bartcop claims Obama's Afghanistan decision shows he's governing from Hillary's right .

[blm]

How did bartcop manage to avoid reading all those articles over the course of the year where Hillary sided with McChrystal, Gates and Holbrooke on escalating in Afghanistan with even MORE troops?

His criticism is especially disconnected since he attacks Robert Parry's credibility at the same time, but, only because Parry did not support Hillary's candidacy as there is no refutation for any of Parry's points.

Hard to imagine that bart seriously believes that Afghanistan decision is Parry's fault while also believing that a President Hillary Clinton would be withdrawing troops from Afghanistan right now.

Maybe he's kidding.


http://www.bartcop.com/

Obama Pleases the Neocons
by Bob Parry, who gave up his credibility to get Obama elected



Excerpt:
Obama’s escalation of the Afghan War has upset many rank-and-file Democrats who had hoped for a
more peaceful strategy, but Obama’s order to dispatch 30,000 more U.S. troops is being welcomed by
neoconservatives, a group that has long favored U.S. military interventions in Muslim lands.

After Obama’s West Point speech on Tuesday, the neocons gloated over their success in turning the Obama
administration’s deliberations on Afghanistan toward an Iraq-like “surge” and away from negotiations aimed at
winding down the eight-year-old war...

To read the neocons celebrating how they had turned Obama into a more articulate version of Bush in less than
a year in office makes one marvel at both their remarkable arrogance and their genuine influence in framing the
debates of Washington’s opinion circles...

It also is one of the bitter ironies that the same geopolitical thinkers who persuaded Bush to enable Osama
to escape and al-Qaeda and the Taliban to rebuild – now are celebrating their victory in getting Obama to
send 30,000 more U.S. troops to that same country.
.

Bob, all things considered, wouldn't it have been better to stick to the facts?
You spent 2008 mis-reading Hillary's mind, and now Obama is governing from Hillary's right.

Don't ask, "How did this happen?" Bob.
It happened because people like you made it happen.
>>>>>>

[Pirate Smile]

1. Hillary is in the room and all reports are that she was on the Hawk side.

[xultar]

4. Well, who didn't know that about her. She never pretended to be other than that or...

let you guys believe she was something she wasn't.

BTW...Obama was gonna do this whether she was in the fucking room or not.

[blm]

7. I agree with you on that...she has always made it clear she's a hawk. bartcop misread Hillary

but, I doubt he sees that.

[Pirate Smile]

9. I completely agree - both on Hillary and Obama.

[Beacool]

30. Hear, hear!!!!

They think that Obama was less hawkish because in 2002 he gave a speech against the IWR. I have always argued that if he had been in the US Senate he probably would have voted with the majority. He admitted as much to Russert in 2004 and then backtracked when he was the one running for president.

Ahhh politicians, the one thing they're all good at is flapping their gums.

:eyes:

[TheWraith]

40. You're repeating myths.

"They think that Obama was less hawkish because in 2002 he gave a speech against the IWR. I have always argued that if he had been in the US Senate he probably would have voted with the majority."

Well, all the evidence is to the contrary.

"He admitted as much to Russert in 2004 and then backtracked when he was the one running for president."

No. He said that he wasn't sure what he would have done if he'd been a member of the senate at the time, but that in his opinion the case for war had not been made. That's a far cry from "Sure, I would have voted for it contrary to my other explicit statements."

[Beacool]

42. Myths?

Yeah, right.......

His FISA vote must have also been a myth. "Make no waves Obama" would probably have voted for the IWR too. It's very easy to give a speech hundreds of miles away from a state capitol.

[JTFrog]

60. Well, myth isn't exactly the word I'd use either.

:eyes:

You did get Skinner's message about name-calling when criticizing Obama, right?

Might want to stick to substantive criticism too, instead of hypothetical bullshit. Just a suggestion. :shrug:

[TheWraith]

86. Yeah, he's all speeches and no substance.

Ah, the joys of DUers sharing freeper talking points. :eyes:

[karynnj]

63. Thanks - I was about to goggle for the quote

In addition, the timing is important. He was the keynote speaker and Kerry and Edwards had voted for it. Obama neatly avoided giving the campaign an unpleasant headline.

That said, if he were a young ambitious Senator, he might have voted for it as the resolution was a trap the way it was written. (The fact that he voted against Kerry/Feingold - 6 months or so before committing to a very similar plan with a long timeline suggests that he might vote with the leadership there.)

But, the point is he didn't vote.

[Beacool]

80. He wasn't in the US Senate in 2002.

:shrug:

[karynnj]

84. "The point is he didn't vote"

That was the point I was making. The fact is that it was, if anything fairer for him to use than it was for Dean in 2004 - and it was fair and standard politics for Dean to do so in 2004. Obama said in 2002 that he was against the resolution at the time that it was being voted on.

