slow response to sending the much needed troops to Afghanistan then not sending what the General asked for”
While the King-in-Chief was debating whether to send extra troops or not, he evidently wasn’t keeping in contact with the Joint Chief Of Staff because he thought that when he OKd the extra troops that it would be like setting up a tour trip and they would be sent right over. He found out that it would take several months before the logistics could be set up to support the troops once they were over there. This didn’t surprise me much since General McChrystal once said that he hadn’t talked with Obama for seven weeks.
Missy,
I talked to Randy last night. Hopefully he’ll be posting here today. I wasn’t going to post but at his urging figured it was time. Some of the comments I’ve read on here have been so out of wack it was like what’s the point. One of the great things about this country is that we can all openly state an opinion without having to worry about our doors getting kicked in and being wisked away. EVERYONE who posts here regardless of their views- liberal or conservative, would be in a prison right now in some other countries maybe even dead. Too many folks take that for grant it.
Missy,
As a quick follow up. It was an honor to serve this country. The real credit goes to the kids who joined the military after 9/11 knowing full well they were going to be sent to Afghanistan or Iraq. It is disgusting to see those on the left trivialize and worse yet, demonize, the sacrifices they’ve made.
@ another vet: It was nice to hear from you with your hard hitting commentary. Please return on a regular basis. Thanks for everything.
SMORGASBORD: you mentioned it also before, and I decide to check my name, and I could not beleive that they could copy my comments here without my agreement, they even add some other advertised parts that look like blended with my name, the worse one was an add of “lipposuction”
as if connected. I realy dont like that. bye
@ilovebeeswarzone: #48 Some blogs comments section has a “Report” button where you can report stuff like that. I hope the new FA has one.
@another vet
“Semper Fi”
“Death before Dishonor”
And thank you for the heads up.