Its official, Obama is a war President!

The US has both feet in two wars. He is the President. {Commander and Chief} that makes him a "War President" by default.

I said it then, I'll say it again and keep on saying it.
People voted for change. The only change they got was whose butt was polishing the seat behind the desk in the oval office.

I have to confess that one of my biggest disappointments about our current POTUS is his lack of initiative to pull us out of either Iraq or Afghanistan, despite that being one of his main key points during last year's elections.

Granted, he can't be blamed for either us being there in the first place, or the lack of a clear strategy, let alone an Exit Strategy. The blame for those can be placed on the previous Administration (which didn't even develop a War Strategy for Afghanistan until August 2008 according to Dick Cheney...almost 7 years after we sent our troops there!).

However, the current POTUS abiding by the Status Quo gets a big *BOO!* from me.

I don't believe our POTUS was being deceptive in telling the voters what he thought they wanted to hear, but I do believe that he had a blatant about-face with his Policy after he obtained Office. Either he discovered that the POTUS is unable to leash our Dogs of War, or he gained inside information that only the Executive Office is privy to that dramatically changed his mind and position on the subject.

Which begs the question: What knowledge is the POTUS privy to that we are not that could justify our continued occupation of Afghanistan (and Iraq)? What could be so damaging that the very presence of it would have to be kept secret from the People of the United States? If that knowledge were simply a matter of "National Security" couldn't the White House at least say such?



[edit on 13-11-2009 by fraterormus]

People are looking at President Obama as the decision maker. HE IS NOT! He doesn't take any decisions whatsoever regarding foreign affairs. These plans were made long ago, by the real people in power, not the puppet presidents that have been elected in the US. He's doing what he's told to do. He has no choice. That's the way our society is built, but it must change.


[edit on 13-11-2009 by lagenese]

Obama is just a face on the system at this time like bush was. Bush spent so much time on holiday, do you really think the president does anything other than just speeches and signing his name. Where would he find any time, lol.

We all know obama would fight more wars, he was talking about pakistan all the time in the election, why people thought he would be a passive president is beyond me.

Im sure most of youknow that Obama has already withdrawn US army from Iraqi major cities and only few are left on outskirt of Iraq to provide assistance. And I dont understand how you expect him to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan in a day leaving it all shambled. Bush destroyed Afghanistan and Obama is restructuring it..not that he has a choice, the US Army General himself said few weeks back that more troops are needed in Afghanistan otherwise the situaton there will be more worse. Infact there was a huge furore when the US Army General said that in media.
The last thing Obama could do is atleast bring Afghanistan to a state it was before Bush invaded it before leaving it like it is now, a broken country for which responsible is no other than US President and War Criminial Bush.

With unemployment on the rise...a war that is at risk of lasting decades, I would say if you are going to continue a war--give the generals double what they request and give them a timeframe in which to bring the boys and girls home. While I do not support this war, if you are going to stop this war and turn it over to the Afgans, then we need to stop half stepping and commit to an overwhelming amount of support for this goal.

Im sorry but my question is..."take that to the bank"...would that be one of the banks that is BANKRUPT?...or is GOING bankrupt?.. lol

Boooooo... one of the main reasons I voted for this piece of garbage was he was campaigning on getting the # out in eighteen months. I want my vote back

[edit on 13-11-2009 by CuriousSkeptic]

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that Obama started changing his positions on his campaign promises right after his meeting with the Bilderbergers in June 2008. After that, he stopped promising to end the wars and started saying he would listen to the commanders on the ground, just like Bush kept saying.

I wouldnt say that those two vids make him a war president. Firstly (as far as the UK media reported) he was never against pulling out of Afganistan so sending more troops is hardly a suprise.

Secondly the US is in danger of this conflict being their suez. This was a low point in UK influence. Any withdrawal could signal waht the world expects.....the end of the American century.

All empires wax and wain......how they handle it is the main thing....but it does not constitute a conspiracy

I have always considered that it is folly to presume that President Obama, or any other President, can actually be the pilot of the ship, so to speak.

Conditions are such now, and have been so for the last century, that when a President assumes office, the bulk of his direct work is reflective of the preceding administration and the plans of that president's benefactors. Add to that the international non-"us" situation and frankly, there is only one way to guide a nation, by remedying the mistakes of the past. The moment we, as a nation, became subjugated by external monetary policy control, things changed; when we created corporate citizens, things changed. When we allowed commercial health to supersede human welfare, things changed. These are, regrettably the hallmarks of a materialistic value system.

I think neither President Obama, nor his party are anywhere near capable of 'making things better/fixing what's wrong.' I can't see any organized political movement that even begins to encompass the notion of the kind of change that could restore this republic to it's intended form, that of a blank slate.

I still maintain that if anyone is to be criticized they are the parties themselves, and the leadership behind it. After all it is THEIR choice of candidate that gets us the 'quality' leadership we've gotten thus far.

I respect any who genuinely believe it can be done. I encourage any who attempt it. But I haven't seen much in the way of anything other than a drive to change things so only certain people benefit; and victory is defined by both the measure of how many friends benefit, and how many enemies it hurts.

/sorry, rambling over .....