Posted on 02/12/2007 3:58:00 PM PST by captjanaway
Obama criticizes war in Iraq during Ames visit By Charlotte Eby, Journal Des Moines Bureau
AMES, Iowa -- A day after jumping into the presidential race, Democrat Barack Obama began the courting of Iowa party activists Sunday with a blistering critique of the war in Iraq.
More than 6,000 people who came to hear him at the Iowa State University campus saved their biggest cheers for his criticism of the war.
"We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized, and should have never been waged, and to which we now have spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted," Obama said.
(Excerpt) Read more at siouxcityjournal.com ...
It wasn't that he called them the bravest young Americans, it's that he said the lives were "wasted".
Again, I do apologize for changing the headline, ok? It wasn't intentional at all --
I see it as critical of the war not the troops. NBC has been slamming the troops.
I see it as critical of the war not the troops. NBC has been slamming the troops.
IMO, not one of the DC Liberal/RINO royalty are worthy of licking the bottoms of our brave soldier's boots.
I don't see how this is a slam.
It must be remembered that Obama's ancestors, that is those remaining in Africa, enslaved those Africans shipped in chains to America.
Since late 2002 Iraq overshadowed Afghanistan in the War on Terror. When Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, the U.S.A still disregarded perils terrorism posed. This country ignored nine significant attacks killing over 400 people after Islamic fundamentalists were energized in 1979 by invading the sovereign territory of our Iranian embassy. However, Resolution 687 in 1991 coupled military restraint to Hussein’s abandonment of international terrorism.
After events of 9/11 and fall of the Taliban, Iraq under Hussein remained a haven for terrorists. His rule over oil wealth and 25 million citizens provided the supportive situation cherished for planning incalculable slaughters utilizing modern science and engineering. Hence, his rule constituted a greater threat to international peace and security, than individuals such as bin Laden or Zawahiri. Colin Powell’s testimony asserted and David Kay’s inspections confirmed an Iraq more dangerous than assumed, because freelance as well as state sponsored WMD programs were underway, and terrorist groups moved freely.
Osama bin Laden contends the most important issue for the world is winning in Iraq. Zawahiri says al Qaeda victory restores the basis for a caliphate encompassing the Middle East. These are not misunderstood primitives, but implacable enemies for whom suicide bombings and beheadings underscore unshakeable principle. Expatriate Muslims tell us lethal elements emerging from the Salafi/Wahhabi heresy regard all others as sub-human, legitimate objects for slaughter whether Jew, Shi’a, Sunni, or Christian. For al Qaeda violent death dominates traditional family, tribe, and country Muslim allegiances, and provides no caveats for economic or human remnants.
But who am I to let these facts get in the way of a great stump speech.
Obama, you low-down bastard.
Look Obama Hussein, perhaps wasted defending your sorry backside's ability to make such vile, disrespectful, and disgraceful statements, but not wasted in defending the freedom and liberty of this nation as a whole, and providing an opportunity for millions of Iraqis to have a chance of some semblance of the same...not to mention killing tens of thousands of enemies who would come here and bring the war to us if our brave soldiers were not there taking the war to them.
He knows all about being wasted. Because he used wasted in relation to the deaths of our solidiers he will never be POTUS.
I consider that quite a slam on our troops who gave the ultimate sacrifice.
What would be a waste is if we leave Iraq unfinished, as Barry Obama wants to do. Then, their deaths would be a waste, thanks to the dems.
Great example here of why liberals should NEVER be allowed to hold office of the Presidency or make any decisions of any sort in this country regarding military or foreign policy affairs. This is from another post A Parallel to "Gathering Of Eagles." What did the North Vietnamese think of the antiwar movement? today:
A LOT of parallels to current events here for some of the younger folks who do not know what REALLY went on in the past, and WILL go on now ... IF we do not stand-up and speak-up.
What did the North Vietnamese leadership think of the American antiwar movement?
Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army, answers these questions in the following excerpts from an interview conducted by Stephen Young, a Minnesota attorney and human-rights activist [in The Wall Street Journal, 3 August 1995]. Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of North Vietnam's army, received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975. He later became editor of the People's Daily, the official newspaper of Vietnam. He now lives in Paris, where he immigrated after becoming disillusioned with the fruits of Vietnamese communism.
Question: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?
Answer: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said,
"We don't need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out."
Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?
A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.
Q: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits?
A: Keenly.
Q: Why?
A: Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.
"Must be remembered"? It must be understood by Americans in the first place! Especially the decendants of slaves.
I've been harping on this for some time. Obama has nothing in common with decendants of slaves. His wife apparently is a real "African American" in the sense that her ancestors were slaves (as far as I know). Obama is more aligned with the people that enslaved what we call "African Americans" through his African moslem father. As many black Americans don't seem to fathom, the Arab and the African converts to islam like Obama's father were the slave traders.
I've never understood why a black American who's ancestors were slaves would have anything to do with islam. Their ancestors didn't. 99+% of all the slaves brought in to the US were not moslem.
The issue for the left and the media is that Obama is an "African American", that he's "black". He isn't. His ancestors are the people that CAUSED slavery, they provided the supply.
"...and to which we now have spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted," Obama said."
Interesting that he placed the money spent before the lives of our troops. Apparently, to him, the money spent
is more important. Then, "wasted?" I can't share my actual response to that without getting my post removed. Suffice it to say that I am becoming convinced that Obama is an enemy of America. In one of his quips he was quoted as saying, "he wanted to change America." Apparently that would be to sharia law.
Amen, rave on brother, correcto mundo....
>> OBAMA: "...3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted."
This is without question the ultimate insult to those who selflessly devote themselves to what is inevitably the greater cause of mankind. It is a cold hard slap to the injured and the families of those who have paid dearly for the sanctity of humanity and the freedom it seeks to secure and preserve.
He is clearly unfit to command any aspect of the American Military whatsoever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.