It's nice to know hypocrisy isn't limited to republicans.

[Yes We Did]

Actually, no... it isn't. And when I read posts saying he's our president and I trust him... man oh man does that piss me off. For 8 years I had to hear that from republicans every time bush did something stupid.

I thought it was just because they were republicans and they blindly followed. I thought for sure that if Obama made the same kind of mistakes I would not hear blind sheep baaaaahhhh-ing the same clueless jargon.

WRONG.

If the president makes a mistake, regardless of the letter next to his name, it's still a mistake. It was wrong when Bush escalated the wars... It's wrong when Obama does it.

PERIOD.

And seeing and admitting that point has nothing to do with the letter next to my name either.

It's called NOT being a hypocrite. Maybe some here should try it and stop lying to themselves. Obama made a mistake on this one.

PLAIN. AND. SIMPLE.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. It's not hypocritical to trust Obama and not trust Bush.

That's just common sense.

[Yes We Did]

3. I don't BLINDLY trust any human being

That is just common sense.

[patrice]

16. Ahhh, but do you BLINDLY mistrust them, that is the question too.

[Yes We Did]

23. Do you know how ignorant that sounds?

Seriously. Trust is something you EARN. It is not something that should be blindly given. Didn't your parents teach you that? I though ALL parents taught their children that.

[patrice]

32. Why don't you just admit that you don't understand what I said. Calling unknown others

liars and saying they are ignorant, with little or no knowledge of them is extremely characteristic of those we refer to as right-wingers and neo-cons. How very il-liberal of you.

Another characteristic of the right-wing camp is to pontificate without any facts, e.g. President Obama "made a mistake" on this one. Am I just supposed to TRUST you? Ha, ha. What was that you said about trust?

What you are saying about President Obama is your opinion nothing more and you are entitled to it as long as you recognize what it is. And, though I sense your oh so peaceful self is ready to do flame war with me over it, I have a clue for you, the word of God it ain't. And since it is just an opinion, the opposite opinion is as justified as it is. And if you can't admit that is a fact, then you under-cut your own opinion.

[Yes We Did]

64. I never called anyone a liar.

Why don't you admit you're making stuff up.

Hypocrisy is the same whether you are a republican or a democrat. To say "he's my president and I trust him because he's my president" when you bashed others for doing so is hypocrisy.

[ShortnFiery]

84. Right, because our government has NEVER lied to us or distorted the truth.

Have you been on "an island alone" for the past eight years?

[patrice]

90. The point is that IF you're interested in reality, Blindly anything for anyone, especially on

the internet I might add, predisposes you to error.

But then that's a big IF as to whether people actually value Reality more than Power. Another characteristic that got us into this mess and will most assuredly lead to more serious messes in the near future.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[dionysus]

59. oh i can garauntee you'd give dennis *boatloads* of benefit of the doubt...

:rofl:

[Yes We Did]

65. that makes no sense. n/t

[dionysus]

79. sure does. if dennis was president, his followers here would buy his words as spoken gospel

therein lies massive hypocricy. most of the "i don't trust any politician" folks here would do a complete about face were he elected.

[Yes We Did]

80. I guess I don't understand why you replied to me with it.

I was Obama all the way. I liked Dennis, but knew he wouldn't get the nomination.

And if Dennis would have been elected and made mistakes I would have called him out for it too. Not that it does much good doing so on the interwebs...

But that is kind of my point. Right is right, wrong is wrong; no matter who does it. And for a "person" to rant and rave about something, only to turn around and do it too... it's hypocritical.

[dionysus]

81. because i responed to the wrong person.. SO THERE!

whoops
:blush:

[Yes We Did]

82. lol...

Don't you love when you do that.

[HughMoran]

134. lol

[arcadian]

140. That's a lie

you're just spreading your bullshit.

[Incitatus]

5. Yes, and it doesn't matter that he's doing the same thing Bush would have done.

because he's a Dem.

:eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Actually, Bush opposed escalating the war in Afghanistan.

So if you really want to compare people with Bush...

[niceypoo]

46. ...because he didnt give a shit about it

except as an excuse to attack Iraq

[patrice]

15. Mischaracterization is the hallmark of bad-faith rhetoric

[ShortnFiery]

85. That's about it! Even though there are the same "players" in the Pentagon, and the AG's ....

department, we are supposed to believe JUST BECAUSE we have a Democratic Executive Branch, everything has changed ... the the American People won't be lied to again. :crazy:

We must be vigilant and KEEP our elected leaders HONEST.

