It has nothing to do with simply bashing Obama for the sake of it. It has to do with having given him a chance and now seeing people defend him for similar things that Bush did.
There's always going to be some similarities between presidents and their actions if we take the time to make the comparisons. But overall, Obama is not handling the situation in the same exact matter as Bush.
Remember the stories about Gadaffi ordering mass rapes? Turns out that has no factual basis, just like the first Gulf war when a massive PR campaign was launched to convince people Saddam was pulling babies out of incubators. We're also bombing Yemen as well.
The claim about "mass rapes" was made by Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor and not Obama. -
Gaddafi ordered mass rape as a weapon, International Criminal Court claims - Telegraph
We're broke, we need to end all the wars and Obama was voted in as the anti-thesis to Bush.
Well first off, the "we're broke" line has no merit anymore. It doesn't work when opponents on the right use it to validate their claims for attacking Medicare & Medicaid and I don't buy it now even when it's being used to do something that I actually favor, which is ending the wars in the Middle East. Secondly, perhaps you voted for Obama on the idea that he was supposed to be the polar opposite of Bush but not me. Rhetorically speaking, Obama was "anything but Bush" based on his speech making and his appearance alone. But as I stated earlier and in other threads, there is always some level of similarity between presidents if we get detailed enough.
He hasn't ended any wars, or closed Gitmo, etc. His reduction in troops in Afghanistan means nothing because it's less than the troop surge that already occured during his presidency.
Gitmo is becoming one of the most overplayed cards in these arguments.
According to
a timeline presented on the issue by Salon.com, Obama actually signed an executive order directing the Military to close Gitmo on Jan. 22, 2009. He campaigned on this issue for the rest of that year. In January of 2010 after a failed terrorist attack around Christmas, the Justice Department-led task force came to the conclusion that nearly 50 of the 196 detainees at Guantanamo Bay should be held indefinitely without trial under the laws of war. On top of this, certain Gitmo prisoners that were supposed to be transferred to Yemen around that time was halted after it was discovered that many of them (including the attacker on Christmas) originated from Yemen. It also didn't help matters that the current administration was also receiving pressure from Senate Republicans to keep Gitmo open:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), hailed the decision and urged that Guantanamo not be closed. "Given the determined nature of the threat from Al Qaeda, it made little sense to transfer detainees from the secure facility at Guantanamo back to Yemen, where previously transferred detainees have escaped from prison and returned to Al Qaeda... Guantanamo remains the proper place for holding terrorists, especially those who may not be able to be detained as securely in a third country." -
U.S. to halt Guantanamo detainee transfers to Yemen - Los Angeles Times
These are some of the many historical facts that are left out by people who just want to criticize Obama for not closing Gitmo as he originally campaigned on. But as anyone can see, there were many other issues that arose after he signed the executive order to do so. Instead of just blaming Obama for this, why don't we look into the Justice Department as well as the Military who made it a point to delay the process for an entire year after the executive order was issued? Or is blaming Obama for it the easier thing to do? Remember, hate is in this year... even more than when Bush was in office and everyone was yelling "Anyone but Bush" knowing he couldn't run for a third term anyhow.
He hasn't ended any wars, or closed Gitmo, etc. His reduction in troops in Afghanistan means nothing because it's less than the troop surge that already occured during his presidency.
That's where we will disagree. We both share the same desires to see the war end. However, Obama also campaigned that he would take any necessary steps to finish the war in Afghanistan and that required a temporary escalation in troops a number of times in 2009. IMO, the outcry about reducing troops now seems to be fueled by people's angst to see the wars end and selected words from his campaign speeches (while ignoring key words and actions from others).
The anti-war Obama supporters supporting Libya just make my head spin, that's all.
I doubt that they're blindly "supporting the war", but are just accepting the fact that shit's complicated in the Middle East and are allowing things to play out before making judgements and assessments. Military reform is just one of a few major components we need to visit in order to balance our budget properly. If issues surrounding the Middle East continue to be a little touchy and the underlining issue is really about the Economy, there's still a lot we can do with Wall Street, Energy, Banking, Telecommunications, Real Estate and Transportation Reform while we properly deal with the Military and the Middle East. Besides, these other issues affect us at home directly whereas our Military (and its obnoxious size) is one of the reasons why we have so many foreign allies at this time. And come 2012, I'd much rather keep the man we have in charge so that we could at least be ensured another 4 years for someone who may be able to address the situation objectively. That's all I'm saying. Patience is still a virtue, especially in the game that is Politics.
