United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Here’s a BIG Difference Between Bush and Obama Policy
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/03 ... between-bush-and-obama-policy/
Published: Mar 3, 2010
Author: David Forsmark
Post Date: 2010-03-03 10:10:53 by dont eat that
Keywords: None
Views: 13599
Comments: 86
Under Obama foreign policy, this guy would be still doing this to other people. Here’s a BIG Difference Between Bush and Obama Policy 2010 March 3 by David Forsmark Under Obama foreign policy, this guy would be still doing this to other people. Ryan Mauro replied to my post that it does matter whether Republicans and Democrats are in charge of foreign policy with this fair point: David Forsmark replied to my post about the George W. Obama Administration here, titled “Yes, Ryan, There IS a Difference Between the 2 Parties on National Security.” Just a little clarification: I was comparing the Obama and Bush Administrations, not necessarily both parties, and I didn’t say there was no difference at all, just nothing really decisive in my opinion. Well, I’d say Saddam could point out one decisive difference for you, Ryan. And, as you yourself point out, the “surge” would not have happened under Obama and Iraq would be well on its way to slipping back into tyranny. Moreover, giving Obama credit that CIA interrogators are not being prosecuted, that KSM is not being tried in New York, or that the Patriot Act was renewed thanks to public pressure (and great work by Congressmen Pete Hoekstra and Peter King holding their feet to the public fire) is like giving the Clintons credit that Hillarycare did not become reality. Yes, Obama has sometimes bowed to reality, particularly in foreign policy. But every instinct of this Administration has initially taken it in the opposite direction until it had to be dragged kicking and screaming to a politically defensible position. The fact that this has not led to a major disaster yet, is just good fortune. I would rather not have to bet on it continuing.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 57.
#1. To: dont eat that (#0)
Saddam was tried and executed under existing Iraqi law...or so we were told... Is that no longer the case?
4,400 Americans would still be alive, tens of thousands more wouldn't be maimed, and the country wouldn't have run up a $trillion in debt during the Bush years. Was all that worth it?
Yes it was. History will note it a hundred years from now. And it didn't run up a trillion dollar debt. Nice spin for DU or dailykos, but not here.
You know, the GOP might actually still control the Congress and the WH if not for the decision to invade Iraq.
#59. To: go65 (#57)
(Edited)
The best thing that happened to Boy Blunder in 2004 was John Kerry...
Doubt it. The spending had pissed off so many within the base..and the fact is total control by either party is bad for 'We the People'.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#43. To: war (#1)
Under Obama foreign policy, this guy would be still doing this to other people.
#48. To: go65 (#43)
#57. To: Badeye (#48)
Yes it was. History will note it a hundred years from now.
Replies to Comment # 57.
#65. To: go65 (#57)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 57.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]