[TheWraith]

87. Yes, exactly--someting he later admitted about the election affecting his comment.

As I recall he later admitted that he didn't want to come out in the middle of a presidential election and blankly say that Kerry and Edwards both made the wrong vote on the war, so he attempted to put it more politely.

[paulk]

64. if his flip flop on FISA didn't pull the blinders

about Obama's IWR bullshit, then nothing will...

[blm]

45. On THIS decision, though, he did split the difference between the hawks like Hillary, McChrystal

Gates, Holbrooke, and the advocates of drawdown like Biden, Reed and Kerry.


Hawks won more than they should (imo) but, they didn't get their way completely, and for that I am grateful Obama is instictively to the left of Hillary.

[Lord Helmet]

51. Exactly.

[bertman]

83. I think "appeared" to split the difference would be more accurate, blm. It has become more

obvious by the hour that he was giving his Presidential spin view of the way the withdrawal would be handled; whereas, Gates, Clinton, Jones, and even Gibbs have offered "looser" interpretations of the July 2011 date.

Based on what I've seen him do regarding his FISA vote last year, Guantanamo earlier this year, and now healthcare reform, I am expecting that he will be on the Military-Intelligence side of this when it all shakes out.

We don't yet know if hawks got their way completely. Only time will tell.

Peace.

[dionysus]

2. hey bart, still can't let it go eh? go chug some tequila man...

:rofl:

[Captain Hilts]

3. I thought it was all Emanuel's fault. The buck stops with the president. nt

[xultar]

5. Why people are so willing to say the big boogie woman hillary made him do it rather than

believe the reality...that Obama said he was gonna do it all along.

People want to ignore the fact that they allowed themselves to peer through rosy coloured glasses. And totally missed the real deal.

:rofl:

[firedupdem]

12. Who is so many people? The guy writing this article? n/t

[dionysus]

15. i think the point may be she'd have done a similar thing herself, not that she made him do anything.

[Captain Hilts]

18. That's certainly true. nt

[xultar]

38. Exactly. She would have made a similar decision but we'd have said well she's a hawd. But Obama

did the EXACT same thing and everyone is shocked pantless.

Even though he said he'd do the exact same thing.

so how did Hillary get labeled a hawk and Obama progressive?

[blm]

47. Obama didn't do the exact same thing - Hillary sided with McChrystal plan for MORE troops than

the plan decided upon by Obama. Plus, the narrowing of the mission and the withdrawal goal aspect of the policy came from Biden, Reed and Kerry's input, NOT from the hawks who wanted to broaden mission without any timeframe for withdrawal.

[dionysus]

50. i'm not shocked, he campaigned on it. it's funny the people screaming cult and messiah apparently

didn't pay any attention during the campaign.

[Captain Hilts]

56. You tell me and we'll both know. nt

[Captain Hilts]

19. Yep. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

29. The REAL difference being that Obama announced a withdrawal date

and Hillary & the neocons would have left it completely open-ended (and are still trying to re-define what he said that way).

[Beacool]

34. And you believed him?

Please.........

It will all depend on conditions on the ground and he well knows it. Hopefully all goes well, but he can't predict the future.

[RaleighNCDUer]

39. If it doesn't happen, he's a one-term president.

You really think he wants that?

[Beacool]

46. On that we can agree.

He likes being in charge.

;)

[paulk]

79. it's kind of like how he was against mandates...

you can fool some of the people, etc.

[xultar]

37. BUHWAWAWAWAWA!!!! They are already waking back that shit!! BUHWAWAWAWA!

:rofl::rofl: BUHWAWAWAWA :rofl: :rofl: BUHWAWAWAWA :rofl: :rofl: BUHWAWAWAWA :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl::rofl: BUHWAWAWAWA :rofl: :rofl: BUHWAWAWAWA :rofl: :rofl: BUHWAWAWAWA :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl::rofl: BUHWAWAWAWA :rofl: :rofl: BUHWAWAWAWA :rofl: :rofl: BUHWAWAWAWA :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl::rofl: BUHWAWAWAWA :rofl: :rofl: BUHWAWAWAWA :rofl: :rofl: BUHWAWAWAWA :rofl: :rofl:

[avaistheone1]

66. After announcing the withdrawal date they backed off it the next day.

[Beacool]

33. It appears that when it comes to Obama some people blame everyone else,

except the man in charge. It's never Obama's fault, it's always the fault of Rahm, Gates, Hillary, Geithner, etc., etc.

Too funny!!!

:7

[Cha]

61. No one's talking "fault"..the OP is about bart saying "Obama

is to the right of Hillary".

Which isn't true.

An, no one, especially the President, is saying the "buck" doesn't stop with him.

Just so you know.