[rhett o rick]

7. So you support his escalation of the war? nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Well, I don't think it's a good idea.

But I trust Obama's informed opinion more than my uninformed opinion. Or yours.

[mkultra]

50. i support it

and don't believe Bush ever did support truly going after AQ.

[Phx_Dem]

137. Yep. War sucks, but sometimes it's necessary.

What would be much worse than the war in Afganistan is for that region, particularly Pakistan, to become unstable and have their nukes fall into the hands of AQ and/or the Taliban.

[rhett o rick]

139. Ah yes, the "war is necessary" argument.

Because if we let Vietnam fall to the communist then Laos will fall and Cambodia and Thailand, Japan, Korea and then Canada.

If we let Afghanistan fall to the Taliban, then they will conquer Pakistan and have nucs to defeat India and Israel then Canada.

The WORST thing that can happen is that we spend all our money on wars and have nothing left to feed our own.

Why isnt the rest of the world worried about the Taliban conquering the world. Why is it our duty to spend hundreds of billions of dollars while 40,000 Americans are killed every year by the insurance industry.

[valerief]

2. Agreed. War is big-time WRONG. Then and now. nt

[ginnyinWI]

29. War is always wrong?

The Revolutionary War was wrong?

World War II was wrong?

I believe war is certainly Hell, but it's not always wrong.

[valerief]

52. Damn, forgot the War on Terror and War on Christmas!!! So many wars, so few soldiers. nt

[Hassin Bin Sober]

61. It's funny you should mention one war where the "world power" occupiers got their asses ...

... handed to them by homespun guerrilla forces and another war based on, and started by, "preemptive invasions"

[Sarah Ibarruri]

4. Oy vey nt

[democrat2thecore]

9. Afghanistan, Health Care "reform", renominating Bernanke, Rahm as COS, Constant double-talk.

He's made LOTS of "mistakes." I've never felt so betrayed in my 50-years. I had such HOPE.

[dionysus]

60. hookay

[HughMoran]

135. Worst President Ever

[Proud Liberal Dem]

10. How do you KNOW Obama has "made a mistake on this one"?

:shrug:

May I borrow your time machine and/or crystal ball?

Also, what exactly is wrong with trusting somebody who has demonstrated that they are worthy of it? Bush most certainly was NOT.

[Yes We Did]

18. It's simple....

You do not escalate a war that much for 100 people... This is nothing more than a continuation of the Bush Doctrine. Period. There is no threat there... We are there to prevent a future threat... That didn't use to be the democratic platform, now did it. It wasn't okay when Bush did it. It's not okay now that Obama is doing it. That is my point.

[FarLeftFist]

24. But there's alot of people....

Who believe it wasn't ok for Bush to invade Iraq for his personal agenda and that he should have focused more on Afghanistan.

[ginnyinWI]

35. did you see Susan Rice talking to Rachael tonight?

I did, and I also listened to Gates talking to Jim Lehrer.

There clearly is a threat in Afghanistan now. It is not 100 people, it is a failing state where many more extremists can be nurtured. It isn't the Bush doctrine--we are responding to an ongoing and legitimate threat to our national security. We aren't there to nation build, just to help stabilize the country enough so that the Taliban can't take over the government.

[Yes We Did]

66. Yes, I did.

And I agree with Rachel.

If that is the excuse, then which country is next? We are always going to be a war somewhere by that logic. I disagree with it. It's that simple.

[ginnyinWI]

31. I was going to say the same thing.

:)

What if Obama pulled every troop out, the extremists flourished in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan, got a hold of Pakistan's nukes and tried them out on India or somewhere else? This is a scenario where NOT fighting now would prove to have been a huge mistake.

Obama's got the facts and info and the brains to make the right decision. He's won my trust. I agree, he's worthy of it. He's got a lot more grit than so many of these whiny Republicans on the hill today!

[FarLeftFist]

33. A nuclear attack on India....

Would undoubtedly be the start of WW3.

[dionysus]

58. one really could say that these guys don't give a shit how many afghans the taliban slaughter.

kinda flies in the face of their ivory tower moral superiority.

them damn ay-rabs lives aint worth nothin!

but to get around that tricky one, they have to resort to saying the taliban aren't the bad guys, which has actually been insinuated on here before...

