The Political Left And The "Good" War

[RBInMaine]

I am a lifelong and active Democrat. I do not like war at all, and I was firmly against the reckless Iraq invasion from the beginning. But I, like most liberals, saw that the Afghanistan incursion was justified given that we had been attacked by terrorists with Taliban-backed safe haven there and resources from that country. I and most on the left/center-left saw Afghanistan as the real center of the needed effort to thwart international terrorism from that region in a multi-national way. When Bush went into Iraq, for years those on the left/center-left used as a centerpiece of the argument against Iraq that we needed to finish the so called "good" war, the "justified" war, in Afghanistan and that Iraq was a huge, costly, and irresponsible diversion from that justified action. In his campaign, Obama said he would wind down Iraq and finish Afghanistan. Indeed, he said he would surge troops there to do so. So what is the big surprise now?
He INHERITED this problem, and he is simply doing EXACTLY what he said he would in the campaign.
He is getting MORE NATO help, implementing a new strategy, and will have an exit plan. Much as we don't like and don't want war, we DO need to get the Afghanis to a place where they have a chance to govern themselves and protect themselves. The Taliban and Al Quaeda can not be allowed to re-occupy that nation if it can be helped. We DO also need a clear and firm EXIT STRATEGY by about 2013 at most, and then they have to be pretty much on their own with some residual NATO assistance. Iraq IS being wound down, and we will see many more Iraq troops out over 2010, also just as Obama said he would do. Again, I wish the war could end tomorrow. But allowing the Taliban and Al Quaeda to
re-take that nation or large chunks of it is unacceptable, and now that we are there we do need to finish the mission as best we can WITH NATO's help. It is complicated and very tough, but we do need to try to finish the "justified" mission that has been stalled for so long mainly due to BUSH and HIS reckless and needless invasion of Iraq. BUSH made this mess, and Obama is merely doing what he said he would in his campaign to clean it up. He deserves time, and he deserves a chance to do what he CLEARLY and REPEATEDLY said he would do in the campaign.

[Oregone]

1. "he deserves a chance to do what he CLEARLY and REPEATEDLY said he would do in the campaign"

A promise kept is not equivilent to sound policy. Using this point often shows the weakness of one's argument.


He also promised to renegotiate NAFTA in the primaries, prior to the Harper administration official leaking a memo as proof of it being political posturing (in which Obama reassured Canada it was rhetoric for debate purposes). Forget about campaigns, which are about being elected, and remember that governing is about what someone does after they are elected.

[eleny]

2. Thank you, Oregone

[knightinwhitesatin]

5. I've spent three years of my life total

in Iraq and maybe a possible fourth year in Afghanistan. Don't I deserve peace and safety more than a politician who is playing politics? I am betting not in many peoples eyes around here....

[zbdent]

8. I remember a helluva lot of grumbling from the righties that

Bill Clinton didn't bring the troops home for Christmas ...

and then, a while later, a lot of them bitching about how Clinton lamented that "we hadn't done enough" or "we didn't intervene early enough" to stop a genocide ...

Of course, they were bitching and complaining that Bill Clinton was killing a cleaning lady at an aspirin factory and calling it "attempting to take out a known terrorist", because he was trying to distract the "sheeple" from his dalliance ...

[Clio the Leo]

57. Just out of curiosity....

.... why did you join the military?

That's a serious question .... I'm not attempting to argue with you. I'm legitimately interested in your reply.

[IndianaGreen]

62. What kind of fraking question is that?

People join the military for a variety of reasons, but they all perform their duty while the rest of us sit fat, dumb, and happy at home watching football.

[knightinwhitesatin]

66. Joined out of post 9/11 patriotism

I am 35 now, at the time in 2002 when I joined I had a degree, a nice IT career and a home that was paid for. Now 7 years later after 3 tours in Iraq and possibly one upcoming in Iraq I am disillusioned. I watched my best friend in the world die in an IED blast in 2007, had to escort him home and explain to his family how he died. It was a closed casket.

