Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Obama is an Islamic Sympathizer
The evidence is clear. We know about his education in Indonesia and his father's world perspective. We know that Obama went on a world apology tour. We know that Obama considers the US to be imperialist. We know that he believes that the worlds problems are largely the creation of said Imperialism. We know that every time Obama has to choose between Israel and an Islamic country he chooses the Islamic country. We know he bows down to Arab leaders. We know that he has forced regime change which had the predictable outcome of radicalizing the Middle East. We know that every time he had an opportunity to give Iran wiggle room, he has. Whether its extending exceptions to China or to erasing whatever nebulous line in the sand he is currently championing. The radical church he belonged to was not so that he could practice his faith but that he could anchor his political career.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In his book Audacity of Hope, B. H. Obama states:
ReplyDelete"I will stand with the Muslim should the political winds shift in an ugly direction"
It could not be more plain.
Associating with the church of Rev. Wright was NOT for his spiritual conversion to some bastardized view of Christianity but to further his POLITICAL goals as prodded by the wife Michelle.
sk........Appears that a lot of people have a memory problem when it comes to past remarks made by the Muslim in chief advocator.
DeleteLiberals thought a pacifist like Obama (you know, the Nobel Peace Prize winner) would bring peace to the Middle East. After all, unrest in the Middle East was all Bushes fault as leader of the Imperialistic United States. After four years of Obama rule, I think it's fair to say that things are much worse in every major country in the Middle East. Thanks to Obama.
ReplyDeleteSounds like you are saying the people living in those countries would be better off under the puppet leaders who support us and stole the wealth and suppressed freedom of their people. Ultimately Live, you have a lot in common with the people who attacked the embassy. They, being driven by a bloodthirst over harming anyone who insults their religion, carry out the kind of retribution that people like you want to see Obama carry out on the entire Middle East.
DeleteRight now, this is being portrayed as an act of some unorganized mob. But if it was Al Queda, then we know it has nothing to do with that film and instead is a direct form of retribution against Obama for waging war against them. Religious zealots cannot be reasoned with no matter what their religion is. True freedom and tolerance in the middle east is not going to come peacefully and if you think Obama, or any POTUS will bring it by simply slaughtering as many people as possible, you are no different then a fervent Muslim.
To say that Bush caused all the trouble in the middle east is a feckless taunt. Every nation who has dabbled in controlling the Middle East has failed. Some try to reason, some use the military to try and subjugate people into supporting us. Neither has worked. Nothing we can do is going to make the people there choose true freedom and tolerance over their religion.
Max,
DeleteI didn't get the impression you stated in your opening sentence. He's driven by a bloodthirst? Only a little over the top, no? On the other hand, it seems like Iraqis, for example, will continue with their internecine strife, which we heard little of, or which never happened, when Saddam was in power. Are they better off with some freedom? I guess. They are the ones who know. Eqypt? With the MB in power? We'll see. Yemen, Libya, Syria? Same thing. More to the point, it doesn't justify a lot, but when some of our so-called puppets were in control, it may be that there's less worry about whackos of the bloodthirsty kind taking over.
I also didn't read into livestrongest's post that he thinks indescriminate slaughter is on the solutions table.
I was at a loss to understand the U. S. interests in participating in the Libyan (not a)war. Sure, the Wordsmith-in-Chief somehow thought it was different because we didn't have boots on the sand. And here we are. Likewise, with the evil Mubarak.
Jean, Live is perpetually annoyed with Obama and what he does in the middle east. It's never strong enough, and it never lets people know that they better never mess with us.
DeleteNice jab on your Wordsmith in Chief. You're clever. We had no interest in engaging in acts of war in Libya, and that's exactly what we did by the way, and we had no business invading Iraq. Almost sounds like you're saying one is okay and the other isn't. I see no difference. Neither was okay.
I'll say it again, religious zealots cannot be reasoned with. They can't be reasoned with in this country, and they can't be reasoned with in the middle east. The only difference is that the ones in the middle east are willing to kill themselves to create big carnage. Our interests in the middle east are very simple. We want oil and we want Israel to be a force to help pit the other players against each other to deny any one group from controlling the whole shebang.