[keroro gunsou]

11. while i am bummed

that more troops are being put in harm's way, at least President Obama has more noble intentions than the cretinous yahoo that sent them there in the first place. He's also got something resembling a plan to get them out sometime in 2011.... if i read the news correctly.

hopefully he can achieve everything he sets out to, but good intentions aside, i think afghanistan is a mess of omniversal proportions that i don't think ANYONE can solve.

i just hope everyone comes home safe and sound.

[patrice]

12. Before you accuse others of lying, you need to establish whether each one of those

brave pseudonymous posters, of whom you are seeking support with this thread and in any other regard, EVER in even the slightest degree approved of the War on Afghanistan or its bastard child the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq.

[Yes We Did]

19. I didn't accuse ANYONE of lying.

I said many are hypocrites. Not the same thing at all. And I stand by my op.

[patrice]

34. Re-read your OP.

"Maybe some here should try it and stop lying to themselves."

Maybe you should stop lying to yourself about your ownership of not only the ability to see the future in a very very complex situation, but also the absolute truth about what a hypocrite Obama is.

Your position would be more palatable if you recognized that it is only a probability, not an absolute fact, that is, unless your name is God.

[Yes We Did]

67. How'd you guess who I was?

And yes, people who refuse to see this are lying to themselves. At least anyone who went after Bush supporters for doing the same thing. They are lying to themselves if they do not believe it is hypocrisy to do the same thing they slammed others for doing. Do I need to cut and paste the definition of hypocrisy for you?

[patrice]

88. Another hallmark of the dis-ingenuous. Making light of something that is extremely serious.

So all of you Blasphemers are ready to call the REAL PTB down on your heads?

[Yes We Did]

101. You ask if I'm God... and I'm making light. Yeah. n/t

[Flabbergasted]

13. I think it is as foolish to see things in strict black and white terms. The president is privy to a

lot of information you are not.

[Yes We Did]

20. Yes, obviously.

However, it is still an unnecessary escalation. There is no threat in Afghanistan. We are there to prevent on from forming sometime in the future. In other words... The Bush Doctrine is now the Obama Doctrine.

It is not okay.

It was not okay when Bush did it.

It is not okay when Obama does it.

[Flabbergasted]

30. There is no threat to us. But there is a threat to the Afghan people and despite the corrupt

government it is necessary, I believe, to try to make it work.

Trying to transfer the Bush Doctrine to the Obama Doctrine is.....intersting. If you remember...

"The Bush Doctrine

The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to secure itself from countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups, which was used to justify the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.<1>

Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a potential or perceived threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate; a policy of spreading democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating terrorism; and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.<2><3><4> Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002.<5>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

You could say that a couple of these elements apply but to say that Obama's military philosophy is based on it is hyperbola. Nothing Obama has said suggests "that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a potential or perceived threat to the security of the United States,"

Lastly I don't advocate for the escalation but I also realize that this war has long lasting ramifications for the region and getting out with a stable Afghanistan is in everyone's interest. This is especially vital when you consider the major problems in next door, nuclear armed, Pakistan. The president realizes wisely that he must play this political and military card very carefully. I do believe he may be making the right decision if he can use it to prop up the government, get afghan troops prepared, find a working power structure for the rest of the country, and cripple the Taliban.

Case in point: despite the fact that Iraq could erupt at any time, it is still relatively stable at the moment. I hope the escalation will produce a similar result in Afghanistan.

[patrice]

36. Reich-wing boilerplate.

How very original of you! How articulate! How insightful! How informative!

[Yes We Did]

143. Actually, you've got that backwards.

Reich-wingers don't see any problem with this at all. And apparently neither do too many Dems.

[ginnyinWI]

37. the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan:

Afghanistan was a state that terrorist groups were able to train and organize and get money from bin Laden so that they could come here and attack. It already happened. It still hasn't been taken care of--it is still an ongoing threat. Finally we have a President who actually wants to see an end to the threat and not have our country be in a state of perpetual foreign war.

The Bush Doctrine says we can attack to prevent a possible future threat. Not the same thing.

[salguine]

62. That's what legions of idiots said to justify everything Cheney did.

[Flabbergasted]

73. Bull. nt

[salguine]

132. How so? Let's hear it, genius. I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer.

[Flabbergasted]

133. It was a common accusation among leftists at that time to say RWers were engaging in B&W thinking..

You can find numerous examples of this...