My initial MOS was phased out so I reclassed to a different MOS but had to add a bit of time to my original contract so instead of a normal 4 year enlistment I had a 6 year enlistment after adjustments for MOS reclass......... I reenlisted because of Obama, he gave me and a lot of other people hope about the future of the military. Yes I heard what he said about reinforcing Afghanistan, I was hoping that once in office, once he got a real Afghanistan briefing in depth he would realize what a clusterfuck it was. I was wrong, and now I am in a Brigade that may have to deploy to Afghanistan as we are in the window, having been back long enough to recover but not already on orders to go back to Iraq. I am still waiting for an armchair warrior to tell me why we are reinforcing Afghanistan. Al qaeda is gone, are we now going to fight the Taliban? If the leaders of 9/11 are in Pakistan why are we reinforcing Afghanistan? Why are 30% of Democrats so hell bent on seeing thousands more innocent Afghanis die as well as potential hundreds of young American soldiers and marines. I dare someone to answer this question.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

11. Yes thank you

This is the same point I have been making on here on threads about Afghanistan. I knew in the campaign what he was going to do in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And I never agreed with it, I dont see the long term positives of staying there. And now that we know that the Karzi government is illegitimate I see even less of a reason of staying. I am seeing this meme being used constantly by people supporting the Presidents decision to escalate. It is without merit.

[treestar]

17. True but there's no point in whinging now

If we voted for a candidate anyway.

Still, Bush got us in. So getting out is not a simple matter, IMO. Once something starts and goes on for 7 years, it's another question. We have to get out responsibly. Obama is not one for the reckless course of action and we knew that.

Even a further left POTUS would have had to deal with Afghanistan as Bush left it.. That is no easy task.

[knightinwhitesatin]

34. I'm a soldier,

what exactly is there to deal with? Since I possibly might be going there, why exactly am I expected to go there? What benefit is there in going there, am I supposed to kill taliban Pashtun tribal members? (I will do my duty don't worry) I want ONE SINGLE ARMCHAIR GENERAL here at DU to tell me why we are going there. I want one person without any "skin in the game" to tell me why my life is worth risking in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is gone, are we now at war with the Taliban? As for leaving, we can begin a gradual pullback from the south to Kabul/Bagram, then start logpacks moving north towards the Uzbek border. I am not advocating a running withdrawal, but this belief that WE have to clean up a tribal civil war is insanity.

[mike_c]

44. I wish I could recommend your reply for the Greatest Page....

My partner's son will be in your shoes soon. He joined the Marines a couple of weeks ago. We're both broken-hearted about it-- not because he's doing what he wants, but because he's going to be in precisely the situation you describe.

Best of luck to you.

[TheWraith]

3. Kicked and recommended.

[IndianaGreen]

4. Take your pick: stay in Afghanistan or take care of America

You can't do both. There isn't money to do both!

[avaistheone1]

71. I choose America!

It does really come down to that. Do we want to survive as a nation and reinvest in ourselves, or do we want to destroy and rebuild another nation instead? There are not enough dollars or resources to do both.

[HughMoran]

6. Making historical references and highly logical arguments is noble of you

I agree with you that we are getting what we voted for. I am personally very anti-war and fought against the idiotic Iraq invasion from the beginning. But I knew that the Obama plan was to wind down Iraq and focus attention on Afghanistan. The Afghanistan war was supported by a majority here in all of the "support/oppose" polls done from '04 - '08 here on DU. I will not be a hypocrite and state that "I didn't vote for this". Yes, I did, and so did everybody else who voted for Obama.

[IndianaGreen]

9. Afghanistan was not on the ballot in 2008. The choice was Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin

We voted for our hopes, and perhaps we saw more in Obama that was there, but one thing was certain: Afghanistan was not on the ballot!

The situation in Afghanistan is dramatically different today from what it was in November 2008.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

12. Exactly

The entire situation has changed in a very short period of time. We are now propping up an illegitimate government that is rife with big time drug dealers

and murderers. I may have supported the war in 2001 but things have obviously changed dramatically.

[treestar]

18. That's ridiculous

It was on the ballet with every single other issue.

[HughMoran]

24. & the above describing the situation as "dramatically different"

there is ludicrous. Obama took great pains to repeatedly describe the downward spiral in Afghanistan and how it needed serious attention. Where were these people when Obama was stating this? Are these the same people who insult other DUers as being "uninformed"? Yes, many are, and this is such ridiculous hypocrisy from these people.

[Cha]

28. Lies mean nothing to them if it gets in the

way of a point they feel coming on.

I don't give a shit how much they scream against reality it will continue without them.

[HughMoran]

29. Impassioned arguments are one thing

It's one thing to discuss one's objection to this or any war - I personally agree and dislike wars of any kind. But to use disingenuous arguments that attack Obama - who is doing nothing more or less than he said he would do - is not good if they want to be taken seriously.

[Cha]

30. Precisely,

They disingenuously rendered themselves impotent when they make it about their own shortcomings.

