posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 02:38 PM
Originally posted by TheRedneck
It would seem a lot of terrorist leaders are being killed nowadays, and all of them in areas where the US (or US-led alliances) are operating. This
can easily be seen as President Obama flexing his muscles to show he is a strong President, especially in light of the upcoming 2012 elections where
he is having serious trouble in the polls. But I seem to recall during Bush's eight years, a lot of concern expressed over his policy of carrying out
such assassinations... including concerns raised by none other than now-President Barrack Obama.
Even though I am not an Obama supporter, the 'successful' aftermath of Bush's policies are making him look good. Obama will get credit for the
killings, but Bush was the man with the overall plan. Unfortunately for the Obama Administration, history has shown that war successes do not win
elections. George W. Bush won the Persian Gulf War, Operation Desert Storm, brought troops back home, and established a no-fly zone at the edge of
Iraq's boarders. Even though he had many successes under his belt, the economic downturn shed a dark cloud over his re-election. Obama's ability to
use George Bush II's policies will not win him an election.
Have you ever heard of the phrase, "history has a way of repeating itself"?
Originally posted by TheRedneck
Are we witnessing a shift in Obama's policies over the election? Or is there something even more troubling and sinister in the wings?
During the first two years of Obama's administration, he extended many of George Bush's foreign policies. Even though he sold a diplomatic line to his
base, Obama quietly continued: (1) War on Iraq, (2) War on Afghanistan, (3) Wire Tapping, (4) Guantanamo Bay, etc... While he stood in the public
limelight, Obama tried to twist Bush's policies to win over supporters. Certain changes were made to the terminology we used for going to war. Islamic
Terrorists - became- Extremists. When people were busy with other affairs, Obama expanded the war to include two to three other nations.
Ironically, we have to take the butterfly affect into account. Was it George Bush's push into Iraq and Afghanistan responsible for Obama's successes?
If George Bush didn't enter into Iraq and Afghanistan, we would not have seen the death of Osama and Saddam. Could the destabilization and fall of two
world terrorists have caused others to fall? Even though the United States and UN had killed off three leaders, I do not think they would have been
able to without Bush's policies. Cause and Affect. Bush kept telling everyone, "Once we deal with these terrorists, democracy would spread across the
middle-east." Well... Was the man onto something? History will redeem Bush through the actions of the presidents that follow.
Remember, Gaddafi's death was caused by luck. When you looked at the media on that day, the UN said the man's death was an accident. They had no idea
he was in the vehicle.
Obama and the UN has proven George Bush to be... right.
(I am going to get a lot of heat for this post. Lol...)
edit on 10/24/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)