Skip to main content

View Diary: The 'Greenies' are back in full force (342 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Whatever. How about "George W Obama" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tentwenty, Johnny Q

    as a way to call the President?

    Please don't ignore the record which clearly shows that there are sadly way too many similarities between our President and his predecessor in numerous policy areas.  Are they 'the same'? No. Similar in important ways? No doubt about it. None.


    August 18, 2011 10:14 AM

       George W. Obama?

        David Bromwich
    (CBS News)

    Is it too soon to speak of the Bush-Obama presidency?

    The record shows impressive continuities between the two administrations, and nowhere more than in the policy of "force projection" in the Arab world. With one war half-ended in Iraq, but another doubled in size and stretching across borders in Afghanistan; with an expanded program of drone killings and black-ops assassinations, the latter glorified in special ceremonies of thanksgiving (as they never were under Bush); with the number of prisoners at Guantanamo having decreased, but some now slated for permanent detention; with the repeated invocation of "state secrets" to protect the government from charges of war crimes; with the Patriot Act renewed and its most dubious provisions left intact -- the Bush-Obama presidency has sufficient self-coherence to be considered a historical entity with a life of its own.

    The significance of this development has been veiled in recent mainstream coverage of the national security state and our larger and smaller wars. Back in 2005-2006, when the Iraqi insurgency refused to die down and what had been presented as "sectarian feuding" began to look like a war of national liberation against an occupying power, the American press exhibited an uncommon critical acuteness. But Washington's embrace of "the surge" in Iraq in 2007 took that war off the front page, and it -- along with the Afghan War -- has returned only occasionally in the four years since.

    Green leaning Democrats and many others supported Barack over Hillary because he promised to get us out of Iraq.   Look for many more 'disaffected' if he does not get out of Iraq as promised, but leaves thousands of troops and merely rebrands the occupation.

    We have to see to it that we do get out of Iraq.  Little was accomplished to date,according to vets and others, and little will be helped by staying longer whatever you call it.

    Like the Progressive Caucus has done recently, we must continue to work to get this message to the President. His re-election may depend on him standing strong and honest on his promise to get us out.  

    •  If you're asking is it a great idea to (5+ / 0-)

      call Obama, George W. Obama, I'll give you my opinion.

      It sticks in my craw the same way referring to the Democratic party as the Democrat party, or HCR as Obamacare, or the Left as leftists.

      I think you should criticize his policies if you choose, but  it's far better to leave the denigrating to the republicans.

      The religious fanatics didn't buy the republican party because it was virtuous, they bought it because it was for sale

      by nupstateny on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 09:36:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  tldr yawn n/t (0+ / 0-)

      "People who defend the indefensible lose all credibility" (h/t Karl Rover). And racism, anytime, anywhere, and by anyone is indefensible.

      by Rustbelt Dem on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 02:25:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site