Conservatives Who Oppose War in Syria Do So Because They Hate Obama (Schultz)

NewsBusters ^

[chessplayer]

On Thursday, MSNBC’s Ed Schultz informed his dwindling audience that while it’s okay for him to oppose conflict in Syria, conservative lawmakers who oppose war do so only because they hate Obama.

He also blamed George W. Bush for Obama’s inability to cobble together an international coalition.

[colorado tanker]

So, Ed, are the liberal Democrats who oppose Obama on this also racist Obama haters?

[DustyMoment]

On Thursday, MSNBC’s Ed Schultz informed his dwindling audience that while it’s okay for him to oppose conflict in Syria, conservative lawmakers who oppose war do so only because they hate Obama.

He also blamed George W. Bush for Obama’s inability to cobble together an international coalition.

As though it were needed, it only adds more proof that there is nothing new in liberal la-la land! It would be interesting to see what would happen if the left addressed contemporary issues with contemporary ideas instead of using ancient talking points to address contempoary issues.

Along with being old, it gets really old and predictable.

[ThomasMore]

Ed Shultz is worse than a moron, he is a hatemonger.

[clintonh8r]

Well, I do hate 0bama, and I oppose everything he does...just because. So, guilty!

[mom.mom]

OK, let’s attack Syria, kill innocent people and start WWIII just to show Obama how much we love him.

[yoe]

Mr. Shultz and the rest of the Obama apologists, many Americans don't trust Obama and apparently some of our most trusted allies don't either.

[LibLieSlayer]

FU to all of you demonic mslsd bastards...

[Old Yeller]

Doesn’t Shultz realize he’s going to die along with the rest of us?

[Mozilla]

It Looks like Ed Schultz and Bill O’Reilly agree:

http://therightscoop.com/billo-says-conservatives-oppose-syria-because-they-want-to-hurt-obama-mark-levin-responds/

[Buckeye McFrog]

Not true.

Seeing the arseclown get his head handed to him is just a very enjoyable bonus.

[Buckeye McFrog]

This is like a boxing match.
It is all about looking for opportunities to hurt your opponent.

And it is not being fought by Queensbury rules.
It’s being fought by Alinsky rules.

If ginning up Code Pink to give Barry a bloody nose is what is gonna stop him, I say go for it.

[Mozilla]

Laura then came on to battle Bill:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/laura-ingraham-battles-oreilly-over-syria-intervention-we-lose-moral-authority-by-acting/

[SaxxonWoods]

This is the left’s policy argument on everything.

That’s because there are no good positive arguments for any of their policies.

So, call the other side names.

To which I say, “So what?”

[Ohioan]

Why do Leftists in the Media, Congress & the Administration, always end up hurling nasty epithets & insults at those who refuse to accept their false premises?

It is because there are no really good arguments when your premises are false, and easily recognized to be false. It is their standard response, when their "wish-driven" fantasies are exposed for what they are.

William Flax

[Ohioan]

Sorry, while I was typing my comment above, you were posting the same analysis in different words.

Cheers!

[al_c]

Has Obama repaired Americas image abroad yet?

Well, let's see ... we've lost Egypt as an ally. Gitmo's still open. Iran still hates us. Iraq is still a mess so nothing's changed there. Netanyahu doesn't like him. Putin ... whom even Clinton and Bush got along with .... called him "pathetic." Libya hates him. Even our strongest ally ever ... England ... doesn't seem to like him either.

I think my answer would be "no."

[Iron Munro]

And the democrats who support Obama do it because they love him.

And the blacks who support Obama do it because they are racists.

Sounds like a Kenyan standoff.

[MrB]

So... they opposed the Iraq war because...?

Because they were still mad that Algore wasn’t able to steal the election in 2000.

[Kaslin]

On Thursday, MSNBC’s Ed Schultz informed his dwindling audience that while it’s okay for him to oppose conflict in Syria, conservative lawmakers who oppose war do so only because they hate Obama.

He also blamed George W. Bush for Obama’s inability to cobble together an international coalition.

Schultz started the segment by asking what it takes to get Republicans to support Obama’s air strike.

More than once, Schultz said he agrees with those who oppose conflict in Syria, but “for completely different reasons.”

But Schultz said Republicans “don’t hate war, they hate this guy, Barack Hussein Obama” pointing to a picture of the president standing with Joe Biden.

“They just cannot stomach the fact that they might be agreeing with him,” Schultz added.

He went on to attack Donald Rumsfeld, saying the former defense secretary “lied” America into a conflict in Iraq, but now opposes war “because he doesn’t like the president.”

Schultz then played a clip of Rumsfeld explaining to CNN why he believes Obama’s latest adventure is a bad idea.

The MSNBC host then told his dwindling audience that the reason Obama can’t build a coalition of allies is because the Bush administration “lied to the world about the war in Iraq.”

“We now have a credibility issue because of this crowd,” Schultz claimed, ignoring Obama’s own “red line” statement and his subsequent claim that the “world” set the so-called red line instead of him.

Schultz then cherry-picked clips of former GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum from the 2012 primary and blamed him for Obama’s inability to build an international coalition.

Of the 199 members of Congress opposing action in Syria, 145 are Republicans and Tea Partiers, Schultz said. He went on to excoriate conservatives, who he claimed never turned from war, and played clips of prominent Republicans calling for support of war in Iraq.

Ironically, Schultz reiterated his opposition to war, saying he doesn’t believe in international intervention, and echoed the concerns of many — including conservatives — who say the outcome is uncertain.

But Schultz maintained the only reason conservatives don’t support action in Syria is their alleged hatred for a black president, all the while failing to address the nature of those Obama and others are asking America to support.

Schultz said he even called for a “no” vote on war, telling his audience that while it’s okay for him to oppose war in Syria, it’s not okay for conservatives to oppose war in Syria, because he believes his motives are pure.

“But my motives are a heck of a lot different than the motives of these conservatives,” he claimed.

Schultz then asked his audience to participate in a poll asking if conservatives oppose war because they hate Obama.

Over 89 percent of the 1,400 people who answered the poll said “yes.”  Just over 10 percent said no.

Later, Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wisc., told Schultz that Republicans are “weakening the military” with budgetary policies, and simply want to oppose Obama.

Nevertheless, he said he could not support Obama because there’s not enough information indicating a military strike is the right thing to do.  He also told Schultz that his constituents oppose war by a factor of 15-1.

Jon Soltz of Votevets.org told Schultz that 78 percent of his members are against conflict in Syria.

“There are a lot of veterans that are — liberal, Republican, progressive — it doesn’t matter,” he said.

It’s simply another example of the liberal double-standard we have all come to expect from the alleged “news” network known as MSNBC.

[Kaslin]

Please do not call that arrogant pos occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave bambi. It sounds like a pet name, and I don’t think you would want him as a pet