1.) Either you are with us or with the terrorists

2.) Either we attack with our entire might and power or we are surrendering.

3.) Axis of Evil; implying we are the good guys.

It pervaded every decision Bush made.

Any nuanced or intellectually challenging analysis (i.e. grey thinking) of the post 911 era was shot down.

Bush and the RW are in essence B and W thinkers, they know it...we know it...it was us accusing them at the time.

Don't be a prick just because someone disagrees with you. Jeez.

[treestar]

107. No, they never got around to saying that

They didn't need that information. They just knew there were a bunch of Muslims over there who allegedly wanted us all dead, and that was enough for them. They didn't need the information and intelligence the President had.

they didn't need his darn good intelligence on Iraq, either. They just knew Iraq was full of Muslims that wanted us all dead, but at the same time wanted us to help them get rid of their dictator.

[patrice]

14. Another germane question would be an accounting of exactly what you and

and those whom you solict have done to resist this war and the Invasion & Occupation of Iraq.

[Yes We Did]

21. I spoke out against it.

That's what I did. That's what I do now. As I keep saying... it wasn't okay when Bush did it. It's not okay when Obama does it.

[patrice]

38. wow

[Yes We Did]

68. You would prefer I storm the capitol and get tossed in jail?

Sorry, I didn't have Bush's ear during the whole fiasco. But then, who did aside from neo-cons?

[frylock]

39. and as a supporter of the escalation, it's safe to assume that you're a member of the armed forces..

or are in process of enlisting. thanks for your service, patriot. :patriot:

[patrice]

44. I am a veteran and there are several young people I helped raise, in my family,

and others who have graduated from high schools in which I taught, who will receive orders because of President Obama's decision. They VOLUNTEERED, just like I did, but weren't as "lucky" in their timing. Everyone I know knows what I think of the MIC. I wore a black arm-band during Gulf I as I taught.

My Dad was also a veteran and there are several veterans in my family, including one of the craziest retired military fascists you have ever met.

...................................

That said, I have been to D.C. against these wars 4 times and I HAVE been standing on a certain street corner with my friends every Sunday for most of the last 6 years and will continue to do so to hold my signs informing the public what War REALLY is. I continue to oppose this War.

......................

When a bunch of highly specialized doctors say something like "You need your liver, so take this unpleasant medicine with bad side-effects, because we won't just operate to remove it." Do you go find a butcher to do the job for you?

.............

I am sorry it's this way. I would MUCH prefer we had never gone into Afghanistan or Iraq in the first place. That's what I wanted and have been saying so PUBLICLY, not just here on the DU, since 2002. But that's NOT what happened. We DID start this War and a BUNCH of other stuff has happened too, such as the fact that this country has been sold into indentured servitude to China. These are the facts. No one can unmake them and pretending that we can just pull out will NOT fool the rest of the world.

Simply put, We fucked-up big time and now we have to pay.

As I said to someone else recently: We are NOT Exceptional. We are NOT Saved. Behavior DOES have consequences and pretending that it doesn't is exactly what the fuck is WRONG with Amerika.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

49. I disagree with you but your post was thoughtful and well informed

thank you for it.

[patrice]

53. People either have to stop VOLUNTEERING for this shit or we have to have a Draft.

THEN we can bitch unconditionally.

When you volunteer to raise your hand and SWEAR away control of your own life to the UCMJ, WHY/HOW/WHEN/WHAT are no longer part of your vocabulary. And IF we are going to have a military at all, it can't operate with people volunteering and then politically 2nd guessing the fact that they are NO LONGER governed by the U.S. Constitution. BETTER that they had never joined in the first place.

Behaviors DO have consequences that are beyond y/our control.

[Yes We Did]

69. While I agree in theory...

If Obama stared the draft back up we'd end up with Palin as president.

[frylock]

63. thanks for the reasoned reply

[patrice]

89. Those who are REALLY against this thing need to police themselves.

Thanks for your thanks. I wish it could be under better circumstances.

:hi:

[niyad]

17. and the pom-pom squad, right on schedule--I rec'd to make up for at least one of them

[Yes We Did]

22. Thanks...

Not worried about it though. Let them unrec it. Still means they read it.

