Is Obama tougher/more hawkish on terror than Bush?

[spacejamz]

I think the Obama administration is abusing TERRAR! fear mongering in much the same way as GWB, and deserves just as much criticism for it. Obama has been somewhat more intelligent about fighting terror than Bush, however, moving (slowly) from the pointless Iraq distraction where terror largely wasn't, and shifting the focus instead to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen where terrorism has real roots. He's also been somewhat more intelligent about using military resources, apparently recognizing that terrorism truly is more of a "police" problem than a military one. For example, Obama sent a small strike team after OBL instead of invading, or at least carpet-bombing.

Remember all of the bashing of Bush for the Patriot Act and Gitmo???

 

[Bowfinger]

Remember all of the bashing of Bush for the Patriot Act and Gitmo???

Indeed I do. I bash Obama for them too.

 

[spacejamz]

Indeed I do. I bash Obama for them too.

Wonder how many lefties in here don't??

 

[gevorg]

Obama is macho. Bush didn't even win a Nobel Peace Prize.

 

[D-Man]

Obama the Hawk Swoops out of his cushy office chair and swoops down on Obama like a Hawk ready for the kill, no wait that was the Seals. Where was Obama? Sitting in his chair. I have to give him credit he did want was right and I believe his decision was not about votes. It was good not to see him in campaign mode for a change.

 

[Dulanic]

Hey look you said something dumb again, Flower Mound.

I used to live in flower mound.... I never met anyone as stupid as him. He even makes Texas look left.

 

[fskimospy]

You're on a roll today...feel better?

 

[PingSpike]

He certainly is. During the Bush years we had not yet advanced to irradiating the balls of all air line passengers or routine groping by TSA agents.

 

[zinfamous]

yup.


and so was Clinton (who cancelled a then-30 year policy of the US refusing to authorize assassinations)

 

[shortylickens]

Obama is a wimp/coward/evil psycho. All the real men are doing his work for him.

 

[ProfJohn]

I would say that there isn't much difference at all. Nor would there be much difference if it was John McCain calling the shots.

When it comes to fighting terrorism Clinton, Bush and Obama all just reacted to events as they happened. I don't really see much of a long term effort to 'win' the war as it were.

We really need to develop a long term plan to stop Islamic radicals, but I don't see anyone taking steps to create one. Until we do that we are just playing 'Whack-A-Mole"


BTW Libya has NOTHING to do with terrorism. At least Saddam was an active supporter of terrorism, Gaddafi stopped that game in the 80s when Reagan almost killed him.

 

[a777pilot]

Even if you are not a lefty you have to give the man credit, he seems pretty tough on terror..what do you think?

ROFLMAO!

You can't be serious.

 

[zinfamous]

I would say that there isn't much difference at all. Nor would there be much difference if it was John McCain calling the shots.

When it comes to fighting terrorism Clinton, Bush and Obama all just reacted to events as they happened. I don't really see much of a long term effort to 'win' the war as it were.

We really need to develop a long term plan to stop Islamic radicals, but I don't see anyone taking steps to create one. Until we do that we are just playing 'Whack-A-Mole"


BTW Libya has NOTHING to do with terrorism. At least Saddam was an active supporter of terrorism, Gaddafi stopped that game in the 80s when Reagan almost killed him.

Libya is a NATO-led action in which the Arab league actively requested aid from Western Europe and the US to support the resistance. France and GB have had more involvement than the US in this action.

smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors....

 

[DrewSG3]

ROFLMAO!

You can't be serious.

Wow! GREAT ARGUMENT!

Does your brain hurt?

 

[Xenon]

Raise your hand if the republican party pays you guys to spew nonsense on these boards. There is no way some of you folks can be this jaw droppingly stupid.

And as for the OP's question, the answer is yes. Does Obama get a pass on this from many on the left? Yes. Actually catching OBL on his watch has earned him that.

 

[a777pilot]

Wow! GREAT ARGUMENT!

Does your brain hurt?

Only when I try to listen to that Fool, Bobo, the Post Turtle.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Raise your hand if the republican party pays you guys to spew nonsense on these boards. There is no way some of you folks can be this jaw droppingly stupid.

And as for the OP's question, the answer is yes. Does Obama get a pass on this from many on the left? Yes. Actually catching OBL on his watch has earned him that.

Yes, I think they are that stupid and allow themselves to willingly be fed utter BS that they eat up.

And I agree the answer is yes, I don't see how anyone anyone can claim otherwise, but OBama's expansion of abusing the law started well before getting OBL.

Obama has let the CIA continue to operate "black prisons", where no rules apply, he has claimed the unilateral right to assassinate any US citizen with no due process, which was something that even Bush didn't try.

 

[sMiLeYz]

There is no way some of you folks can be this jaw droppingly stupid.

You're new here aren't you?

 

[Generator]

Republicans are simply to stupid to win any war of any sort. These are the dregs of our society. Greedy, ignorant, and incompetent. You vote for a Republican to get the country into a quagmire and lose a war. Government doesn't work and the Republicans don't either. They are an empty, broken party of American antiquity.

 

[Icepick]

Without question, Obama is much tougher on "terror" than G.W.

The Bush administration essentially gave up "looking" for Osama around three years ago, close to the same time he moved into his compound a few miles from a Pakistani military installation. Obama is the one who gets credit for putting a bullet between the man's eyes.