It's become a realization many on the left are no different than Rush Limbaugh.

Remember, a bit over a year ago, he said he hoped Pres. Obama failed? We were furious, of course, because it meant if Obama failed, we failed, too. We didn't want to fail, though. We wanted to succeed - even if we didn't agree with everything he was doing.

That began a debate about whether the left wanted Bush to fail in Iraq and Afghanistan. I didn't. I wanted Bush to be right, even if it meant I was wrong. Mind you, I protested the 2003 invasion. I was against it from the start when I heard about its potential in 2002. I took to the streets. I stood in the snow outside of our local Federal Building with maybe a half-dozen activists on the night we began the Iraqi operation.

I knew I was right. I knew it would not go well. I knew this because I had absolutely no faith in Pres. Bush. I did not think he was capable of running and winning a war. I had saw that first hand with his actions in Afghanistan. I knew diverting attention from that country and focusing on Iraq would ultimately establish two very out of control situations. I knew he was woefully outmanned heading into Iraq and I knew they would find no WMD.

Millions on the left knew this. Millions of Americans knew this. So, after the initial success, when the other shoe dropped, we weren't surprised. I thought we were horrified and saddened to be so wrong, but I thought none of us were surprised.

Now I'm not so sure about that. I think we weren't surprised, but I'm not so sure many on the left were horrified or saddened to be proven right.

I remember 2005 and 2006, when things really began to go to hell in Iraq. I remember the grim reports across the internet about the deaths and violence and the impending civil war. I remember the fighting between members in the press on whether it was salvageable. I was so angry at Pres. Bush for putting us in this position. I was so angry at the Democrats that bowed down to his demands in 2003. I was so angry that I had a very difficult time voting for John Kerry in 2004. I did, eventually, but it took time to come around.

When I read the articles, I would become furious and demand answers. I wanted to know why we were still in Iraq and not winning. Why so many lives were being lost so many years after Mission Accomplished. I felt I had a right to know, as I was an American citizen.

I wrote my congressman (who supported the war). I wrote letters to the local paper. I went to rallies. I went to debates. And I never was given an answer. Not by anyone. Except that we were there and we needed to finish the job. But what was the job? The ultimate end game for that war?

Then the surge came and I had doubts. I didn't think it would work. I thought it would be a bloodbath like never before seen. Thousands of American lives lost in months. Maybe a million Iraqis lost in a year. I wasn't expecting success because I had lost complete and total faith in the Bush administration.

This was a different feeling. This was a feeling of not even hoping he was right anymore. Not because I didn't want him to be right, but because I felt so abused and exhausted that I could not muster the emotion to believe there was a chance he could potentially be right. I was convinced, against my better wishes, that Iraq was going to turn dire even further and regardless of who became president (whether it was Obama, Clinton or Edwards), they would have an uncontrollable mess on their hands.

What I expected and what happened were two different things. I expected Armageddon-like results. I think most on the left and here at DU did. It didn't happen. The loss in life, specifically American life, dropped considerably from where it had been between 2005-2007. The news began to focus away from Iraq because things, though far from controlled, weren't at the level they had been a couple years earlier.

I took that as a good news. Not great news. Not that Bush had somehow managed to finally win the war. Or that we were automatically justified for going into Iraq. But that we made a bit of progress in a situation all of us concedes probably won't end with a decisive American victory.

I was happy to be proven wrong. I was happy that the death and damage that I thought would inevitably come in 2007 and 2008 in Iraq never happened. I was happy that Pres. Obama entered as president and began drafting up a way to bring American troops home. Maybe not end the war in a year - but put us on the path to finally winding down what has been one of the most traumatic and difficult moments in American foreign policy.

Now we're seeing a similar situation with this Afghanistan surge. Many on the left said that it would result in even worse conditions and force us into a greater quagmire than that of Iraq. Lives would be lost. American troops would die by the hundreds. It would be ugly. It would turn into Vietnam. It would suck out all the life of Obama's first term and leave him with LBJ-like numbers. It was, without question, going to end his presidency.

Then the good news trickled out. Reaffirming our command in regions thought lost years ago. Capturing the most vile humans in that region. Making so much progress that this week, http://www.newsweek.com/id/234191 ">Newsweek is suggesting the war is succeeding.

News of that, though, is not welcomed on DU. No one can be convinced that the war will ever be a success. Even if we lose absolutely no American troops from this point to the pull out date next year. Yet we're now well into the 2010 US offensive and I think it's gone about as well as we could have all hoped.

But that isn't good enough for DU. And I can understand. There are many here who believe there is absolutely no justification for being in Afghanistan. We'll never agree on that. Just as those who debated against entering the Iraq War could never agree with the other side and their justification.

Yet I can't help but point out that for better or good, we're there. This war is happening. It's either going to succeed or fail. No amount of complaining or whining is going to change the fact we're currently trying to wrap up a situation that the former administration ignored and let fester for years.

Unfortunately, it appears there are many on DU who feel the need to bolster their debate by focusing only on the negatives. They feel a mistake justifies their actions and proves the war is an utter failure. It seems, at least to me, they're hoping for bad news. News that will strengthen their case and ultimately prove Pres. Obama was wrong from the start. Just as Bush was wrong in 2003.

You see, I've found that many on the left would rather be proven right by these terms than proven wrong - even if it means conceding that the operation undertook by Obama ultimately was successful in its endeavor.

Of course, it can be complex for these liberals. Again, they can't rationalize the war. So every aspect of it is wrong. Even success is wrong because the war from the start was wrong.

But it isn't as if Pres. Obama went to war with Afghanistan. It isn't as if all but one http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll342.xml">Democrat, including Dennis Kucinich, voted yes for the final resolution sending us to war. That lone Democrat was Barbara Lee. Even the socialist Bernie Sanders voted for it.

