Kevin Graham wrote:yeah, he just kept the war going when he said he would stop it....and then used drones to kill with impunity. You're right, he took the high road.
Drones were part of the war from the beginning, well before he took office. And Obama's use of drones dramatically cut down on American casualties. Under Bush, we suffered an annual average of 781 American casualties between 2003 and 2007 in Iraq. Between 2009-2016 under Obama
we averaged just 41 per year. If the data were flipped or had this had happened under any other Republican President you'd be calling him a true patriot, a genius and a hero.
So, what you are saying is that Obama did not stop the war when he said he would stop the war, thanks for the clarification.
Kevin Graham wrote:Obama has saved thousands of American lives at home and abroad. But because he's black with a D after his name, you demonize him.
Yeah, Obama did that...and thanks for yet another clarification because i was about to point out how being rich, old, white and republican never gets demonized around here so we should all be grateful for your insightful observations on how unfair life is for a black man...a black man elected as President 2 times, etc....yep, poor guy is a victim because of his skin color...or....he is a trophy because of his skin color...look at how your racism insist on parading him around like a fat pig in a county fair....you must be so proud.
Kevin Graham wrote:This is a President who actually understood that his first duty was to protect American lives and optimizing the use of drones, however tragic that may have been to foreign civilians (as if you give a crap about any of them), was a genius way of accomplishing that feat.
wait a second! earlier in this post you said the drones were already part of the war...i guess Bush had a genius idea in your opinion.
Kevin Graham wrote:But all of this still misses the point about starting wars with new boogeymen for political benefit.
Yes, indeed the current lack of any meaningful policy or convincing candidate has left the Democrats with no other than creating a race war with a boogeyman in Office and a minority population of people who essentially bought their protest sundries at party city.
Kevin Graham wrote: Obama didn't do any of that. For example, regime change in Syria was already in the works during Bush but Obama backed away from that policy entirely.
Yeah, and that was a massive foreign policy failure by Obama and something the Syrian people surely do not appreciate. Are you really so stupid as to think Obama's foreign policy, anywhere, was a point of success?
Geez you're still just a dumb Georgia redneck, aren't ya?
Kevin Graham wrote:Oh yeah, i forgot - "Bush's fault" because Obama can't possibly be responsible for his own Presidency because he is black,,,just another victim of whitey, eh?
He's responsible for his Presidency but he isn't responsible for starting a war created by his predecessor, moron.
Didn't say he started it you thought vacuum...i pointed out that he did not stop it like he said he would...instead, as you put it, Obama optimized the war....so, once again, you are kinda stupid.
Kevin Graham wrote:Good thing all those Democrats like Kerry, Clinton, etc denied that boogeyman...
We had eight years of a Clinton Presidency and acknowledging a potential threat from Iraq isn't the same thing as conjuring up fake evidence to support an invasion, which is precisely what the Bush administration did. Only Bush said Iraq posed an "imminent threat" with tales of WMDs that didn't exist. They were selling fear on FOX News and America bought into it. Nearly two decades later America is still buying the same snake oil from the next Republican in office.
And yet still the Democrats can't even outsmart these guys...believe it or not KG, you are the idiot here.
Kevin Graham wrote:imagine how stupid your theory would be if the Democrats joined in on the whole boogeyman façade, eh?cessor you idiot. That's the issue here.
No, that isn't the issue you idiot. The issue is the number of Republican vs. Democrat Presidents who actually start new wars, new reigme change policies, etc. Republicans tend to be trigger happy. Saying Clinton believed Iraq was a potential threat, therefore she is just as guilty as President Bush for lying about his reasons for invasion, is just flat out stupid. Her husband was President for eight years and never once invaded. That's the issue. Those who actually start new wars and those who don't. Not whether they think another country poses a potential threat.
Oh, if that is the issue then why have you not actually spoken to that issue...this "number" has seemingly escaped your posts here - and undoubtedly will avoid any culpability by a Democratic Senator that voted or supported such a thing.
I never said Clinton believed anything, but she sure voted for something....and as for Bill's 8 years - perhaps your idiocy could reference which President fired cruise missiles in Iraq on June 26, 1993. Or explain the 1996 Operation Desert Strike....see, here is the issue KG, you are ignorant of actual history and actual facts. You watch the Daily Show and Bill Maher and truly believe these guys are espousing facts and "reality" - when they are just peddling snarky entertainment to big foreheads like yourself. Move on KG you are out of your depth, these are grown-up topics.
But hey at least Clinton never considered a US military strike on bombing the Yongbyon nuclear reactor in 1994 because of a North Korea nuclear issue...apparently that would just be an act of boogeyman-ery.
gee, your buffoonery on these topics is both laughable and pathetic - i am praying for your wife.