Like LBJ in Vietnam, has President Obama becomed obsessed with war?

[kentuck]

And with all the domestic and economic problems our country now faces, isn't this the worst time to obsess about war in Afghanistan, Yemen, or anywhere else?

Remember when he ordered the strike on the Somalia hijackers that were taking over the ships? And how he revved up the number of troops in Afghanistan? And the attacks on Yemen about three weeks ago? How much of a war President is Barack Obama?

Is it necessary? That is the bottom line question. Either way, we cannot afford more war. If it is not necessary, it is even more of a folly. What is your opinion?

[leftstreet]

1. It's a Jobs Program

:shrug:

[mdmc]

2. I don't think so

I think he knows we are fucked and is trying to do the best he can..

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Like LBJ he's afraid of looking "weak" or embarrassed by losing a war.

And, like LBJ, he's willing to sacrifice lives to prevent it.

It's all rather pathetic and disgusting.

[EFerrari]

8. I think that's probably right.

It's awful to see this president going down that road.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. By any reasonable standard the various "wars on terror" are a monumental flop.

Our much vaunted military power has proven useless in everything but recruiting more "terrorists".

We have had to abandon any number of useful social programs in the face of an escalating (pun intended) budget deficit much of it brought on by the costs of those lost wars.

There is more, not less, likelihood of terror attacks here because of our delusion of "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" approach which has only added to the resentment of much of the Islamic world.

We have surrendered to the fear that terrorist violence aims for by curtailing our own liberties, the very ones that we're are allegedly trying to protect.

By elevating criminal acts to the level of "threats to our way of life" we have made war, or proxy wars, our new "way of life".

And, now, instead of stopping the sheer stupidity of it all, Obama has escalated the wars in a vain, or cynical, hope of protecting his reputation as "tough" and "decisive".

[EFerrari]

19. The real irony is that Obama and his people seem to be trying

to outsmart a dying medium. Everything starts from there.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. By trying to look "tough" he's being seen by both the right and left as weak.

The right, of course, wants to increase the swagger and bloodshed, and blames Obama for not being "tough" enough.

The left sees him as a puppet of the MIC and cold war thinking and too weak to do what's necessary and right.

For a "smart" politician trying to use fear to burnish his image with the media, he's about as "smart" as Nixon was in a similar situation.

[Mari333]

22. amen and ditto

[Marr]

4. He's obsessed with serving his most favored consituents.

That would be big business, from the health insurance industry to the war industry to the energy industry... and so on.

[INdemo]

11. It certainly appears that is correct..so why do Republicans disagree with every decision

he makes when in fact Obama is the best Republican candidate they will ever find.Change ...yeah right? he has continued with the Bush doctrine and all this BS about change was just that BS...

[rcrush]

15. They've got to keep up with appearance of opposition

A lot of this left vs right bickering in Washington is just theatre.

[Marr]

26. Because being Corporate America's toady pays very well, and they want to take the job back

from the corporate Democrats. I'll bet the really cynical Republicans are annoyed by guys like Obama and Rahm Emmanuel. I mean, their whole sales pitch has always been, "we'll give you suits anything you want, just give us the trappings of political power"... and here's a faction of the Democratic Party that's every bit as willing to hand over the store for the same thing.

[Oregone]

5. Smiting evil may be addictive

Who knows

[Don Caballero]

6. Absolutely not

Vietnam was a dumb war. Iraq is a dumb war that is ending very soon.

[Union Yes]

7. You take a mortal man. Put him in control. Watch him become a GOD. Watch peoples heads a-roll. knr

[Desertrose]

12. That's the problem...I don't think he IS in control.

I think anyone who gets into the WH is basically bought & sold before he takes oath...certainly some to a greater degree than others.

I also think it is pretty tough to go against the advisers etc...which means it is even MORE crucial to pick the right ones. Unfortunately I'm not at all impressed by who is closest to Obama.

[Goldstein1984]

9. I believe he's letting political considerations

override his better judgment and nature.

I'd rather believe that than that he believes in what he's doing.

[FrenchieCat]

10. I think you are asking a stupid question,

and are bound to get some stupid answers.

I don't think President Obama is obsessed with any particular issue
that Americans are facing, as they are all very important,
and I see him acting accordingly.

[Kickin_Donkey]

21. Well, he certainly proved he wasn't obsessed with getting us ...

better health care. He was AWOL.

[FrenchieCat]

23. That's your particular take......

which you have a right to have...

however, you don't have the right to speak
as though what you are saying is a fact,
cause it sure in the hell ain't.

[pissedoff01]

13. Nah. He just wants to be a more better Supreme Commander-in-Chief He-Man War President

[cliffordu]

14. I dunno - real evidence would be nice.

:shrug:

Bogus posit???

What is your opinion??

[JohnnyLib2]

17. Someway through 2011, that might be reasonably answered.

Not now.

Also--I find my gut reactions to presidential actions clouded by the suspicion and distrust left over from Cheney/Bush, damnit.

Will hold on this one.

[indepat]

18. Sadly, a Democratic president must demonstrate every day that he is strong on national defense and

not weak on either communism, crime, drugs, or terra. Moreover, he must have the balls to swiftly and severely punish any perceived transgressor, else the mean ole 'pukes will label him not strong or weak and, living in abject fear of being labeled as such and thereby messing one's pants, Democratic presidents have long dutifully done the 'pukes' bidding. :P

[Obamanaut]

20. We'll know more when the 'surge' for Yemenstan is announced. nt

[Bigmack]

25. LBJ said....

“I knew from the start that I was bound to be crucified either way I moved. If I left the woman I really loved — the Great Society — in order to get involved in that bitch of a war on the other side of the world, then I would lose everything at home. All my programs… "

Obama had best grow a pair and do what's right about these loser wars, rather than try to pacify the warmongers... an impossible task, anyway. He needs to have the courage to tell the people that we can't afford these foreign adventures.

[H2O Man]

33. Very important quote ......

Thanks for posting it. It should serve as food for thought for everyone here.

[tabasco]

27. Nope. He's getting us out of Iraq and finishing the job in Afghanistan.

There's not going to be a war in Yemen, despite all the screeching.

[IndianaGreen]

30. Finishing the job in Afghanistan? Does he think he is better than Alexander the Great?

What part of "graveyard of empires" do you fail to grasp?

[regnaD kciN]

32. No, I think he realizes we can't afford a resurgent al-Qaeda...

...in a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.

And you can chant "graveyard of empires" all you want -- I would say we have no option but to stop the Taliban, and al-Qaeda, from returning to control there. Otherwise, what they did to us before will seem like child's play.

[madrchsod]

28. he better study what happened to lbj

obama has the luxury of not hearing about how many kids he killed today. the anti-war movement is silent

[pscot]

29. No

n/t

[regnaD kciN]

31. No...

Obama always said that we needed to pull out of Iraq in order to use the resources in Afghanistan. It was clear to me from the start that a stronger struggle against the Taliban/al-Qaeda in Afghanistan was part of his foreign policy.

Either way, we cannot afford more war.

I would argue that we can "afford" a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan -- that would invite al-Qaeda back in to use it as a base of training and operations -- even less. And I see nothing wrong with using military action to defend against a very real threat of terrorism. What I object to, and what the previous administration gave us, was military action against a target that had nothing to do with terrorism, but whose oil and strategic location they coveted. That's a far cry from Obama's foreign policy.