But they voted for retaliation and not a diversion for a few months until we found enough evidence to attack Iraq.

Pres. Obama is only doing what those 204 Democrats back in 2001 voted to do - defeat the terrorists in that region that were responsible for attacking America on 9/11 and murdering over 3,000 people.

He ran on doing this and he was elected by the American people knowing he would do this. And he did it.

Pres. Obama will finish the job.

The good is that I trust Obama and his military more than I ever trusted Bush. Because I'm convinced Bush never wanted to win Afghanistan. I think he wanted to create the illusion of victory and then parlay that win into what we got with Iraq. That isn't the case for Pres. Obama. I do not believe he has his eyes set on another nation. And I would be utterly shocked and disappointed if he did.

In the end, as I've said from the start of this 2010 surge, I pray to God Obama is right. Just I as I prayed Pres. Bush was right all the way back in 2003.

He wasn't and he paid. But I was not overjoyed by the fact I was right. It hurt knowing so many lives had been lost or ruined by his decisions. Yet I'm starting to believe many on the left were too busy patting themselves on the back during the worst parts of the Iraq War to even care about what had happened.

Now on DU, when I see people dismissing success stories in Afghanistan and only focusing on the negative, I get the same feeling. I get the feeling that they'd rather be proven right than wrong - even if it means so many lives are lost.

In my mind, that is no different than what Rush Limbaugh said back in January of 2009. Both have damning consequences for this country and its people.

For our country and for its troops and the people of Afghanistan, I've always wanted Pres. Obama to be right about that war.

Thankfully, I have faith he is. I've had faith ever since the campaign and will continue to have faith until proven wrong.

It's just unfortunate many on the left can't see the difference between hoping he's right and wishing he weren't.

You've quite elegantly laid out the case for that conclusion.

Just one point on Bush's surge -- it seems to be widely accepted that the "success" of the surge was due solely or primarily to the increase in U.S. troops. But what was not reported was the strategy of paying Iraqi tribal chiefs in cash and weapons, per insurgent they commanded, to not attack our troops, plus a few other elements that were not widely publicized, such as the ethnic cleansing that was going on then.

I say this not to take anything away from our troops, or from as you've pointed out, the need to be right, but just because while McCain et al. was crowing during the election campaign about "the success of the surge," it was clear to me that Republicans did not want anyone to really get the full picture of how the "success" was achieved under Bush.

Steve Simon's article written in Foreign Affairs May/June 2008, is very insightful on the topic. (The problem is now, though, if you Google it, there's a subscription fee to read the whole piece.)

or maybe I'm just more gullible.

I believed in the war in Iraq. Colin Powell sold me on it. I am not a betting woman, but I would have bet money that that slime ball Saddam Hussein had WMD. (For what it's worth, I suspect Saddam thought he had them, too.)

Where they lost me was Abu Ghraib. When those pictures came out, I thought, "This is over. Bring our troops home NOW." I still think that's what should have happened.

As far as Afghanistan, Bush took his eye off the ball for a little adventurous vindictiveness in Iraq. That's the way I see it now, hindsight being 20/20.

I know Obama campaigned on getting back to the business of Afghanistan, but by the time he got around to sending more troops, it seemed to me that the war had changed and that it was the wrong move. Al Qaeda had hotfooted across various borders, and they were supposed to be who we were after there. So I was disappointed at the escalation. I had hoped Obama would change his mind (at the risk of being called a flip-flopper). However, when he proceeded with the escalation, I thought, "Well, he knows a lot more about it than I do," and I trusted him. I hoped through my fear. And that's where I am now. Hopeful that this doesn't turn into "Obama's Vietnam," because even though Bush stuck our toe in there, it's Obama who has dove right in, and it's most certainly his war now. God Bless him (and our troops)!

many share the same arrogance, closed mindedness and intellectual dishonesty.

I agree with you.

Just like the animals on the right, many on the left are more interested in toeing the political line and fighting the same old tired fights instead of doing what is right.

It's on EVERYTHING. Nothing Obama has done has been right, has been enough.

There was a thread on an article a few weeks ago from a "green" newspaper absolutely gushing over a green technology bill the President had recently passed. The paper quoted members of the Sierra Club and other environmental groups who could not rave hard enough over how great this bill was, how beneficial it was going to be to the environment AND to the economy as it would kick start "green" jobs.

Literally, out of absolutely NOWHERE folks started swarming in posting "good start but Obama needs to do MORE!" and "just imagine how good this bill could have been if he'd actually FOUGHT for a good bill!" just COMPLETELY overlooking that multiple environmental groups and this green-y newspaper seemed to be over the moon about this bill. It's almost as if there are people here who are determined to let no accomplishment, no accolade, no job well done go unsmeared. It's beyond pathetic.

Edit: Here is a quote from and a link to the article. Peacetrain initially posted this as an OP in GDP.

"This is a historic and unprecedented investment in clean energy, green jobs and green infrastructure,” is how Melinda Pierce, Sierra Club’s lead advocate for the bill and Deputy Director of National Campaigns reacted to the bill. “This monumental bill revolutionizes our government’s approach to clean energy and will finally transform our economy into something that works for the 21st century. With these investments and incentives in clean energy, efficiency and smarter infrastructure, we will be able to literally rebuild the American economy in a way that not only creates jobs but sets us on the path to a clean energy future.”

http://green.tmcnet.com/topics/green/articles/50701-analysis-president-obamas-new-green-stimulus-law.htm

I guess ol' Melinda doesn't know what the hell she's talking about and should have consulted with DUers before having the nerve to be actually THRILLED with something this administration is doing. :eyes: