Just because I have to hold my nose and vote for someone doesn't mean I have to uncritically accept everything they might do. With Obama, we have a history going back decades that proves pretty conclusively that he rejects large parts of our traditions as a country. His actions in office, from serial extralegal bailouts to ridiculous apologies to foreign regimes to a nonstop effort to foster class hatred confirm it. On the other hand, I am relatively sure most of the republican sabre-rattling is just campaign rhetoric.
Bush's move into Iraq was well accepted by the public, by Congress and by their vote. With the help of Sen. Kennedy. Clinton, Pres. Clinton along with Republicans there were years of statements referring to Iraq, Saddam and weapons of mass destruction. Years of statement on how we can't allow Iraq to continue down its intended path. These statements went a long way to set a public mindset in favor of Iraq intervention. Classic Group-think on a larger scale.....
It's a long list. Here's a small sample: "Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998 "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002 "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002 "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998 "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002 "Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002 "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
How is Obama not a "neocon"? http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/counterterrorism_strategy.pdf And how are you not a neocon for supporting him?
As Maverick and others have said, BOTH parties are beholden to the Neo-cons. If you weren't so blinded by your own ideology, you would realize that you have become the very thing you constantly rail against. You are no different than the "Bush apologists" we all had to endure a few short years ago. Constantly defending the failed ideology.
Personally I think Obama made some serious mistakes in supporting the current agenda. But as I have stated before, Obama knows his limits, we have had a modern day President who did not. It did not end well. I am quite sure Obama found out some things when he sat in that chair that he wished he had never known. I do not support Obama in all that he does, but he is not trying to roll back the clock to 1950 either. I don't think I would have cared much for 1950.
Sorry, you don't get a free pass anymore. Not after all your bullshit neo-con soundbites the past few weeks. You might be anti-Obama, but you and your ilk are the reason why the Republican party is sunk. You are a neo-con shill and don't even try to defend it.
We like war. It is good for some businesses. They are drawing down troops in the middle east but just cannot leave all willy nilly. We have to be realistic.