Obama Gets a Blank Check for Endless War
14th August 2011
But of course he’s going to pull us out of there Real Soon Now.
Already, hundreds more American troops have been killed in Afghanistan during the less than three years of the Obama administration than during the eight years of the George W. Bush administration. According to the iCasualties.org Web site, whose count more or less tracks that of other sites devoted to these statistics, 630 American soldiers died in the Afghanistan operation in the years 2001 through 2008, when Mr. Bush was president, while 1097 American soldiers have died in the years 2009, 2010, and 2011. Even if you allocate the 30 or so American soldiers killed in January 2009 entirely to Mr. Bush, who was president until the January 20 inauguration, it is quite a record.
No doubt he’ll get around to it as soon as he’s finished closing down Camp X-Ray at Gitmo.
August 14th, 2011 at 11:18
Reminds me of 1980, when I voted for Reagan (shock!!) on the strength of his promise to balance the budget–the so-called California Miracle, which he was going to extend to the entire country. Not only did he NOT do that, he left us the largest deficit in history to that time. I’ve not voted for a Republican since.
I voted for Obama primarily because of his promise to end the wars and close Gitmo. Sadly, he has disappointed me greatly. Although in retrospect, he was the only one actually advocating those things, so I suppose I had no alternative. But I doubt I’ll be so sanquine about voting Democratic again.
Put not your faith in politicians, of either stripe. They never fail to disappoint.
August 14th, 2011 at 11:22
In the interest of fairness, we should probably add all the deaths in Iraq to the Bush column; after all, that was where all the focus was during his administration.
Now that the focus has shifted to Afghanistan, it should surprise no one that the casualty count there is up.
But all that having been said, ONE American death in that God-forsaken sand-covered cesspit is too many. A plague on both their houses.
August 14th, 2011 at 13:53
The armed forces cannot be made inert and unable to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic unless it has first been enervated in petty wars; had its moral broken by useless conflicts in the service not of America but of others; and has had its been men left dead on the fields of battle.
August 14th, 2011 at 17:15
So your position is George W. invaded Iraq because he wanted the armed forces weakend and demoralized so we could experience some sort of uprising here?
Is that what you’re saying?
August 14th, 2011 at 18:15
Your illiteracy grows apace. The point is that, to people who consider any life lost overseas to be a sin and a shame, Obama’s record is worse (from their point of view) than George W Bush’s — yet Bush is hated and Obama loved.
August 14th, 2011 at 19:43
A willful–if expected–misreading on your part.
How is Obama’s record “worse” than Bush’s? Are we going by total number of casualties in all overseas adventures? Bush wins hands down; many more US lives were lost in Iraq/Afghanistan during the totality of his tenure than have been lost during Obama’s.
Or are we judging that he who maintains the current travesty is somehow worse than he who initiated it? They are equally culpable. No “worse” to be had, there.
No, my friend, your knee-jerk hatred of all things Obama has led you into error.
Or is it simple envy that the current asshole, whom you dislike, enjoys more favor in some circles than the previous asshole, whom you liked? If so, I have to say that bitterness doesn’t become you.
None of which answers the implied statement of ErisGuy: Did George intitiate the wars in order to weaken the US armed forces so that they would be unable to respond to some imagined domestic takeover? I have to say, much as I disliked him, even I would not go so far as to question W’s loyalty to that extent. (Cheney, now, that’s a different matter altogether–but that’s outside the scope of this discussion.)