Comments about ‘Obama: US will send fresh help to beleaguered Iraq’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, June 12 2014 1:20 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Mcallen, TX

This is hard to believe.

As our country weakens, so will the freedoms of other countries, and our own way of life.

North Salt Lake, UT

President Barack Obama, during the 2012 campaign:

"Today, Al-Qaeda is on the run, and Osama Bin Laden is dead."

Vice President Joe Biden, February 11, 2010:

"You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government."

Virginia Beach, VA

It's really too bad that the GW Bush administration completely destabilized the Middle East with an illegal and unprovoked war, but now we have to play the hand he dealt us, and we have to do it RIGHT.

This surge in Sunni Extremism could be a mixed blessing, if we can just play it right. GW greatly weakened the Sunnis in Iraq and made the Shiites relatively much stronger, and in so doing, he made predominantly Shiite Iran much stronger, and therefore a greater threat to us.

So now we've got a Sunni rebound, and they want to upset the Iraq designed by the GW Bush administration? Well, that might be a good thing, because EVERYTHING so far created by GW Bush and his Republicans has done nothing but harm US interests.

He left the Sunnis weak and the Shiites strong, and now the Sunnis are making a comeback. Good. Let them. The result might end up a looking a lot like the status quo before GW's tampering, when the Sunni's in Iraq could keep the Shiites in Iran in check.

Maybe we should back off and let this thing take its course.

salt lake city, UT

Why Mr. President? Have you not learned anything from the failures of the neo-con's foreign policy?

Fitness Freak
Salt Lake City, UT

Most all middle eastern nations are tribal. They've been fighting each other for centuries, and if we could move ourselves forward in time another 50 yrs. they'll most likely still be at it.
The exceptions are Israel and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are only able to keep their tribal groups from killing each other because the Royal family exerts so much control. Same with Jordan.

You have the Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds. Then there's the "military" arm of the various sects: Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Taliban, etc.

My point is: UNLESS we are willing to keep about a half million troops in each country to stop the various tribes from killing each other - they will keep on doing it - ad infinitum!

UNLESS/UNTIL the actual residents of those countries decide to quit fighting amongst themselves their always will be mass carnage.
But THEY have to want to stop!

DN Subscriber
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Not another drop of American blood or another dollar (borrowed from China) should be wasted trying to save any Muslim country from a civil war. We cannot impose civilization or a democracy upon those people.

We tried our best, and actually things in Iraq were going well until Obama failed to negotiate a status of forces agreement which would allow sufficient forces to assist the Iraq people building on our successes. By failing to do that, we have set the stage for the complete destruction of all that was won by 4,500 American lives.

We must not do it again.

If the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, or anywhere else in the neighborhood want freedom, let them fight themselves and win it. We will be glad to recognize their new government. But, not another drop of American blood or another borrowed dollar!

Our troops won, but our diplomats and politicians lost this war.

Liberal Ted
Salt Lake City, UT

It was Obama that pulled the troops early. It was Obama that bowed to terrorists. It was Obama that refused to see what is actually happening in the world.

The fact of the matter is, as much as you would like to blame George Bush for all of obamas failures. When we entered Iraq it was with an actual partisan vote. Democrats, Republicans, Independents voted to go to war (Unlike the ACA where the democrats forced it down our throats with no compromise). Many nations in the international community also supported it. Whether or not Bush was fed bad intelligence or not, we do not know at this time. Yes we now know it's flawed, but, it will be awhile before we are given access to records.

The mistakes made are these. The 1st Gulf War, Saddam should have been killed and replaced. Second mistake, is Clinton should have controlled his man parts, so he could have killed Osama and dismantled that leadership tier before it became a rally cry. Third, pulling troops out and giving up. If we can't commit to a long war, then we shouldn't go. Even when 98% of the country is behind it.

Centerville, UT

"with an illegal and unprovoked war"
Again a liberal lie, hardly an illegal war read all the UN resolutions condemning the actions of Saddam, An invasion that included many UN members participating in the invasion signed off by the UN members. Signed off by Hillary and Bill Clinton, and congress.
UNSCR 1441
UNSCR 1284
UNSCR 1205
UNSCR 1194
UNSCR 1154
UNSCR 1137
UNSCR 1134
UNSCR 1115
UNSCR 1060
UNSCR 1051

The problem is the UN has no teeth and no claws, and when you blame the man willing to put teeth and claws in the paper tiger, you claim it is illegal.

The US paper tiger is Obama, who has put US troops in numerous combat and high risk sites around the world. We are currently in more countries than under Bush and Clintons.

Bill Clinton made a military strike on Sudan, violating their sovereign soil, why don't we hear you condemning Clinton for his illegal actions. What about Obama's violation of Libya's sovereignty. Providing military support and air cover in a civil war with some boots on the ground. Blaming Bush for Obama's lack of policy is weak.

Mark B
Eureka, CA

Eight years doesn't qualify as a "long war? And just what does "man parts" have to do with killing bin Laden? Finally, rather than moan afterwards about those we SHOULD have killed, just tell us who's next in line, please.

Virginia Beach, VA

Hey JSF -

" . . . a liberal lie ?"