[patrice]

26. Unless you're claiming divine ability to know the future, you need the pom-pom squad to

balance the ca-ca squad and, thus, stand at least some small chance of some degree of validity. There is more at work in the world than our pathetic false dichotomies.

Perhaps you recognize that this is the internet and people post under phony names and the volatility of our current political climate results in alliances between those thinking critically with integrity and those who cultivate division for its own sake.

Do you deny that there is a high probability that this is going on? Or do you claim all such bitch sessions are saintly peace activists who were lied to by President Obama?

[Cha]

40. + freakin' 1

[FarLeftFist]

25. So wait, do you trust them or not...

B/c I was about to trust them with running a single-payer HC system. But I wouldn't trust the bill if it was written by a republican congress.

Edit: Yes, I am extremely anti-republican.

[Yes We Did]

70. Trust is always situational.

Just like in a relationship.

[emilyg]

27. I don't trust any politician.

[tekisui]

48. It is the nature of the game.

We should never trust a politician. Politicians are ambitious and self-interested. They have to be, firstly, concerned with maintaining and expanding power if they are to be 'successful' in politics. If one isn't ambitious and selfish, they won't last long. It is up to us, the media, and other selfish politicians to keep them in check.

[emilyg]

94. Yes. Agree.

[treestar]

105. You're so superior

And may as well drop out. Too good for this world. The rest of us elected those people. You must be too good for us, too.

Really, that position is just as extreme as blind trust.

[emilyg]

28. k/r

[xiamiam]

41. why would anyone unrec this thread...so tired of it..anyway, k and r..nt

[mkultra]

54. because its insulting.

hes going after those who support Obama and claiming that they do so blindly because they disagree with him.

[Yes We Did]

71. WRONG!

I am going after those who slammed republicans for blindly following Bush and are now doing the same thing themselves. Big Difference.

[mkultra]

91. RIGHT

you tied the concept of blind faith and disagreement with you on this subject.

[Yes We Did]

98. Do you read what you write?

Cuz you sure seem to be confusing yourself.

[mkultra]

115. im sure it seems confusing to you.

but don't worry, just remember that you don't care what other people think.

[Yes We Did]

118. LOL. bye bye.

[LastNaturalist]

42. Like he made a mistake on the economy? .....

...Which I believe I read on this same website created thousands of new jobs according to early reports.

[Yes We Did]

72. I never mentioned the economy.

While I don't like where the money went.... (it should have gone to those in debt, not the banks)I give him credit for at least putting in some stipulations and regulations.

[Buzz Clik]

43. There are a lot of blind, ignorant sheep at DU who endlessly complain about the president.

It's been amazing to watch. I was always under the impression that Democrats were better informed that Republicans. I was wrong.

[dionysus]

47. why you better waltz right down to enlistment office right this minute mister!!11

:sarcasm:

when people take that approach, it's reaaaally going to persuade others to agree with them isn't it?

[mkultra]

55. its the exact same approach the op is taking.

[Yes We Did]

75. Yes... exactly. But I don't care if you agree with me.

And I won't pretend to try to make you. You either see it my way or you don't. If you can't see the hypocrisy I'm talking about... you are probably guilty of it and are unable or unwilling to admit it.

[mkultra]

92. awsome, and the hypocrisy comes full circle

with you using the same blind subjectivity employed by the right. Sounds like your position is that anyone disagreeing with you is blind or stupid. You are the creature you describe. You are a fundamentalist and possibly a bigot.

[Yes We Did]

108. I got two words for you.

But I don't want to get banned.

By saying I'm not trying to coax you into my way of viewing things, and saying I don't care if you agree with me... I'm a hypocrite? Think you need to look up the meaning.

[mkultra]

114. yup, thats correct

you scorn those who behave like republicans and then do exactly that.

[Yes We Did]

120. No... if I did that I would wote those two words, now wouldn't I?

Have a great day. Hope you find someone else to go round and round with.

[mkultra]

126. its always best not to wote

[Yes We Did]

131. Yes... I wote all sorts of stuff.

And always forget to use spell check.

[Buzz Clik]

57. Reporting for duty, sir!

[Yes We Did]

74. Well I know you can't be talking about me there...

I love about 85% of what he's done. And... again, this isn't so much about him as it is the hypocrisy we are witnessing.