[knightinwhitesatin]

49. In this reality

do you consider President Obama sending thousands more Afghans and hundreds more Americans to their deaths a good thing? If I die in a failed war, is that a good thing? And if a so called brilliant President falls for the lies of the Generals, is that a good thing?

[kid a]

38. kick for hughmoran's pov

[Pirate Smile]

7. I remember during the campaign when people were saying what a total and complete mess Bush

was leaving and why would anyone want to follow him to try to clean up all the disasters.

We knew it was going to be incredibly hard to deal with the fallout of Bush driving our economy and foreign policy off a cliff.

I wish people at least allow that Obama is trying his best to deal with a wreck where the options are bad and worse. The lack of any patience and now ascribing the worst motivations to Obama's actions seems very unnecessary and sh#$ty. I expect it from the RWNJ. I expect a little more from our side but we are very good at circular firing squads.

:(

[IndianaGreen]

10. You can't have your cake and eat it too!

The first priority should be taking care of the dire economic situation at home, not blow billions of dollars in Afghanistan per year.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

13. Dealing with a wreck where the options are bad and worse

doesn't justify sending young men and women to die for an illegitimate government rife with big time drug dealers. It may be to you but it isn't to me and many of us.

[IndianaGreen]

14. It is actually criminal to send troops on a mission based on a bankrupt and reckless policy

Karzai and the narco-trafficking warlords he has for allies will enrich themselves at the expense of the Afghan people, and at the cost of American lives!

[knightinwhitesatin]

15. How is an orderly withdrawal from a regional

tribal civil war a bad thing???

[Robb]

21. We could ask Russia, I guess.

It appears to have worked out so well for them.

[knightinwhitesatin]

33. One wonders how many more dead they

would have suffered with a surge of 30,000 more forces. Again if you want to surge so bad into Afghanistan, enlist and come join me. I have survived three tours of Iraq, you might survive as well since you are so hell bent on putting my ass in the fire while you stay home.

[mike_c]

41. are you honestly suggesting that LEAVING Afghanistan is what hurt the Soviets...

...so badly? Don't you think that it was more likely ENTERING that conflict that contributed toward their downfall? I mean, really.

[treestar]

19. Thank you!

Just another disaster to clean up. Some people need to get mops instead of whining while Obama mops and saying do it differently and do it my way or the highway.

[mike_c]

42. you don't "deal with the wreck" by pounding it harder....

That's the essence of the Pottery Barn excuse: If you break it, keep pounding because you own it. Like that makes any sense at all.

[Odin2005]

16. +1

[mike_c]

20. so Obama PROMISED to be a war criminal-- that doesn't mean I have to like it....

unrec'd.

[Phx_Dem]

22. This kind of assine, unsupported bullshit comment is what makes progressives

sounds like such assholes with little credibility.

Rec.

[mike_c]

23. then you won't be wanting our votes any longer...?

:rofl:

[FrenchieCat]

25. That would be your choice, now wouldn't it?

No one is talking about how you will vote, only how you voted.

Obviously in your mind, you voted for a war criminal...since he told us clearly,
what he was going to do, and you are calling that criminal.
So what does that make you?

[IndianaGreen]

26. The UN warned the US that Predator strikes violate international law

You have been warned!

[ShortnFiery]

32. Yes, we cross into sovereign nations and unilaterally commit Summary Executions ...

of people WITHOUT TRIAL. Damn, and we wonder why people HATE our government? :shrug:

[Unvanguard]

45. Yeah, the air strikes are seriously problematic. Which is one reason to send more ground troops.

You can oppose aspects of US policy in Afghanistan without opposing absolutely everything the US does there.

[mike_c]

47. or equally effective-- just stop killing people who are no threat...

...to the U.S.

[Unvanguard]

50. They are a threat to the US, and to the region's stability.

In the latter respect, more so than in 2001. Bush messed this up rather horribly, there's a good argument to be made that the Afghan invasion was done wrong from the start, but we have to deal with what now is.

The Taliban sheltered bin Laden and al Qaeda, its self-conception is tied to the global jihadist movement, its strength brings about unrest in Pakistan. If they can be stopped from regaining control of Afghanistan, it's probably worth doing.

[ShortnFiery]

53. al Qaeda is DE-CENTRALIZED. Continuing to KILL the "hotel operator" = the Taliban will only

make AMERICANS less safe, both at home and abroad.