The GW Bush administration's claim that Iraq was preparing to attack us with WMD's was not a liberal lie.

That falsehood was put forward by the Bush administration.

The mistake Liberals and Moderates in Congress made was to believe a lying Republican administration.

As it was, we had no real justification to attack Iraq, and as a result, we lost over 4000 American service members, with thousands incurring brain trauma who will need care for life, and we wasted trillions of dollars, and exterminated of over 100 thousand Iraqis, and destabilized the Middle East for years to come . . All to our tremendous disadvantage.

That's "Conservative" Republican leadership for you.

Being an apologist for GW Bush and Republican leadership must be exhausting.

Virginia Beach, VA

Hey FelisConcolor -

"You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government." . . . Yeah . . . For about 3 seconds.

The Republican GW Bush administration left the USA in harm's way both at home and abroad.

Sure, the Obama administration tried to make lemonade out of lemons. But GW didn't leave us lemons. The fruit of GW's time in office is nasty and poisonous; and it's probably best to just throw it away.

Sure, Biden hoped for the best, but if GW touched it . . . then there is no "best." There is only bad, worse, and worst. His foreign and domestic policy was extremely unwise, and the Iraq he envisioned was completely irrational, undoable, and disconnected from the real world.

I don't think we should invest much more in the way of money, lives, or other resources in trying to salvage another one of GW's unworkable and hallucinatory visions.

BTW, do you remember this infamous quote?

“Meeshun Accomplished”

- GW Bush 2003

Centerville, UT

GW Bush administration's never claimed that Iraq was preparing to attack us with WMD's/ They said they were in violation of UN requirements to dismantle WMD's. If that is what you want to claim as the lie. Per the UN resolutions. How is it you add that attack us with WMDs to your story.

Besides he did use WMDs on the Kurds in the north and the Shites in the south, the reason Clinton set up the no fly zones.

Woodland Hills, UT

The Weakling and Cheif is in charge, we can all relax

Salt Lake City, UT

@Liberal Ted
"Whether or not Bush was fed bad intelligence or not, we do not know at this time. "

We absolutely know he was fed both intelligence that turned out to be wrong and intelligence that they knew was wrong.

boneheaded, but not a smidgen

barry come lately. keep leading from behind. absolute embarrassment.

clearfield, UT


Obama hasn't learned anything from anybody. He really thinks he is the smartest person on the planet.

Gary O

This is all on Obama now. He pulled out of Iraq without leaving anything behind except our weapons, which the bad guys now will have. I used to say getting out was the right thing. Now I see the error of that policy. I thought Iraq would have a leader like Assad of Syria, but not be taken over by extremist Al Queda types who want to continue the worldwide terrorist program. My mistake. I admit it. Now I see that we should have handled Iraq like we did South Korea. Keep a force in there to prevent an extreme terrorist organization from gaining control of an oil rich nation. Bad news for everyone everywhere. Israel might go nuke if these guys secure Iraq. But as I said, this is now all about Obama and his policy. Blaming anyone else is just political sophistry.

Springville, UT

"This is all on Obama now."

Well now we know the Faux news spoon-fed statement of the day that their automatons will mindlessly parrot... If the Bush administration didn't completely destabilize the region by starting a 12 year war that they were too stupid to finish due to their embarrassing incompetence, we wouldn't even be talking about this. But I guess it's all on Obama now...

clearfield, UT


I'm curious as to your point about the Bush administration "finishing the war". How would you have proposed they do that? Pulled out? Isn't that what Obama has done? Continued to leave forces and fight? Isn't that what Obama and others said was the wrong thing to do? What other options were there, I ask? Otherwise, the only real major change to that war was not by Bush, but by Obama. He is the one that 100% pulled out (against some good military and civilian advise) which has now left the country wide open to what is happening. He created the vacuum that is now being filled by ISIS. Yes, it is all on Obama now. It looks like his changes and policies have resulted in things getting worse over there. All Presidents inherit the good and bad from previous Presidents. That goes with the job. But when they ask for the job, they are always saying that things will be better with them in office. So far with Obama, that is not the case.

Mcallen, TX

Only a fool would blame this on George Bush.

It's been six years, and the baton was past on to baryO.

Let's put the shoe on the right foot!

Bob K
Davis, CA

DN Subscriber
Cottonwood Heights, UT
"We tried our best, and actually things in Iraq were going well until Obama failed to negotiate a status of forces agreement which would allow sufficient forces to assist the Iraq people building on our successes."

--- Did you only watch Fox, or did you see on the other networks the "troops" we trained and armed lay down their weapons, shed their uniforms, and surrender? Training them more would not put the fire in their hearts to fight a pointless battle.

Liberal Ted
Salt Lake City, UT
"The fact of the matter is, as much as you would like to blame George Bush for all of obamas failures. When we entered Iraq it was with an actual partisan vote. Democrats, Republicans, Independents voted to go to war"

-- Bush created (wrongly) a consensus in the country that Saddam had to be stopped, and many in Congress went along reluctantly.

There was no vote on "Should we kill hundreds of thousands, destroy our reputation, and bankrupt the USA in order to enrich the oil interests which put Bush in office?"

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments