Obama’s MORE WAR TENT circus

Afghanistan
This staying quiet and not vocally opposing the US War Against Afghanistan and hemming and hawing about supporting the so-called ‘Global War on Terrorism’ has earned Democratic Party voters the candidate they deserve this year. They are getting Barack Obama, who is promising to increase the war effort, rather than sending the US troops home where they belong.

These liberal ‘peace’ de-activists are not getting betrayed by Obama’s Afghan tent circus, for they are the one’s who have largely betrayed their own cause before hand. Obama opens foreign tour in Kabul

They’re getting more war simply because they simply have not opposed most of the war going on. They’ll be getting the economic bill soon enough, too. They thought Afghanistan was of no import, and their peacenik verbiage could stand on Iraq alone? Wrong.

Now we get to see the liberal Democrats play stupid, and look like donkeys for sure when the Bush regime bombs away in Pakistan, moves to attack Iran militarily, and sends more troops to Afghanistan, even as they murder Afghan civilians daily in the dozens. Their candidate, Obama says it’s all right, not to worry, he is a better Commander-in-Chief than McCain would be. Hee-haw, hee-haw! Hee-haw, Suckers! Obama is who you got.

All you liberals doing nothing other than vote will buy this country bankruptcy, both economic and moral. You are getting a preview now of your wannabe CIC to be. It is not a great sight.

1 thought on “Obama’s MORE WAR TENT circus

  1. AvatarThomas Mc

    I’ve never understood this mesmerizing effect Obama has on the left. Sure, he’s a good orator, lots of charisma, and having a black man in the Oval Office would certainly say something about equality. But, come on. He’s never been a liberal. He was just more appealing (less appalling?) than Hillary.

    I really don’t think there’s going to be much difference (at least in foreign policy) if McCain or Obama wins. McCain will just be more honest about what he’s planning. I won’t be voting for either of them.

    btw: Here’s an article by Bill Van Auken that’s pretty much in line with what you’ve said:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=9616

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *