I'm quite confident that you sat on your ass and had your mouth shut when the Bush administration's entire premise for a war that cost us billions of dollars and cost us thousands of human lives was false.
What you don't seem to understand is that I'm not a Democrat. I voted for Gary Johnson and Judge Jim Grey this last election, I am far more Libertarian than liberal and the garbage you're spouting just isn't accurate.
Contrary to what you may believe, I don't think Bush was a good president. Admittedly, most of my problems with his administration are economic in nature. Nevertheless, I think the problem with the Iraq War/War on Terror was the lack of an exit strategy. I was not against going to war against Iraq/Afghanistan/Al Qaeda because I assumed (incorrectly) that there was a strategy to win and then get out.
They were never there to get out. It was to build more bombs and oil refineries. It was completely about money. Simply evil. And George Bush was led around like an idiot and told what to do.
Your other problem would be to associate the war on terror with Operation Iraqi Freedom. You still won't admit that the premise of the war itself was wrong.
I won't admit the premise of the Iraq war itself is wrong, because it wasn't, in my opinion. 374 congressmen voted for the Iraq Resolution; there was bipartisan support. For some reason, you are attempting to change my opinion on this matter, but you will fail miserably. I'm way too stubborn to be convinced by your asinine arguments.
What do you think the premise was? In hindsight, knowing how many mistakes and lies were told before 3/20/03 and after, do you still feel it was justified? A short answer is fine since this topic will derail the thread. Most conservatives I know have reversed their warhawk positions. We all agree that the initial phase in Afghanistan until Operation Anaconda was justified; this latest Persian Gulf War was not. Though you claim you are stubborn, I had a somber lunch a year ago with someone who was heavily involved with the planning of the war (you would know his name). He has since then publicly renounced the former administration's propaganda. If someone like him can admit what a catastrophe it was for the Iraqi people and our country, why not you?
Another way to tell that the reasons for war were wrong is when those reasons keep on changing. At first it was nuclear arms, then it was justice for 9/11, then it was to free the Iraqi people from Saddam.
It was often an arguement of Hitchens (and some neo-con fellow travellers) that Congress overwhelmingly passed a resolution in the late 90s to intervene in Iraq due to Iraq's violations of the no-fly zones and the sanctions at the time (firing on US and UK aircraft being not a small thing and a worthy causus belli). While it was short of a declaration of war, plans were in motion long before Bush was elected or September 11th. There's no doubt that the Hobbesian mindset guiding US policy in the early oughts combined with the general public's eagerness for retribution made it easier to sell, but it bothers me that the moment in time is selectively remembered by every political persuasion due to its political liability. I have no doubt that when Bush's team transitioned in, it was one of the first things discussed. Edit: In short, I think it was inevitable, just maybe not executed the same way had September 11 been prevented.
While there is certainly a degree of truth in what you say, this line of reasoning worries me. This can be easily used as a ready made excuse regardless of what happens. He got Obamacare through despite Congress. The Republicans didn't make him repeatedly say that you can keep your current plan (even though it wasn't true). Sad that we have had a shift in politics from "the buck stops here" to "it isn't my fault."
There have been a number of shifts, it used to be that the filibuster was used once every thirty years or so, then it ramped up under Clinton, ramped up more under Bush, and went through the roof once Obama took office. It used to be that conservatives would work with Democrats to make their progressive ideas (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) workable, fiscally responsible pieces of legislation. The shifts have been dramatic, but I don't see the fault for those shifts as primarily belonging to Obama, the blame should be meted out where it is deserved, even if that isn't to the plaque on the desk in the Oval Office.
I hear you. However, you should understand that this creates a scenario in which the President gets to have a ready made excuse for any of his shortcomings. I am not entirely comfortable with that abdication of responsibility.
I completely agree, but I am similarly uncomfortable with people creating a problem and then pointing the finger at others for the problems that they created. That is just as egregious an abdication of responsibility.
He didn't get Obamacare through despite Congress. Congress voted for it and it passed. Congress isn't just the GOP. I am not going to deny that Obama has done a terrible job the last few months or that he misled the public about his pledge that you could keep your current plan but this frequently trotted out myth that Obama didn't negotiate with the Republicans isn't supported by the facts. The number of Republican amendments incorporated into the bill show that plus the fact that it is based on the law championed by the last Republican candidate for President. That the Republicans chose not to vote for it is more about them than it is Obama. Obama and Katherine Sebelius are on record taking responsibility for the failures of the terrible launch of the healthcare.gov.
