Liberals, why do you dislike Bush for starting wars but do not hold Obama accountable for continuing them?

It's ANOTHER democrat double standard.

You're right, and I've seen the video. However, the wars aren't the only thing that is important to us, and Ron Paul's economic policies would be an absolute disaster.

The election came down to Obama vs. Romney. The choice was clear. We learned in 1968 that it doesn't make sense to turn away from the better candidate simply because of his support for an unjustifiable war.

I wish things were so simple.

To many liberals obama can do no wrong, he can repeat word for word what GWB said and they will find a way to tell you when Bush said it, it was bad and now when obama says it, it is good. Hell troop deaths rose after obama put his polices in place but apparently those soldiers deaths are not as worthy of protest and concern as those killed from the wars when Bush was in office and CONGRESS voted to start.

Kind of like when clinton (bill) suggested armed guards be placed in schools there was no over the top crying and complaining from the left but when it is mentioned by the NRA it is a crime to want to protect children.

There is no question that Iraq, as it stands today, has fallen short of American — and Iraqi — hopes and expectations. And there is no question that the costs of the war, for both sides, have been greater than anticipated. Even so, Iraq’s achievements — including the establishment of representative institutions against all odds — are hardly minor. The country could still become mired in a civil conflict that destabilizes the region. But it is equally or even more conceivable that, with relatively small amounts of continued U.S. support, the greatest strategic benefits of the Iraq intervention will materialize in the next several years. And these benefits would more than justify an ongoing U.S. military presence there.

My husband fought in Korea and feels the same way, if that matters.

Easy answer. Obama was forced to have this war, he didn't start it. I'm not a full on liberal either, to me, many of obama's policy's are sending america down a path that might lead to it's destruction. It's just that he has a reason for continuing these wars: he didnt start them, so he has to do his best to end them.

Obama also had a sooner withdraw date for Afghanistan, and attempted to shut down Gitmo, both agendas failed to receive any funding in congress.

Also in your article it mentions "178 children we reportedly killed by US drone strikes"....however there is no mention of a source that officially confirms this information, or who exactly made that report.

Anyway for high profile liberals that vioce open criticism of Obama's foreign policy, I would suggest you tune into the Rachel Maddow show.

There are lots and lots of contracts and agreement that lock in US policies.

He CAN'T just end them without violating those even if he wanted to.

Plus, I think that he is following what his military brass are telling him.

We didn't get out of Iraq because Obama said it was time.

We got out because the very NEXT DAY the Iraqi government was taking back their sovereignty and would be prosecuting Americans for crimes there.

Our immunity was over, and we RAN across the border to Kuwait.

Liberal Elites like Obama can do what they want and get a free pass.Like the Late Ted Kennedy.He got away with Involuntary manslaughter and Criminal negligence.Obama the Liberals Fuhrer!

reason the two occasion device is nearly a relay race with 2 gamers. something happens, and that they promptly blame the different guy, while rather, the two certainly one of them are products of... nicely, the reality is that the two events are 2 sides of the comparable coin, and neither element rather advocates freedom, and the two sides want to proceed the status quo. "replace," as all of us found out, apparenlty capacity doing the comparable element as your predecessor and complaining approximately his regulations all the at the same time as. look on the individuals of the cupboard, all of those human beings appointed to fancy desks with enormous pay exams. all of them are former Freddie, Fannie, Goldman Sacks, Federal Reserve etc., enormous pictures. the different selection at this element is between seven different pawns of the international elite (the present president is obviously nonetheless of their pocket) and one authentic statesman who rather believes interior the form and conserving very own freedom and liberty. Ron Paul 2012.

A metaphor you may be able to understand: when you are shot with an arrow, immediately pulling it back out is often a bad idea. You can cause more harm by attempting to reverse the original "misfortune" in a clumsy way.

As a more concrete example, toppling a foreign government and then leaving nothing but anarchy or a card-board government in its place can result in massive deaths in the country you are professing to help.

He ended the war in Iraq, and every liberal group I know of has been asking for an end to the war in Afghanistan, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

Is it possible that you're uninformed about what "liberals" are doing, since you aren't one?