Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais
The President has been pressing things forward in Afghanistan and he has a good team with Panetta and Gen. Petraeus. I think where a lot of people take umbrage is that this whole operation in the works since last August to get bin Laden was opened up because of intelligence gathered at Gitmo and through water boarding.
These were two of the strongest things that candidate Barack Obama had denounced during the campaign. His insinuations and the outright (false) accusations of "torture" by his supporters really made the U.S. military and intelligence communities look bad.
And now? Now he wants to take credit for the fruit of Gitmo interrogations.
It's obvious that the President has been learning "on the job." That's okay. What I want to know is if his most vocal supporters have been learning as well.
And BTW (Stewie didn't raise this, but others have) - If getting involved in Iraq was "wrong" and a "diversion" away from what we really should be doing... just what, then, are we doing in Libya?
I guess "Regime Change" is okay after all? Code Pink? Michael Moore? CNN/MSNBC/ABC/CBS/NBC/HuffPo/NYTimes/WashPost?
|
My whole point is that if that is the issue, then discuss that. It is pointless when people introduce whatever particular propaganda they like even when it flies in the face of facts. That is the problem with modern day politics and all the spin machines and outlets on both sides IMO.
Is it possible that Obama had very little to do with this? I guess. Is it possible that his vastly increasing the focus on operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan and strengthening our relationships there had a hand in this? I guess that's possible too. Is it possible that this is all a scam and that Osama has either been dead or is sipping margaritas on some private beach on our dime? Anything's possible.
I'm not sure that you can even begin to compare the scope of our involvement and loss in Iraq to what happened in Libya. Either way I guess I'll go with it for the sake of conversation. Taking out Saddam out of power (which took 15 minutes) is not where a lot of people had problems. It was our continued involvement and our effort to somehow win something that is more than likely unwinnable that turned most people off who I've heard. The resources that we were expending there were too great in terms of human life, but also in terms of resources that would have been better served if focused on those who actually were attacking us.
Either way, I'm still not sure I'm ready to compare Libya to Iraq just yet. Get back with me in 10 years or so
Threaded Mode