[Buzz Clik]

97. My post was not about you. I wouldn't have minced words.

I, too, like about 85% of what he's done, and I'm hoping that he corrects that to nearly 100% soon.

[Yes We Did]

104. Absolutely. n/t

[dionysus]

45. quite a difference between blind trust and giving one the benefit of the doubt.

[Yes We Did]

110. And that's fine...

but to say you trust him BECAUSE he's the president... Come on now. Really? Haven't we learned anything from the Bush years?

Question Authority. You're supposed to do it. By not questioning it we end up in wars we shouldn't be.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

51. So you're saying we should never trust the judgment of a President again?

Why bother even having Presidents, in that case?

Look, Obama has not presented a case of clear lies. He is not violating international consensus. He is not charging into a war without thought. Unlike Bush, he has not yet given us a reason to believe that he's lying just to go to war. If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.

[Yes We Did]

76. Not at all.

But you already knew the answer to your question, didn't you?

[chieftain]

56. How about an honest historical foundation for this discussion.

Although it is a clever rhetorical device to point to Obama's escalation in conjunction with W's escalation, it obscures how we find ourselves in the mess we are now in. Had Bush escalated the effort in Afghanistan when we had a chance to catch the perpetrators of the attacks of 9/11, this belated effort might not have been necessary.
On Iraq, W not only escalated the war through the surge, he initiated a war against a country that did not attack us and posed no imminent threat to our national security.
Understanding those basic facts might help destroy the facile meme that Obama = Bush that the OP suggests.I disagree with the decision to escalate the conflict but still have confidence that this President is neither a war-monger or a cowboy. He is doing his best to work his way out of the mess that he inherited. I am not certain what Obama's detractors here want those of us who have retained our Obama bumper strips on our cars to do. But I know that I will not do. I will not confuse those fools who launched us into these misguided adventures with little to no thought other than superior fire-power and a belief in American Exceptionalism with those who are dealing however imperfectly with the aftermath.

[Yes We Did]

77. Obama does not = Bush...

And I never implied it. If that's what you got out of it then you were focusing on the wrong thing. I said he is making a mistake by escalating the war. Bush made a mistake by escalating. Bush made a shit load of mistakes... too many to count.

What this OP is about people who slammed republicans for blindly following Bush and now doing the same thing; unwilling or unable to question Obama because he is a Democrat.

It is our job to question authority; to make sure the abuses of the past do not continue. I will not be complacent just because we won the election. None of us should. Power corrupts; even those with the best intentions.

[chieftain]

93. Why the parrallell use of escalation by both W and Obama

if no equivalence was implied ? I am not certain how useful it is to tell people they are wrong to focus on a part of what you put out there for comment.

[Yes We Did]

99. There is a greater point made.

If you want to pick apart the minor aspect feel free to, but don't ignore the greater point made.

[chieftain]

119. Your whole point depends on there being parrallell between

W and Obama and the supposed blind supporters of each. I agree that I have focused on a particular phrasing that you used simply because it was the most obvious example of how history must be distorted in order to make the case for equivalence. If there is no equivalence between Bush and Obama what is the basis for calling out some of us as hypocrites?
I was supportive of the initial effort in Afghanistan and adamantly and loudly opposed to the misadventure in Iraq. My clear preference would be for Obama to bring everyone home from both countries now. He has chosen another path. I doubt but pray it is the right one.This whole matter is complex enough that I would urge caution in deciding that those with whom we disagree are hypocrites and/ or self delusional. I support Obama and will not be deterred by name calling or misleading historical analysis.

[Yes We Did]

122. Then this thread doesn't apply to you anyway.

You have a well thought out rational reason for how you feel.

"I trust him because he's our president" is not a rational reason.

And when you slam others for using that rationale, or lack there of, and later do it yourself; with no further reasoning, that makes "you" a hypocrite.

Someone said I over-simplified this. You can see why, because even when I do try to simplify things people take it out of context. I could say good morning and someone would have a problem with it on here.

[chieftain]

125. I think that it is much more likely to get a response from

calling out fellow Democrats as hypocrites that from wishing someone a good morning. That said, you certainly sparked a full- throated discussion on the topic. I appreciate the civility of our particular exchanges.

[Yes We Did]

130. Absolutely.

I don't generally "attack" unless provoked. :evilgrin:

[KansasVoter]

78. Thank You!!!!! +1

Of course most here are too brain washed to see it!

