Maybe you can answer this question for me. How is it that if George Bush engages a surge into a sovereign country who's government allegedly had no ties with 9/11 it's "Bush lied, people died"?
But when President Obama engages a surge into a sovereign country who's government has no ties to 9/11, it's considered a noble and just cause?
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Deep Thoughts
Deep Thoughts by Gordon Gekko
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Easy! He's a leftist. There is a different standard for leftists and thinking beings.
Same reason Hollywood was in love with Bill Clinton for bombing innocent civilians from 30,000 feet over Kosovo. I challenge any lib to tell me how Clinton or Obama's use of the military is any more moral than Bush's use of the military.
There is NO moral difference. When a president, dem or repub, uses the awsome power of the US military, many people usually die, often innocent ones. Soldiers die. People are maimed for life. The land is scarred. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A COMPASSIONATE WAR.
And, for better or worse, the president's stature in the world increases when he uses the military. Libs, don't think for a second that ABS, NBC, CNN, NYT, etc. won't get a little giddy when they see an Obama military called into action. They like that their chosen one will seem a little more 'presidential', even if it means hellfire will rain down on inncocent babies.
To the left, more power going to a democratic president must be achieved at any cost, and by any means. Loss of innocent lives, a punishable war crime under Bush, will be portrayed as unavoidable collateral damage in a greater moral undertaking pledged by Obama. It will be gobbled up as such by the media and repackaged as unbiased news. Kosovo proved that.
Post a Comment