LIBERAL JACKASS QUOTE
Mark Landler (New York Times Propagandameister)
"Unlike Mr. Bush in the Iraq war, Mr. Obama has sought to surround the United States with partners."
"The approach Mr. Obama is taking is similar to the one Mr. Bush took; it is not the case that, 'Unlike Mr. Bush in the Iraq war, Mr. Obama has sought to surround the United States with partners.'" - New York Times Correction Page
It only took two weeks, but it's good to see the Times came out with the truth...Even if it was hidden behind a pay-wall, unseen by most - by design.
At today's U.N. speech, Obama noted he's assembled around 40 nations for the current engagement (can't call it a war)...For kicks, lets look at Bush's coalition:
"According to the Bush administration and press reports, they are: Afghanistan, Albania, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, Uganda, and Uzbekistan. Noticeably absent are major powers–France, for example–that were members of the coalition that overturned Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait in 1991...Other countries have not been named publicly but are likely members of the coalition. They include Israel, as well as several Arab states that are providing bases or other assistance to the war: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan, Oman, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Egypt...In addition, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, and the UAE have sent 8,000 troops to Kuwait in a largely symbolic effort to help defend that country. They do not have a combat role." - New York Times (2003)
Hmm. Looks like Bush had at least 40 "partners" - including some Arab ones.
So, why was Bush's war 'illegal,' 'unilateral,' etc., but Obama's isn't? And lets not bother squabbling with the obvious that Bush went to war after we were attacked and received Congressional authorization - while Obama hasn't bothered to get authorization and we haven't been hit since 9/11/01...Not that I disagree with preemptively going after IS or anyone else. I may not agree with Obama's strategy, but I fully agree we need to kill these SOB's.
"Liberals are outraged, obviously, at the prospect of innocent Syrian lives being lost in U.S. air strikes, and are beginning to organize anti-war protests and 'die-ins' across the country. Oh, right, they're not, because no one gives a sh*t when it's a Democrat doing the warmongering. Plus, they're getting ready to line up behind an even more hawkish nominee (Hillary Clinton) in 2016." - Ed Morrissey
In other words: Bombs with (R) = Bad & Bombs with (D) = Good.
"Unlike Mr. Bush in the Iraq war, Mr. Obama has sought to surround the United States with partners."
"The approach Mr. Obama is taking is similar to the one Mr. Bush took; it is not the case that, 'Unlike Mr. Bush in the Iraq war, Mr. Obama has sought to surround the United States with partners.'" - New York Times Correction Page
It only took two weeks, but it's good to see the Times came out with the truth...Even if it was hidden behind a pay-wall, unseen by most - by design.
At today's U.N. speech, Obama noted he's assembled around 40 nations for the current engagement (can't call it a war)...For kicks, lets look at Bush's coalition:
"According to the Bush administration and press reports, they are: Afghanistan, Albania, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, Uganda, and Uzbekistan. Noticeably absent are major powers–France, for example–that were members of the coalition that overturned Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait in 1991...Other countries have not been named publicly but are likely members of the coalition. They include Israel, as well as several Arab states that are providing bases or other assistance to the war: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan, Oman, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Egypt...In addition, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, and the UAE have sent 8,000 troops to Kuwait in a largely symbolic effort to help defend that country. They do not have a combat role." - New York Times (2003)
Hmm. Looks like Bush had at least 40 "partners" - including some Arab ones.
So, why was Bush's war 'illegal,' 'unilateral,' etc., but Obama's isn't? And lets not bother squabbling with the obvious that Bush went to war after we were attacked and received Congressional authorization - while Obama hasn't bothered to get authorization and we haven't been hit since 9/11/01...Not that I disagree with preemptively going after IS or anyone else. I may not agree with Obama's strategy, but I fully agree we need to kill these SOB's.
"Liberals are outraged, obviously, at the prospect of innocent Syrian lives being lost in U.S. air strikes, and are beginning to organize anti-war protests and 'die-ins' across the country. Oh, right, they're not, because no one gives a sh*t when it's a Democrat doing the warmongering. Plus, they're getting ready to line up behind an even more hawkish nominee (Hillary Clinton) in 2016." - Ed Morrissey
In other words: Bombs with (R) = Bad & Bombs with (D) = Good.
Labels: Libby Quote
posted by Poison Pero @ Wednesday, September 24, 2014
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home