These bullshit, grandiose overtures of helping spread freedom are just that. The majority of people in this country could care less about what people on the street there have to deal with and we should stop pretending we do. We want oil. Period. Perhaps if we were more honest about that we could stop being so duplicitous and stop meddling in things that aren't our business.
Max,
Delete"Nice jab on your Wordsmith in Chief. You're clever. We had no interest in engaging in acts of war in Libya, and that's exactly what we did by the way, and we had no business invading Iraq. Almost sounds like you're saying one is okay and the other isn't. I see no difference. Neither was okay."
I don't think that the war in Iraq was at all justified or needed but the fact is, we hear on a consent basis about Bush and his war but the left will not at all be harsh about the involvement and congressional circumvention that our sitting president used to involve us. While Bush sought and got Congressional approval and sought international cohesiveness as the President of the United States, it seems to me that Obama disregarded approval of the American population and only sought permission or direction from his international... masters? and... one wrong so frequently brought up by many including the current sitting president does not or should not set a precedence for another....
WTF else can I say TS?! What Obama did in Libya were acts of war. Starting with Reagan, we have undone everything the war powers act was supposed to do. Sorry TS, that precedence was set some time ago and that ship has sailed. So are you saying that because Bush got approval from congress the Iraq was more just then Obama's missile strikes and air cover in Libya? That weak ass congress that approved the Iraq action was afraid. America wanted revenge, they wanted to beat the shit out of someone, ANYONE, after 9/11 and nearly the entire country went along with bullshit and lies to war with Iraq.
DeleteObama serves a master? Really? Bush wasn't beholden to Dick "Mushroom Cloud" Cheney and his neocon bunch? You wont' get disagreement from me on Obama skirting the law in Libya, but please don't try to feed me shit that somehow what Bush did was different just because he had the approval of a bunch of dirtbags in congress who were afraid to dare call it the charade it was.
All I am saying Max is that dirtbags or not, we elected them to make that decision... we elected the president to execute it....
DeleteWe elected them to govern and to protect America and it's interests. We were not attacked by Iraq, we were not threatened by Iraq and we have wasted enormous blood and treasure there. At best, we can say they chose to defer to a president in a time of crisis and support him. At worst, we can say the completely dodged their responsibilities.
DeleteWhile I admit my support for Obama, I also continue to look at the big picture. The reserves and national guard have now become a personal army for the POTUS. Congress has not, and is not, doing its job. Reagan's administration started a slow drip drip drip away from accountability with respect to how our military is used. Now, in our blatantly partisan way of governing, we have no oversight at all.
We deserve better, but for now, Republicans are only really concerned with "fixing" Obama rather then fixing the system.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI find it Ironic that most liberals and Bush haters believe that Iraq would have been better off if we left Iraq alone under the evil dictator Saddam Hussein. But when a Republican suggests that Egypt or Libya would have been better off under a dictatorship, the liberals have a hissy fit.
ReplyDeleteWhether they are "better off" is a red herring. None of us liberals on the MW board applauded Obama for acts of war in Libya and nobody is making that stupid better off argument now. The early settlers here in this country launched a bloody revolution to claim it's freedom. We are not going to anything that will peacefully help the middle east settle it's beefs. It's time to stop trying and defend our interests as a primary goal.
DeleteSo why hasn't Obama removed Ayman al Zawahri? Zawahari replaced Osama bin Laden when OBL went in to hiding.
ReplyDeleteMore importantly, how come the US Government heard no chatter about the attack in Libya beforehand? 20 terrorists attacked the consulate. With that many people involved, keeping it a secret is difficult.
Gosh livestrongest, he may be hiding somewhere. Maybe he is in your bunker stealing your food and ammo. Better get down there before the killer zombies come.
DeleteI have learned to question our motivations in going to war with anyone, but having lived through the buildup to the Iraq war, I have to side with what we did. Sadam had aggressively attacked a neighbor. He got his ass beat back, but never complied with the UN treaties to end the original war. He knew what the consequences were for his stupidity and a good number of the UN members decided to call him on it. We were fairly united on the response until it came election time - everything fell apart then.
ReplyDeleteWhat do we do with the current situation in the entire region? I don't know, but I agree with Max that we have a bunch of religious zealots that will be difficult to reason with. Why should we even try? Maybe the only reason is the oil. We should not be put into the situation of worrying about that when we have 400 years of natural gas under our own soil.