Comments about ‘Join the discussion: Did Obama have an influence on Iraq's collapse?’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, June 17 2014 7:20 p.m. MDT

Updated: Tuesday, June 17 2014 7:20 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Esquire
Springville, UT

So the Deseret News is compiling a collection of neo-con attacks on President Obama to coalesce the arguments. Yeah, everything was groovy in 2008 in Iraq. Accepting your premise, then President Obama was right to honor the Bush deal to get out and let Iraq govern itself. But McCain, and the Deseret News, want perpetual occupation. These are the same folks who wanted to arm rebels in Syria, the exact same folks who are now leading the rebellion in Iraq. Even in hindsight, the President looks so much smarter than do you. And yet, because he can't solve the Shiite-Sunni fight, that goes back a thousand years, you choose to attack and rely on the same tactics that blew the lid off of this in the first place and is now even more threatening. Pity you and others didn't have more courage to stand up to Bush and Cheney in 2003. Now we are gong to pay an even greater price, one that will be with use for at least many decades (like our overthrow of a democratic government in Iran in 1953).

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

The people who are urging us to get involved in Iraq now are the very same people who got us into war there in the first place. It should be noted that they we wrong on every single point they raised. Why in the world should we listen now?

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

Join the discussion: Did Obama have an influence on Iraq's collapse?

=======

No -- That was Presidents George H.W. and his little boy George W. Bush who would be responsible for that.

BTW & FYI -- Pres. Obama is President of the United States of AMERICA, not Iraq.

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

“If we left the residual force behind, we would not be facing the crisis today,” according to John McCain.

So if McCain were President, we would be experiencing a perpetual troop surge in Iraq, because there is no possible way a small "residual force" could withstand the onslaught.

We would be expending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives fighting a war of attrition, against guerrilla forces in their own land.

No thanks Senator McCain. I much prefer "the crisis today" over the crisis you would have us experience.

Thank Goodness for the patriotism and the wisdom of the Obama administration.

Think about it folks, John McCain is representative of Republican leadership, and he favors a constant state of war in a foreign land to prop up an ill-conceived Republican attempt at nation building that should never have been tried in the first place.

There is a way to prevent this sort of thing in the future.

NEVER vote Republican.

liberty or ...?
Ogden, UT

and the usual president defenders come out to absolve Obama of any responsibility again with half truth history. GH Bush in the persian gulf conflict liberated Kuwait and pushed Saddam back to Iraq while democrats like clinton were more than willing to allow the atrocities to continue. GH Bush tried to convince the allied forces of the necessity of going into Iraq and bringing Saddam to justice then. We the American people dug our own grave shirked respopnsibility and said no. Fine but that means you get the consequances which 8 years of Clinton brought us the food for oil scandals doublecrossing corruption of allies like China ,france and businesses who secretly propped Saddam up while putting up a front of opposition to the dictator. Yes GW Bush did take us into Iraq again but when he left the surge had worked despite the lefts constsnct daily death toll number headlines (which ironically disappeared with Obama) Since Obama took office-Terrorist attacks increased 150%. Death toll of US casualties in 4yrs surppasses 8yrs of Bush and Cheney. Insurgent leader was released by Obama. claimed premature stability and withdrew our forces against all sound military advice. were all to blame

truth in all its forms
henderson, NV

We never should have invaded Iraq in the first place. Its time we focus our own problems and quit trying to fix every other countries problems.

riverofsun
St.George, Utah

Liberty,
Are you prepared to send your children, grandchildren, great grandchildren and those coming after them to fight in the Middle East?
Perhaps you do not have children?
You know that will be what happens should we continue trying to save those folks who have a totally different way of looking at life than we do.
War has always been their answer to everything.

David
Centerville, UT

20 years of American blindness would mean 12 years of Democratic presidential involvement (Clinton and Obama) and 8 years of Republican.

Both parties are complicit. But as the article stated, Obama's Middle East policy has been a disaster. The same could be said for about every policy of this administration.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

There have been news reports of Iraqi soldiers not putting up much of a fight and even some reports of them laying down their arms and going over to the other side. Is this what we have to show for the billions of taxpayer’s dollars that went into equipping and training them for over a decade? It’s their country. They have to care enough about it to want to fight for it.

Avenue
Vernal, UT

Obama was raised by an Islam stepfather. Today he seems oddly sympathetic to the ISIS and many other Islam terrorist organizations, with the release of Taliban prisoners and doing nothing to help the situation in Iraq.

Coincidence?

steamroller
Salt Lake City, UT

"Death toll of US casualties (Under Obama) in 4yrs surppasses 8yrs of Bush and Cheney. Insurgent leader was released by Obama." Interesting how Republicans pull a statement like this out of their hat...the FACTS are quite different.