Newflash: There are al Qaeda Cells all over the WORLD. :wow:

I hate them too because, unlike what some think here, I love my country. However, our power elites are behaving INSANE. Their Dirty Secret (TRUE GOAL) is to enrich the MIC, NOT keep Americans safe.

Why? If you wish to WIN this war for "the hearts and minds" of the Middle Eastern peoples, you do not WIN by occupying two of their nations and INSTILL punishment on people who had NOTHING to do with 9/11 save for allowing the elements of al Qaeda to camp there.

If we withdraw our troops, you can bet that NOW there's no love lost between al Qaeda and the Taliban. However, if we REMAIN, they will join forces against THE INVADERS.

If Obama genuinely cared about winning the hearts and minds of the Islamic People he would pull our combat troops out of BOTH Nations.

[Unvanguard]

60. That's a better argument. You could make that kind of case,

and say further that police action against such cells is superior to military intervention in defeating "terrorism", and it's a reasonable one to make.

The difficulty with applying it to the particular case of Afghanistan is that al Qaeda's presence there was not a mere matter of underground terrorist cells; it needn't have been an underground force at all, sheltered as it was by the existing regime, and would not have been able to be subject to police action. Generating a situation where al Qaeda merely is a decentralized organization, with underground cells forced to keep hidden and subject to police investigation and interference, would be a good thing for this country and for the world: among other things, it would stop us from having to do this again...

[mike_c]

54. goat-herders and farmers in Afghanistan are a threat to the U.S.?

Do you really think so? Maybe they're even as scary as rice farmers in Vietnam were?

I don't think they're any threat at all. They're a tribal movement within a medieval country on the other side of the world. But you think they threaten us. Or at least you think they threaten you. I just don't get it.

War doesn't have anything to do with differences of opinion or belief, or at least not just war. Few educated westerners are likely to "like" the Taliban-- the culture gulf is just too wide. But that does not make them a threat to us, and IF they're a threat in the region, that's not our matter, is it? If we went to war with everyone who was a threat to anyone else, we'd be fighting nearly every other nation on Earth.

There simply is NO justification for war against Afghanistan. None. Even if we concede that punishing the Afghan people for the actions of Saudi and Egyptian terrorists on 9/11 was justified, the Taliban were driven from power and a corrupt puppet was installed, so mission accomplished, no matter how odious and unjust-- and I don't concede that in the first place.

Americans never belonged in Afghanistan. They don't belong there now.

U.S. out of Afghanistan and Iraq NOW!

[ShortnFiery]

56. Well put! We are taking Hamid Karzai's side in this CIVIL WAR.

This Civil War has NOTHING to do with keeping Americans safe but merely propping up "our puppet" in an effort to extract geopolitical advantage for future economic endeavors.

Continuing to occupy these two nations ONLY SERVES the geopolitical interests of the moneyed elites within privatized multinational corporations. The forgoing is such a horrific concept that many good Americans will not permit themselves the time and effort to process it. But they must!

If you care about American and Afghani PEOPLE and humane welfare of both these people in the long run, we must pull our troops to the periphery and allow THE NATIVE PEOPLE to sort things out. If that means that Karzai fall and elements of the Taliban take over, so be it!

Women are no better off under our thug than they would be under the Taliban.

It's THEIR country and they've learned all too well that IF we are attacked on US soil again, the RSVP "Hell on Earth" will come back to Afghanistan.

Bottom line: TRIBAL does NOT equal STUPID. Withdraw all combat troops to the periphery NOW!

[Unvanguard]

59. The point is not to attack "goat-herders and farmers in Afghanistan."

That's a silly argument. If you want to make the welfare of the Afghan people argument, polls repeatedly show that Afghans support continued US presence (though not forever) and vastly, overwhelmingly prefer even the Karzai government, with all its flaws, to the Taliban.

The point is to prevent the Taliban from regaining power. You appear to have a dangerously naive perspective about their nature, and the nature of al Qaeda: Islamic religious fundamentalism of their variety is actually a quite modern movement, one that depends on modern technology, that has international connections, that conceives of itself as part of a movement that extends beyond its particular geographic location. The world is not as simplistic as some people believe: it is not divided into primitives and residents of First World nations. The Taliban in particular arose from the circumstances of the Soviet invasion and the response to it; that was hardly a merely domestic affair.

[mike_c]

61. you keep using the terms "taliban" and "al-qaeda" synonymously....

