Suppose

LogicIsForSquares

@westside-steve said:

Of course it would be different. You have to look no farther then the war. George W Bush was a warmonger, fascist and dictator with blood lust for the brown man.

Now?

The peaceniks truly do not give a rat's ass.

WSS

This pretty much covered it. War protests ground to a halt when Bush left office. Obama continued the exact same things (two wars, Gitmo etc) that had caused some people to scream in the streets. But he was their guy so they quit giving a shit. I am from the school of thought that shitty behavior is shitty regardless of affiliation.

gftChris

@logicisforsquares said:
This pretty much covered it. War protests ground to a halt when Bush left office. Obama continued the exact same things (two wars, Gitmo etc) that had caused some people to scream in the streets. But he was their guy so they quit giving a shit. I am from the school of thought that shitty behavior is shitty regardless of affiliation.

Nothing is ever as black and white as that. You also have the 'shock' factor wearing off, that these things were big news because they were started (war at least, don't now about gitmo) under Bush. I would say, though, that the general impression that I get is that people tend to believe that Obama is bringing these things to a close, rightly or wrongly. And as far as I can tell, the withdrawal of troops, apart from those defending embassies and things, from Iraq happened a few years ago, and from Afghanistan is scheduled to happen this year.

Guantanimo is apparently scheduled to happen this year, as per the SOTU address, but I'm not putting much stock in that, I'll believe it when it happens.

Westside Steve

Lest we forget that was George W Bush's exact same timeline and Obama's responsibility alone for the escalation in Afghanistan.

And they still gave the empty suit in chief and Noble Prize.

WSS

gftChris

So essentially what we're coming to is that there was outrage initially, from some anti-war types, but then when troops started being withdrawn it died down - and it happened to coincide with Obama taking over?

Westside Steve

No. We're talking about a loud and strident group of protesters demanding the troops come home immediately while George W Bush was in office but didn't make a peep as Obama drag his feet on the withdrawal from Iraq and dragged out Afghanistan for much longer than the previous administration probably would have. Can you imagine the outcry from the left if a president McCain had kept the fight going in Afghanistan to this day? And for what?

the history books should show you that Richard Nixon got a raft of shite for not handing the Vietnam War the minute he took office.

PS who gives a shit about Gitmo?

WSS

The Cysko Kid

By the way Iraq is in utter chaos so leaving there was probably a bad idea.

calfoxwc

Still waiting for what woody "thinks" about this subject.

So? What if the gov did this, woody? What if they

did have businesses informing on American citizens straight to

the gov? Any kind of thought at all about it, from you?

Westside Steve

@the-cysko-kid said:
By the way Iraq is in utter chaos so leaving there was probably a bad idea.

I'm not talking about good ideas for bed ideas. Just the hypocrisy amongst the anti war people. And the Obama administration did try, albeit unsuccessfully, to keep more forces there.

WSS

calfoxwc

Six years of ObaMao, and you can NOT get the libs

to whine about Iraq and Afghanistan, or the national debt,

or our soldiers who died over there.

They ...will....not.... criticize that now. Because... it was always

just a crass, phoney, political attack all along, that's why.

I remember a couple of those lefties on this forum, who railed and railed

that nobody should support Bush, because he raised gas prices to help

his oil buddies.

After Bush? Never heard another word. I reckon that ObaMao must have

a bunch of oil buddies, too, eh?

calfoxwc