[Captain Hilts]

68. True!

[xultar]

6. Obama said he was gonna do this shit and he did. He would have done it with out HRC as SoS.

People just ignored it so they could believe what they wanted.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

8. BartCop comes off like a bigoted asshole here:

"I never heard of Eugene Robinson until Obama started his run for the White House.
I guess the Washington whore Post thought it would be a good idea to have "one of them"
covering politics since "one of them" was going to be president.

Eugene Robinson owes his career to Obama. "

[firedupdem]

10. He most certainly does. n/t

[SemiCharmedQuark]

11. I don't know what the fuck his problem is.

[firedupdem]

13. 'one of them'

told me all I needed to know about whoever the fuck bartcop is.

[dionysus]

14. bartcop is a HUGH hill fan. clearly he's bitter. unlike hillary herself, who is doing a great job.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

17. There's bitter, and then there's sounding like a racist shitheel.

[dionysus]

23. bitterness can make people express feelings they usually would hide

[blm]

48. imo, I don't think advocating hawk side is doing a 'great job' when you're SoS. But then,

I'm against having any hawk in position of SoS in the first place.

[Cha]

57. Who knew bartcop would still be bitter over the

primaries? Enough to spout unintelligible shite?

Thankfully those in the admin are working together to clean up the bushcheney hellhole but some of the citizens out here are using subterfuge to defeat their purpose because of their own whiny insecurites.

[HopeOverFear]

16. Wow, thank you for pointing that out.

Saves me the chore of actually reading that tripe.

[Captain Hilts]

20. Yes. Robinson helped torpedo Gore and Kerry and was the Post's Paris correspondent.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

22. And that has what to do with his "one of them" comment?

[Captain Hilts]

24. His ignorance about Robinson's background and how he was a big guy at the WP

long before Obama came around.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

25. Sorry. I'm a little testy.

I sincerely apologize.

[Captain Hilts]

28. Problemma nyet. His post is a stupid one on many levels. nt

[blm]

49. Pretty sure he's using 'one of them' to express WaPosts's perception, not his own.

I would never conclude bartcop is a bigot from the way he expressed himself, as it is a familiar (and somewhat comic) technique he employs.

But, it is odd that he really hadn't heard of Eugene Robinson before 2008. And, odder still, that he hadn't heard of Hillary's positioning herself with the hawks on Afghanistan.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

52. Take that phrase out and you still get "They only hired Eugene Robinson because he's black"

Which is an inaccurate and erroneous statement.

[blm]

67. He definitely was careless with this posting....more so than usual.

.

[SpartanDem]

31. one of them?

he just doesn't come off bigoted, he is bigoted

[blm]

43. Robinson's been around for years - hard to believe bart never heard of him.

.

[Cha]

58. From your OP it sounds like bart's had his

head buried for a long time.

[Cha]

55. Wow! bartcop totally shoots his credibility in the ass.

[TwilightGardener]

21. Obama is still a bit to Hillary's left on military matters until he threatens to obliterate Iran.

[Captain Hilts]

26. That has been official US policy for decades. Until Obama actually denounces it, it's his

policy too.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

27. That's silly. Hillary is a bit more hawkish than Obama. Not a lot, but some

[harun]

35. I think she is a lot more hawkish than Obama.

[Metric System]

32. I can't help but picture blm gagging every time she has to type Hillary's name.

[Beacool]

36. Not just blm, my friend.

This board has become so toxic that i hardly post much of anything anymore.

Take care!!!

:hi:

[blm]

41. Why? I have no problem discussing historic record and Hillary's role in it, so....why

make a nonsense-type remark as you did, instead of offering actual discussion of the topic?

[Cha]

59. Oh, you have nothing better than to attempt distraction

from the OP than to attack personally.

[karynnj]

88. I met BLM and even in speaking the name she did not gag at all

It flowed just as any other word did.

[polichick]

44. Did Obama even consider a "peaceful strategy" - or was that off the table...

...just like single payer, as if those solutions that make the most sense cannot be considered??

[amandabeech]

82. The closest thing was an "anti-terrorist" strategy put out by Biden and others.

It would have focused on going after the few Al Q types (no more than 100 at this count according to the military) and paid very little attention to going after the Taliban per se.

It would have meant very significantly fewer troops.

I was surprised that there were so few AQ left in Afghanistan. Of course, many went to Pakistan. The idea I guess is to let the Pakistanis go after them and catch the ones that try to cross into Afghanistan, which sounds like a reasonable strategy.

Meanwhile, AQ is becoming more active in Yemen.

[freddie mertz]

53. And not only on this issue.

Look at FISA, look at GLBT, look at HCR. etc etc...

It all sucks.

[Cha]

54. The OP is pointing out the idiocy of bartcop's

pronouncement. President Obama is not governing from Hillary's right. End of story.

[karynnj]

62. The funny thing is that in correctly saying that Obama

was likely to the right of where Parry wanted to see him, BART himself, incorrectly places Hilary Clinton where he wants her.