They are not even approximately similar. Al-Qaeda is an international Islamic/Wahhabist fundamentalist movement that has little or nothing to do with Afghanistan other than having based some of their organization-- which operates much like an owner-franchise-- there during the 1990s. The U.S. supported and nurtured al-Qaeda for decades, largely because we saw them as a bulwark against communism in the Middle East. An as yet undetermined alliance of islamic fundamentalists, including members of al-Qaeda and the Islamic Brotherhood, has attacked U.S. military and civilian targets on several occasions, especially on 9/11. That has little or nothing to do with Afghanistan in any direct sense. It is unlikely that more than a few al-Qaeda remain in Afghanistan. They are no threat to the U.S.

The Taliban is a Pashtun tribal movement that arose in response to incessant civil wars among the mujaheddin warlords after the withdrawal of the Soviets and the collapse of U.S. support. It was embraced by Pashtuns for stability, and it became the ruling force in Afghanistan when the mujaheddin were unable to consolidate. But they remain a tribal movement with little or no international relevance, in a country that is essentially feudal.

I'm not going to argue that either group is anyone's best friend-- they're both culturally so different from us that we have little basis for understanding, let alone getting along. But dammit-- just not liking someone is not sufficient to justify invading their nation, occupying them, and erecting a puppet government that can only remain in power at the point of foreign guns. If we're ready to justify that, note that much of the rest of the world feels that way about US.

In any event, the Taliban have ZERO interest in threatening the U.S. They have never been a threat to us and they will not be any time soon.

[ShortnFiery]

63. "... the Taliban have ZERO interest in threatening the U.S."

Not unlike BushCo equate 9/11 with Iraq, many here want al Qaeda to morph into the Taliban. They are SEPARATE organizations.

The Taliban did not attack us on 9/11. We are going after LOCAL ATTUNED/MOTIVATED agenda tribal peoples (Taliban) who are fighting a civil war against the corrupt Karzai's government. We are inserting ourselves in the middle of a CIVIL WAR and propping up a corrupt THUG government.

Bottom Line: The Taliban do NOT have a GLOBAL and/or INTERNATIONAL Agenda.

http://rethinkafghanistan.com/blog/?p=702

[mike_c]

64. it's U.S. media-think more than anything, combined with...

...ignorance and exceptionalism. It's an old problem. I don't think we'll ever be rid of it. People don't like admitting mistakes, so they'll do anything, including erecting an elaborate edifice of lies, to avoid facing their mistakes. Americans completely misunderstood the situation in Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks, gleefully abetted by the media, who saw war as a guaranteed money maker, and now our political leadership is painted into a corner of its own making-- one which many former opponents are now stampeding to join. Or at least I assume they are "former opponents." We certainly didn't see this much support for Bush's wars back when they were still Bush's.

[IndianaGreen]

77. Clearly we are dealing with nuclear powered goats!

Last I heard, Emmanuel Goldstein was spotted in Afghanistan.

[mike_c]

27. it makes me smart enough to know better...

I heard those campaign promises loud and clear. I did NOT vote for the war criminal, LOL. I vote for principles, not parties. I think we've discussed this before. You're right-- Obama promised to escalate crimes against humanity in Afghanistan and was never forthright about ending them in Iraq, so he didn't get my vote. Instead, I voted for a candidate who pledged to end those wars with all dispatch. I'll be doing the same in 2012, too.

The DUer above thinks progressive antiwar principles are "asinine." I presume he/she won't be wanting progressive's asinine votes, either.

[liquid diamond]

37. Stay your asses home in 2012.

I'm tired of your threats.

[mike_c]

40. oh no, I won't be staying home....

I'll be voting against the war criminals, no matter what letter they list after their names.

[liquid diamond]

43. Have fun aiding and abetting the republican party.

[mike_c]

46. does the irony of this not amaze you...?

You're accusing me of "aiding and abetting the Republican party" for being against a senseless and unnescessary war. What does that say about democrats?

[liquid diamond]

69. Many here

do not believe this is a senseless and unnecessary war. We have articulated our points justifying this war, but your side comes up with witty one liners like "enlist".

[mike_c]

75. then if you support this travesty, send your own kids...

...or, as you say, enlist yourself. You call that a "witty one-liner?" I call it taking responsibility for your folly. Leave my kids and my friends kids out of your dirty war.

[Sebastian Doyle]

52. You mean like the DLC ?

Who have been aiding and abetting the Republican party for their entire miserable treasonous existence.

