Obama the Alleged Pacifist

The ability of the right wing to declare that up is down and black is white never ceases to amaze me. Disgraced former House Speaker Tom DeLay provides a textbook example, calling President Obama “anti-war” and saying he’s a member of Code Pink, a group that has been hammering him since the moment he took office.

“The president ought to wear a pink t-shirt because he is an anti-war president,” he said, referring to the group Code Pink. “We have an anti-war secretary of state, we have an anti-war secretary of defense so everybody is a little anxious about what is to come. The president has realized that something has to be done, now he’s going to do as little as possible.”

This is like pointing to a mouse and declaring, with total confidence and seriousness, that it’s an alligator. For crying out loud, Obama being anti-war? He’s vastly ramped up the drone strike program, sent tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan and has now launched nearly 200 bombing campaigns against ISIS in Iraq. By what possible reasoning could that record be seen as anti-war? Only on Planet Wingnuttia, a place that is downright Orwellian in its redefinition of common terms to fit their preferred narrative.

[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/168899019″ params=”color=ff5500″ width=”100%” height=”166″ iframe=”true” /]

""Dennis Moore, Dennis MooreRiding cross the swardDennis Moore, Dennis MooreAnd his horse Concord.Steals from the ..."

Moore’s Nutty Lawyer
"Hey Mark - does that mean a hurricane's gonna hit Western Sydney now they voted ..."

Taylor: The Illuminati Sent the Hurricanes ..."
"Next week's headline:Hannity backs down on back down from back down from back down from ..."

Surprise! Hannity Backed Off His Backing ..."
"The irony is her and people like her put children and everyone else in danger ..."

Crokin: God Will Reward My Crackpottery

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • justsomeguy

    It’s telling that this guy says “anti-war” as if it were an insult.

  • Kevin Kehres

    The job of the Secretary of State is by definition, being anti-war. Diplomacy — the actual real-and-true job of the State Department — is the opposite of warring.

    8th grade civics?

  • http://inmyunbelief.wordpress.com TCC

    Minor correction:

    Disgraced former House Speaker Majority Leader Tom DeLay

  • Pierce R. Butler

    Obama’s daddy Malcolm X brought him up as a Quaker – spread the word!

  • eric

    By what possible reasoning could that record be seen as anti-war?

    The reasoning is oppose, oppose, oppose. Not sending in troops makes him weak. Sending in troops makes him a failure. Anything he does is bad. Because the goal is to win seats in the mid-terms. The legislative branch and executive branch developing a bipartisan foreign policy is not a goal, it’s a GOP failure, because were that to happen the current administration might get some credit and the people might approve of it more.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Now you’re just being ridiculous. Of course he’s exploding swarthy foreigners, he’s just not exploding enough swarthy foreigners. And if he’s exploding swarthy foreigners in country X, he should be exploding swarthy foreigners in country Y instead. And if he’s exploding swarthy foreigners in country Y, he should be exploding swarthy foreigners in country X instead. And if he’s exploding swarthy foreigners in countries X and Y, then he’s exploding swarthy foreigners wrong, somehow!

    In closing. all Obama has to do to gain our trust that he’s fighting to win the War on Terror is to explode more and less, sooner and later, here and there and not-here and not-there, with other countries and standing alone, and leading and following. Is that so hard?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=597316935 ashleybell

    Well, if you LOVE war and HATE Obama, then Obama clearly can’t be ‘for’ war. can’t mix the items on the left of the column with the ones on the right

  • steve78b

    Well…… Tom De Lay SUCKED on DANCING WITH THE STARS!!!

    So there. My opinion is right and his is just wrong. Millions of viewers would agree.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=730511544 billdaniels

    “The ability of the right wing to declare that up is down and black is white never ceases to amaze me.”

    Sorry, you are wrong. In the RWNJ World black is always black.

  • thebookofdave

    I think Obama’s abdication of his duty to make his administration’s foreign policy resemble an action movie script is an embarrassment to this once great nation. On the plus side, my cat’s really keeping that alligator problem under control.

  • D. C. Sessions

    In the RWNJ World black is always black.

    And sometimes so is white.

  • http://Reallyawakeguy.blogspot.com somnus

    The question isn’t whether Obama is anti-war (he isn’t, or at least not sufficiently). The question is why isn’t everybody?!

  • sugarfrosted

    @12, It depends what you mean by the term, “anti-war.” “No war no matter what the cost” seems rather indefensible to me (admittedly this seems like a strawman.) On the other hand “not wanting wars and taking steps to avoid them,” or “war as a last resort only” are fine and people should have these views. The more rational people in the US military tend to have the view that you should avoid war but prepare for it.

  • lorn

    Please, “200 bombing campaigns against ISIS in Iraq” might more clearly, and correctly, read: ‘200 bombing missions against ISIS in Syria (or Iraq, depending on which set of missions you are referring to)’. Generally a campaign is used in a military context to reference a strategic move by large forces not individual battles or missions. Individual airstrikes, possibly excluding the use of nuclear weapons, are considered tactical and only strategically important in the context of many other missions and as part of a strategic plan. A protracted series of airstrikes might be considered a strategic move and a “campaign”.

    That said, I take your point. Obama doesn’t seem to fit the general description of a “pacifist”.

    Of course the right is prone to conflating a failure to go as far as one can, with a failure to act at all. So … in that sense Obama might be considered a pacifist simply because hasn’t nuked anyone yet. It is to be assumed that under a Republican president the head of ISIS would be kidnapped, skinned alive, and the US constitution acted out using interpretive dance by the president wearing the skin. Anything less is pacifism.