[ShortnFiery]

83. I also hate rationale such as "he has more information" and "it's complicated."

The above was the rationale that the republicans used as excuses to force us to "sit down and shut-up" during the build up to the Iraq Invasion. :grr:

[pecwae]

86. Don't know if it's nice,

but I do know how true it is.

[patrice]

87. Well, I see the rest of the ca-ca squad showed up. Those who liedown with dogs etc. etc.

You all need to police yourselves.

To the extent that you don't, you demonstrate that this is about POWER, not necessarily that which is good for the most people in a bad situation.

[Hansel]

95. Your angry because people don't agree with you

and it doesn't amount to much more than that.

Some very intelligent people just do not have the same opinion as you. You can get as mad as you want to, but that's not going to change.

Dichotomous reasoning, however, is a staple of Republicans. It is applied quite heavily in your post. Escalation bad, withdrawal good. Tree pretty, fire bad. It's a bit more complex than that and you are leaving out nuance and variables. This is typical Republican reasoning.

You should stop lying to yourself. Yes it's your opinion that Obama made a mistake, but it is not necessarily a fact. I don't happen to think it is a mistake. It doesn't make me a hypocrite, it just makes me not agree with you.

[Yes We Did]

100. No, I'm bothered that they don't agree with themselves.

It's called hypocrisy, and it's sad... sad that so many miss the point of the OP.

[Hansel]

116. I got the point of the OP.

It's that you think that everyone thinks like you do. They do not. Individuals have unique ways of looking at things. Especially something as nuanced and complex as this situation. Some people only superficially analyzed things, are dichotomous in their thinking and come to simplistic conclusions quickly without taking all variables into account. Others think in varying degrees of layers, are a bit more analytical and nuanced, and may even be conflicted in the way they approach issues.

It's a bit presumptuous for you to even begin to think you know what people are thinking or for you to determine for everyone what is right and wrong. You can get angry all you want, but some people just don't agree with you. That's not the definition of being a hypocrite.

I'm not sure why you think that you can presume to know if other people, whom have minds you are incapable of reading, are disagreeing with themselves. The people on this site are not monolithic. This is a progressive site and most of us have more liberal thinking abilities. If you want everyone to think like you do you will be profoundly disappointed.

[Yes We Did]

117. I'm not angry.

And I don't have to assume or presume anything; not when it's said so plain and simple. I don't need anyone to think like me; what would be the point in that? If everyone agreed with me this place would be very boring.

[Hansel]

129. Very boring indeed.

I certainly don't believe everyone is going to agree with me either. But I don't think because I take a different viewpoint that I'm a hypocrite is my point. Being an obsessive analyst at home and in my occupation, I don't know what the words plain and simple mean. They do not compute. It's just the way my mind works is all. It's nuance on nuance on nuance, and everything always changing.

:hi:

[KansasVoter]

96. All the unrecs crack me up! Actually proving your point!

[Yes We Did]

103. LOL... still plus 1

for now. lol

[treestar]

102. No it's not

You've oversimplified.

Bush did so much to cause distrust. Of his intentions and his competence. Obama is the opposite.

Obama is not in the same position as Bush. Obama inherited the war ongoing. Bush started it. Obama and we are stuck with it.

Why it's so hard to see the difference, I don't know.

[Yes We Did]

106. You miss the point.

The point is that it's not okay when Obama makes a mistake. And it's not okay for people who are now using the "I trust my president because he's my president" to do so when they attacked republicans for doing the exact same thing.

I'm not saying everyone did it, but people who did should not now be doing the same thing themselves.

Give me a REAL reason, not the Britney Spears "It's okay because I trust my president" b.s.

[treestar]

111. I'm not sure, because we got the President we wanted

I don't think I would denigrate the Republican choice to automatically trust their President.

They wanted us to trust the Presidency itself with powers that never belonged to it and we argued correctly against that.

They trusted a moron. They trusted a warmonger, because they were warmongers. We distrusted him not just to distrust him or because it's cool to hate politicians. We distrusted him because of what he stood for. Also, he did not seem to be in charge and appeared to be stupid.

I don't think it's blind to trust Obama - he is smart and in his inauguration and campaign stated that he thought we could fight terra within our values (no gitmo and assertions the president could detain people indefinitely by calling them terrorists or unlawful combatants). Trusting him is not stupid like it was to trust Bush.