In 2008, we KNEW Hillary Clinton was to the right of most Democrats, she intentionally positioned herself their and both Clintons were to the Centrist Democratic side even in the 1980s. Obama was far vaguer as to where he was - and most of us knew that he voted against Kerry/Feingold - but, as our choice was really Clinton or Obama, many of us rejected the KNOWN hawk, in the hopes that Kerry and Kennedy would influence Obama to be less hawkish than Hillary. The last possibly viable person who would have been less hawkish than Obama was probably John Kerry.

[Cha]

65. Yeah, reality..why do so many people with

a pulpit feel the need to fudge it?

[Lord Helmet]

69. Bartcop & others continue to parse words and misrepresent the truth out of sheer bitterness.

Time for them to move on.

[blm]

70. Not so sure about that. He may truly believe that Hillary would be withdrawing troops

and was against the hawks in the war council room. Just odd to me that he never read that she was one of the hawks.

[Lord Helmet]

71. She purposely positioned herself as a hawk for her presidential run.

I would think that would be hard to miss!

Maybe they see what they want to see.

[blm]

73. yes, she did, but, bartcop usually seems to assert that anything hawkish from Clintons is because

they need to put on an act so they can advance to win the next battle. Like Hillary's vote for IWR was ONLY a calculation to keep RW off her back so she can run for president and then pound the right into salt out of revenge. If bart is right, she sure is a great actor.

[Cha]

74. Then what's bart's excuse for Bill Clinton praising bush's

War on Iraq?

"Adding to confusion on Iraq issue

On Iraq, he told the crowd that wealthy people like he and his wife should pay more taxes in times of war. “Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning, I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers,” Clinton said.

He has not clearly opposed the war from the start. Like his wife, the former president has been critical of the Iraq war in recent months, but at one time he gave President Bush the benefit of the doubt. “I supported the president when he asked for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” he said in May 2003, the same year he was quoted praising Bush’s handling of the war."

<more>
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22004475/

Clinton has been critical of the Iraq war in recent months, but in the past gave President Bush the benefit of the doubt.

"I supported the president when he asked for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," he said in May 2003, the same year he was quoted praising Bush's handling of the war.

In a June 2004 article in Time magazine, Clinton also suggested that he would have acted the same way Bush did.

"So, you're sitting there as president, you're reeling in the aftermath of (Sept. 11), so, yeah, you want to go get (Usama) bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, 'Well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I've got to do that.' That's why I supported the Iraq thing," he is quoted telling the magazine.

<more>
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313309,00.html

bart should do himself a favor and let bygones be bygones.

[blm]

75. I'm certainly aware of bartcop's disconnect when it comes to Clintons' support for Bush's wars

and the timing of Bill's booktour which turned into a constant defense of Bush's war decisions and praise for Bush's military leadership during the 2004 election.

Bill knew exactly what he was doing (Hillary2008)....but....I'm not sure bartcop would ever admit that.

[Cha]

76. No, he won't ..he's too busy

making up crap about Pres Obama.

[blm]

77. Maybe Obama isn't his target as much as Robert Parry. Parry has every right to be disappointed

in Obama's decision to include so much of what the hawks' wanted in Afghanistan (many of us are), but, bartcop's use of Afghanistan decision to assert that Hillary would be governing to Obama's left is just ludicrous.

[Cha]

78. Whomever it is..bart is willing to tarnish his reputation

to make an inacurrate statement that can easily be disproven.

[Cha]

72. That's a hellava long time

to suck on sourgrapes..shows me that they don't have any love of their country..it's all about them and what good little nurses they are of their own grudge.

Hey bart, Hillary got over it real fast.

I much rather it was the various primary supporters out here who are acting like spoiled brats than our new White House, though.

[Mass]

89. Sour grapes can last a very long time

Some people are casting the primary victory of Martha Coakley in MA as an Hillary victory against Obama. Dont ask me why, but I have seen that in a few papers and blogs.

[Beacool]

81. Well, I preferred the one who was straight with her voters

as opposed to the candidate who spewed vague platitudes about hope, change, blah, blah, blah.......

I have felt from the beginning that the left would end up being the ones most disappointed by Obama.

:shrug:

[karynnj]

85. I choose the candidate who MIGHT make what I thought would do what I thought was right,

rather than the one I knew wouldn't. (This sounds arrogant, but it is on our own opinion that we cast our votes.) I never was blind to what I did not know about Obama, but I knew what I knew of Clinton and Edwards. As I've said, to some degree I was AB(C +E). In most years, I think the majority of democrats might be described the same in primaries. It is a rare year when I have really been 100% behind any primary candidate - and even less so if you speak of the nominee. In 2008, what was unusual was so many were strongly behind either Obama or Clinton, but I wasn't.