Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

groovedaddy

(6,229 posts)
Mon Apr 30, 2012, 12:00 PM Apr 2012

Warrior in Chief

THE president who won the Nobel Peace Prize less than nine months after his inauguration has turned out to be one of the most militarily aggressive American leaders in decades.

Liberals helped to elect Barack Obama in part because of his opposition to the Iraq war, and probably don’t celebrate all of the president’s many military accomplishments. But they are sizable.

Mr. Obama decimated Al Qaeda’s leadership. He overthrew the Libyan dictator. He ramped up drone attacks in Pakistan, waged effective covert wars in Yemen and Somalia and authorized a threefold increase in the number of American troops in Afghanistan. He became the first president to authorize the assassination of a United States citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico and played an operational role in Al Qaeda, and was killed in an American drone strike in Yemen. And, of course, Mr. Obama ordered and oversaw the Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

Ironically, the president used the Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech as an occasion to articulate his philosophy of war. He made it very clear that his opposition to the Iraq war didn’t mean that he embraced pacifism — not at all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/president-obama-warrior-in-chief.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120429

1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Warrior in Chief (Original Post) groovedaddy Apr 2012 OP
They can't attack him for any of this tularetom Apr 2012 #1

tularetom

(23,664 posts)
1. They can't attack him for any of this
Mon Apr 30, 2012, 12:16 PM
Apr 2012

It's hilarious. They'd love to trash him as a warmonger but they know that, if they did, they'd alienate their idiot base, who think "warmonger" is a compliment.

They don't know whether to shit or go blind, there's no way for them to twist an article like this.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»National Security & Defense»Warrior in Chief