So whether the troop increase at this time is a big mistake is something I am willing to consider the President's judgment on with a greater deal of reliance than internet posters or entertainers like Maddow, etc. It was a big mistake for Bush to start it, but Bush was a neocon puppet. 8 years later with an intelligent and competent President who has considered the 8-year-long-created mess, I am more willing to trust his judgment to a great degree. The situation is entirely different from when Bush started it. To say Obama is like Bush would require Obama starting another war.

It's not so simple as, you didn't trust Bush, you can't trust Obama either, because both are "politicians." It's a judgment call about the individual politician.

[Yes We Did]

113. Trust is situational.

That much I know for sure. And no, it's not about "you didn't trust Bush, you can't trust Obama either"

That's not it.

What I'm saying is you don't trust someone JUST because of the position they hold.

I heard that over and over again from republicans; they trusted bush BECAUSE he was the president. They didn't question him; they just trusted blindly.

Many of the people who slammed republicans for doing so are now guilty of doing the same thing. They trust Obama completely on all things BECAUSE he is the president.

If you slam one group for doing it, you can't turn around and do it yourself.

Obviously, this doesn't apply to everyone here, and it isn't directed to everyone here.

[treestar]

121. I don't agree that's the case with DU supporters

They don't trust Obama just because he's the President, they trust him because he's Barack Obama, and therefore they trust the (current) President.

The Bushies blindly followed the neocon cabal (a lot of them knew Bush was just their figurehead, IMO) because they were doing what the righties wanted done - being international policeman and bully. It was us they directed their "you should trust our President in time of war" to.

[Yes We Did]

123. I'd say there is a good number on both sides.

Which is why I very carefully chose the terminology in my OP. There is a difference.

[JuniperLea]

109. What's hypocritical is voting for someone...

Working hard to get them elected... listening intently to their debates, etc., then flat forgetting what they said.

It's like getting married and swearing things will be different once you both wear those rings.

[ClarkUSA]

112. Please make this an OP.

:thumbsup:

[spoony]

124. Please don't.

The last thing DU needs is yet another "you voted for him so you can't be critical of what he's doing" thread. It's embarrassing for the site and the misguided posters.

[DailyGrind51]

127. I gues with Dems it's "Hip-ocrisy"?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

128. It's possible to disagree with Obama and still trust him in a sense.

I disagree with the escalation, but I trust Obama has valid reasons for it.

With Bush, we knew his motives were never pure. That's not to say Obama's always are, on this or any issue, but I think everybody can agree that Obama is not one to take things lightly and without serious thought, unlike Bush.

[Phx_Dem]

136. It's not hypocritical to trust one President and not another. It's about the man.

I don't trust President Obama because he's President. He is President because I, and many others, trusted him enough to vote for him. Huge difference. Sad that you can't see that.

[Yes We Did]

141. Again...

THAT isn't the part that makes them a hypocrite; it's their reasoning for it; JUST because it is the president.

[dionysus]

138. isn't there a pretty big difference between blind trust and a little benefit of the doubt?

i'm not in favor of the increase, but i'm going to see what happens before i get pissed off.

what if, unlike everything bush did, it actually works? i think he's thought long and hard about this, and has good intentions, even if i disagree.

personally, i think anything we do now is 6 or 7 years too late.

[Yes We Did]

142. All you need to know to be pissed is this.

More people will die that didn't have to. That's enough to piss me off.

And yes there is a difference between blind trust and benefit of doubt; which is why I keep saying people who trust Obama JUST because he is the president are the same as people who trusted Bush JUST because he was the president. You can't bash someone for something and then turn around and do the same exact thing yourself.

Well, you can... but they you are being a hypocrite.

[opihimoimoi]

144. I will trust this SOB Obama before I trust any one of them PIG DOG Republicans

They set the bar for Negativity and EVIL SHIT....

It was them Pig Dogs who gave us BUSH...the worst of the WORST

His Mess will continue to stifle us for years to come....

The Pig Dogs have Fucked America and having No Shame...they want back into the White House and Congress

ARE THEY BLIND TOO?

Most eveything is down 20 to 30%....and what is UP is UNEMPLOYMENT...typical GOP result every time them Pigs get into office.

[shadesofgray]

145. Amen. Politcian worship is freaky as hell no matter who it is.