[ShortnFiery]

48. Yes, us liberals lack credibility? We were correct on the invasions of both countries and ...

are about to go 3 for 3 when you discover that an increase of 34,000 troops into that civil war hell hole will turn out DISASTROUSLY, i.e., fuel more hatred of the USA making Americans and troops LESS SAFE at home and abroad.

But now, continue to belittle us "clueless" LIBERALS because we've only been right about every major issue in the past eight years.

Continue the warmongering and cheer leading for every damn thuggish military act with our ruling elites WHOSE only TRUE GOAL= is to GIFT the MIC with another *trillion* of our tax dollars.

Heaven forbid that you think this through when it's so easy to BLAME the liberals. :crazy:

[mike_c]

65. bingo!

Ain't that the truth?

[ShortnFiery]

31. Misnomer: There's no such entity as A *GOOD* War.

:puke:

[liquid diamond]

35. You stated my position eloquently.

Let the anti-war kiddies keep whining. That will not stop Obama from sending more troops! We WILL escalate to achieve victory in Afghanistan.

[freddie mertz]

67. Victory is a delusion, and its not even really a goal.

The plan is to "stabilize," then basically get out.

I doubt they can achieve even that, and don;t think it is worth another American life.

I hope you are planning to sign up, my bloody, flag-waving friend.

[liquid diamond]

70. Your challenges for me to enlist won't change my support

for more troops in Afghanistan. Keep up your useless taunts.

[freddie mertz]

73. Why not enlist?

You want this war and this "victory"?

Shouldn't you be a part of it?

[IndianaGreen]

79. Chicken hawks are brave when someone else's ass is on the line

Some, like Pat Buchanan, Phil Gramm, and Dick Cheney found ingenious ways to avoid the military draft. They became vociferous war mongers later in life.

[IndianaGreen]

78. 'We WILL escalate to achieve victory in Afghanistan.' Bob McNamara would have been proud of you

and Afghanistan will be our graveyard, as it was to all the other empires.

[jenmito]

36. K&R. I've been posting similar things for the past few days.

You're exactly right.

[spoony]

39. What you mistake for suprise is simply opposition.

Indeed the only surprised people seem to be the ones saying what you are. You're surprised by this reaction as if we, by voting for him, signed off on everything he said at every campaign stop in every town.

[ShortnFiery]

51. True! Some people - seemingly the Conservative Democrats - believe that we elected a Dictator ...

and not "a President."

He works for US. Therefore, we are not obliged to ACCEPT everything he proposes. If he goes off half-cocked with the MIC's INSANE War Strategies, then he will be a one term President.

President Obama needs to look in the mirror for blame if he FOLLOWS the advice of the conservative democratic WAR HAWKS as well as playing into GOP hands.

Why? If he escalates the troop levels, al Qaeda cells will be activated all over the world and WE WILL, by all rational estimates, be HIT again here at home.

When we are hit again, the scared American People will PREDICTABLY turn to the hard right GOP politicians to keep them "safe."

For all his "lauded" intelligence, President Obama is playing right into the republican's TRAP. :(

[spoony]

55. Yes, and if it turns out that he

is a one-termer these same people will, no doubt, blame progressives and STILL not get that Obama ruined his own potential. And what potential it is being wasted, which is even less understandable to me than the acts of someone like Bush or his cronies, who are just following their natures.

[ShortnFiery]

58. I fear Obama will follow in Clintonian footsteps and opt to make REAL MONEY outside of office ...

on speaking engagements. Yes, it's such a waste save for all the money to be made by his family and friends. I think he's joined "the club" of power elites and can not now relate to the Average American's life and struggles.

[avaistheone1]

72. He stopped being a community organizer a long time ago.

Now Obama is an unabashed corporatist. Despite all his speeches to the contrary, virtually all his decisions and his influence has been on behalf of the corporations, rather than the people of this country.

Remember when he supported single-payer before the AFL-CIO. At that time he said he was a strong proponent of single-payer. Then when he became president he said single-payer was a radical idea. Obama flip flopped and sided with the power elites despite his own understanding the single-payer would have been a better health insurance plan. This is just one example. There are others.

[freddie mertz]

68. That is because THEY have surrendered all independent thought...

It's transparent and pathetic.

[Jokerman]

74. "Good War"???

No such thing.

[polichick]

76. There's a big difference between a "justified war" and a "good war" or "smart war"...

A "war on terror" was never good or smart. It was an idiotic response to violence that only happened because of war profiteers.

It is still an idiotic response to anti-American feelings that result in terrorism.