8 Years of U.S. Casualties Under Bush: 4,803 in Iraq and Afghanistan.
8 Years of U.S. Casualties Under Obama: 1,926 in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now I'm no mathematician, but as long as Liberty wants to keep score...I'd say Bush was well in the lead.

regis
Salt Lake City, UT

The decision to invade Iraq was questionable. Nevertheless, that decision was made and American's gave their lives and nearly a trillion dollars to create a reasonably stable political climate in which the terrorists had largely been defeated. This was the situation inherited by Obama. That reality could have been maintained at relatively low cost. Instead, Obama chose to completely abandon everything that had been gained at such incredibly high cost. And now Iraq descends into chaos and provides a fertile training ground for terrorists who will soon be launching attacks on America.

Obama and his defenders can continue to blame it all on Bush. Truth and history will show otherwise.

sg
newhall, CA

The liberal minded will once again place blame on George Bush, it is what they have been taught to do. On the other hand, I agree that at face value it might have been a huge error in American foreign policy and intelligence to have ever entered into the conflict without a comprehensive plan of attack. These people might want freedoms like those enjoyed by Americans (well, until Obama took the throne of tyrannical power), but this is the middle east. A culture unlike ours. A mindset not even close to ours. Yet, the blame is now on Obama, he has been in power for over 6 years and his lack of leadership, a foreign policy that is nonexistent, his leanings towards Islam/Muslim causes, his giving weapons and billions to his "people" speaks volumes as to his involvement. Have we forgotten or simply refuse to remember that in his own words he said in essence that is the winds of change occurs in favor of the muslims, he will join the side of those muslims. Obama, folks, is a muslim. He is responsible for the current mess in Iraq.

one old man
Ogden, UT

Avenue has been listening to too much hate radio.

Esquire
Springville, UT

@ Avenue, your comment is bizarre. Not only was Obama not raised by his father, there is nothing to suggest sympathy for ISIS. Such attacks are solely to attack the President and no other purpose. They contribute absolutely nothing to the dialogue on this issue.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

liberty or ...?
Ogden, UT

=========

Alot of talking there,
so I gotta ask it --

1. Are YOU a Veteran?
2. Are YOU willing to increase your taxes to pay for the last 12 year debacle for sending someone else or someone else's kids to do your dirty work for you?

If you can't answer affirmative to either of those 2 simple questions --
Then you [or any of the other HATEriots about to chime in]
really have no creditibiltiy to be saying much...

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

Wow, the "Conservative" commentators on this board sure make a lot of stuff up.

No, the "Death toll of US casualties (Under Obama) in 4yrs surppasses 8yrs of Bush and Cheney."

Of the 4,484 American deaths in Iraq, only 264 occurred from 2009 onward. That's less than 6% of the total. And that means that over 94% of American lives lost in Iraq occurred during Bush's administration.

And no, Obama did not just arbitrarily pull our troops out of Iraq.

He pulled them out according to the timetable agreed to by GW Bush in 2008. Look up SOFA.

"The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011." - Wikipedia

Face the facts.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Re: "Did Obama have an influence on Iraq's collapse?"....

The question SHOULD be... If he didn't have influence... why?

========

IMO there's TOO MANY times this President tells us he didn't know what was going on and couldn't or wouldn't use his influence.

He's the PRESIDENT! He's supposed to know what's going on (in Iraq, Iran, and other countries). He can't keep saying, "I didn't know anything, I'm just as surprised as you are"!

======

The United States has interest in the cities that have already fallen. America (and the people who died to free the people of Iraq from Saddam Hussein) have interest in ISIS terrorists not taking over Baghdad again.

This is a situation where the President of the United States can't pretend he knew nothing, had no influence, and can't do anything...

This is not something that can catch an American President by surprise. Where is our Secretary of State, and our Intelligence Agencies? Spying on AMERICANS and using the IRS to defeat political opposition?

Our President can't keep being caught off-guard.

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

Open Minded Mormon -

"Are YOU willing to increase your taxes to pay for the last 12 year debacle for sending someone else or someone else's kids to do your dirty work for you?"

GW fought this war without increasing taxes. In fact he reduced taxes, especially for the highest earners.

Maybe, that's why "Conservatives" today are so completely irresponsible and out of touch with reality. They think they can start wars almost on a whim.

Why not? Tney have been able to pass the responsibility for paying for wars down to future generations. It's the "Conservative" way.

For them, starting a war is no more consequential than playing a video game.

Noodlekaboodle
Poplar Grove, UT

@GaryO
But but but.....I don't like those facts. They don't fit with my world view. That is why I am declaring those facts ineligible. That's right, any facts I disagree with are no longer facts, they are propaganda by the mainstream media.

to comment

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