If Obama does send more troops to Afghanistan, is he ready to be called a war criminal also?
After all, thats what he would be.
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/02/18/former-dem-sen-obama-could-face-war-crimes-for-continuing-bush-policies/
Quote:The United States' presence in Pakistan and Afghanistan is only furthering the spread of terrorism and President Obama could be charged with war crimes, former Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.) wrote Wednesday.
"Why are we killing GIs to spread terrorism?" Hollings, a longtime (though now-retired) lawmaker asked in a blog post for the Huffington Post. "The best way to stabilize is to get out. It became a matter of conscience for me years ago."
Hollings argued that Obama's continuation of some of former President Bush's tactical strategies in the war on terror could make Obama liable for war crimes charges.
"Yesterday I read an article that it won't be long before charging President George W. Bush with war crimes for killing civilians in Pakistan with drones," he argued. "Now the same charge could be made against President Obama."
Hollings said there is no good reason for the United States to remain in Afghanistan, discounting arguments that more troops are need to enchance the stability of the region.
"What we can't understand is that we are creating terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan," he asserted.
So, if Obama does follow thru with his plans for Afghanistan, is Senator Hollings correct?
Why should Obama be treated any different then Bush whenit comes to "war crimes"?
Why would anyone be obliged to accept a dictum of Fritz Hollings?
I think Setanta may have a point!
Why would anyone accept a Dictum from Fritz Hollings?
On the other hand, why would anyone accept a dictum from Ted Kennedy?
Or,why would anyone accept a dictum from Sen. Leahy?
Why would anyone accept a dictum from Sen. Dodd?
Now, we know why some would accept a DICKtum from Barney Frank,but that's another story!!
@Finn dAbuzz,
Not so much the Barney Frank crack --- too obvious
@Finn dAbuzz,
You are probably correct-Finn but I really could not let Setanta's supercilious comment pass---Why would anybody be obliged to accept a dictum of Fritz Hollings--
Why would anybody be obliged to accept a weak flatulence of Setanta's.
WASHINGTON " The situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan is "increasingly dire," top defense officials told Congress Wednesday, and they said that President Barack Obama may have to send another 10,000 troops beyond the 21,500 he's announced since taking office.
Michele Flournoy , the undersecretary of defense for policy, said the administration hasn't yet developed benchmarks to measure progress, but she predicted high human and financial costs for the U.S. in the campaign against Islamic militants in the two countries.
Adding to the bleak picture, Army Gen. David Petraeus , the commander of the U.S. Central Command, expressed doubts about the reliability of Pakistani security forces in supporting the U.S. effort to curb the spread of Islamic extremism in South Asia .
Petraeus conceded that the Pakistanis have betrayed America's trust in the past. He said, however, that the U.S. must show its commitment to the region, saying: "It is important the U.S. be seen as a reliable ally." He said the military may need to send 10,000 more troops than the number Obama already has announced, and a decision must be made in the fall.
