President Obama Re-Elected - Page 1479

On November 14 2012 12:49 oneofthem wrote:
you can't possibly say the iraq war was a bipartisan proposal. the initiator of that thing is clearly bush people.

On November 14 2012 13:22 oneofthem wrote:
if i had access to the precincts data i could prob find you 60 precincts in texas that gave obama 0 votes. it happens at the extreme range of homogeneity. small precincts help too.

On November 14 2012 13:39 oneofthem wrote:
if he was vice president at the time then sure say that. he was a congress guy. it doesn't change much.

Still, was there not one contrarian voter in those 59 divisions, where unofficial vote tallies have President Obama outscoring Romney by a combined 19,605 to 0?

On November 14 2012 13:41 kmillz wrote:


So who would it have taken to make it bipartisan? I don't follow your logic

On November 14 2012 13:41 kmillz wrote:


So who would it have taken to make it bipartisan? I don't follow your logic

On November 14 2012 13:47 NicolBolas wrote:


The desire for the war came from the Executive. It would be bipartisan if both parties wanted it and you found people in both parties actively stumping for it. The Republicans, led by the Executive branch, sold it to the people; the Democrats weren't a part of that. They simply went along with it.

Hell, the Democrats had trouble even just getting the Republicans to debate whether or not to go to war.

On November 14 2012 13:59 oneofthem wrote:

an executive branch driven war is very hard to be bipartisan, especially whne you understand the left's opposition to the war from the very beginning.

On November 14 2012 14:02 BlackVelvet wrote:


Democrats are still complicit; they swept the house and senate in 2006 with a clear mandate to cut off funding for the Iraq war, which they didn't.

On November 14 2012 14:09 kmillz wrote:


I have to ask, and this is a serious question, why are we still in Afghanistan after Democratic re-election then? This is something I am not very knowledgeable on. Back in 2003 I was only 14 when the Iraq war started and was brainwashed into thinking it was the right move. As I got older I changed my stance on a lot of things (now pro-gay marriage, anti-war, anti-war on drugs) and since I joined the military (2008) I realized just how terrible of a move it was to go to war in the first place and was actually excited about Obama's promise to get us out. What I never understood was why he didn't. Is it the Republicans not letting him, or is there something about his own foreign policy that is keeping us there?

On November 14 2012 14:20 white_horse wrote:


It only looks easy because you are sitting in your armchair judging them. It still wasn't long after the invasion, people were still angry about 9/11, bush was still president with all his neo-con national security team in place, the fighting was still raging. You can't just mess up a whole country and then exit while leaving in total ruin.

Bush screwed up on so many things, but the decision to go into iraq itself was so stupid, that alone leaves him as one of the worst modern presidents in history imo.

On November 14 2012 14:40 ticklishmusic wrote:


Pragmatism. In theory, Obama could fly single American out of Iraq and Afghanistan in the next week. However, there would a massive shitshow-- they have to remove a bunch of equipment and sensitive documents, make sure the natives can keep the peace and make sure there's smooth transfer of power and so forth. When you move out of a house you've lived in for years its not exactly an instantaneous process.

On November 14 2012 14:40 kmillz wrote:


I'm not going to disagree on all of the things Bush screwed up on, but I wish people would quit turning a blind eye to all of the things that were really bad that Obama expanded on. Yes, we did eventually get out of Iraq, but who is to say we wouldn't have without Obama? He promised to get us out of Iraq in 16 months and it took nearly twice as long, as well as promised within 18 months that our troops would start coming home, and then more than tripled our presence there. So for these reasons I am going to remain skeptical on us actually getting out by 2014.

On November 14 2012 15:24 aksfjh wrote:

I wish people like you would stop blindly fearing legislated power. Bottom line, our government is extremely transparent and exercises the power you linked to with a great deal of restraint. That is because we still elect our officials. The other scenario would just include covert options to kill/detain people under the guise of some other "legal" means, like drugs.

As for Iraq and Afghanistan, we were put on the track of withdrawal with Obama (or any elected Democrat, really). We don't have situations where we "don't let the enemy know when we're withdrawing." Also, he very well could have just pulled out every troop and piece of equipment, but then left us with the same foreign policy backlog/backlash we've been experiencing for 30 years now. By taking a stance of responsibly leaving a country we sent our troops to, we send a message, however faint, that we don't ONLY have our own interests at stake. Hopefully that will pay returns in the future.

On November 14 2012 14:02 BlackVelvet wrote:


Democrats are still complicit; they swept the house and senate in 2006 with a clear mandate to cut off funding for the Iraq war, which they didn't.