Obama -Warrior In Chief

Really good article in Sunday's NYT by Peter Bergin on Obama as Warrior in Chief:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/president-obama-warrior-in-chief.html?_r=1

"THE president who won the Nobel Peace Prize less than nine months after his inauguration has turned out to be one of the most militarily aggressive American leaders in decades.

Liberals helped to elect Barack Obama in part because of his opposition to the Iraq war, and probably don’t celebrate all of the president’s many military accomplishments. But they are sizable. "

 

I am concerned.

 

Why? Obama's success takes away the ability of The Republicans to try an portray Obama as weak on defense.

 

Not surprising that Boom would spew the bullshit, but it is surprising that Bergen would deal in such an untruth in the first place. Going back to the speech he made in 2002, before the Iraq War, he isn't and has never been against military force. He was just against that stupid war, one prime reason being what it would do to our efforts in Afghanistan.

 

YankeeFan is going to be pissed that Boom is working his "Obama is a hypocrite" corners.

 

There is also a bit to be said at fighting a more effective war. I watched the former interrogation head of the CIA on 60 Minutes argue that torture is more effective than outright killing of AQers. I don't know. I figure the less time we spend trying to figure out if some guy was justing giving us bad info to avoid having a drill put an inch from his face, the better.
By now, AQers know they are being targeted and are probably more likely to provide good info to avoid meeting a cruise missile face to face.

 

Like that's ever stopped them before (or will ever stop them in the future).

Obama of course could have not only approved the SEAL mission, but gone with it, led the way himself, kicked in the doors and strangled Osama Bin Laden with his own bare hands all on live worldwide video broadcast, and the RWSM would still be screeching about him "bowing and scraping to our enemies."


But keep trolling. Because as you keep reassuring us, you're gonna vote for Obama anyway.

 

The Republicans managed to portray a triple amputee war veteran as weak on defense. This ain't gonna stop 'em.

 

Well, when you've got a book to shill for, you're going to cut a few corners.

 

This is such bullshit. The guy was a pacifist, in theory -- where it's easiest to be a pacifist.

When faced with reality, he's had to use the military to protect and defend the United States.

The "support" for military action in Afghanistan has also always been BS. It was used as a way of remaining "credible" when attacking the action in Iraq. Things were going well there at the time.

Once Afghanistan got tough, the Dems wanted to get out of there too.

 

Read his speech in 2002. He is not in any way against the concept of war.

You say he's a pacifist in theory until military action becomes necessary. In other words, don't go looking for a fight. Doesn't that describe just about everyone except the Bush Administration?

 

LT - either you suffer from comprehension problems or you did not read the story.

Berger clearly spells out Obama's position when it comes to using force when needed.

"“I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people,” the president told the Nobel committee — and the world. “For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince Al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history, the imperfections of man, and the limits of reason.”