@lost in DCWest Jordan, UTGaryO,you are in the
minority12:59 p.m. June 26, 2014========== Don;t look now -- but 81% of AMERICA think Iraq was a mistake.So - who's in the minority?And let me guess, you still
can't figure why the Tea-Publicans can't win National elections....
FT,perhaps bush's ratings while in office were down. But as of June
20, 2014, after 5-1/2 years of BO's mismanagement, people are seeing bush
in a better light. They are seeing that compared to the mistake we have now,
bush was better. Don't argue with me, look at the poll results
yourself.GaryO,you are in the minority
Freedom Fighter 41You act as if Clinton and Obama have had nothing
to do with any of these problems we face in the middle east. That every bad
thing happening is because of Bush. Now THAT is revisionist history.
Obama, by doing what comes natural to him, nothing except give a speech, may
well be making the correct decision on this. I more and more am in agreement
with PM B. Netanyahu of Israel who says, just let them fight. None of these
guys are our friends. Remember the 1980s and Afghanistan? We helped the
Mujahdeen to fight the Soviets, and years later they became the Taliban. We had
to fight against some of our own weapons in our Afghanistan war. I don't
see any upside in supporting any group in any country in the Middle-East except
Israel. I think the Jews are our only friend in that part of the world.
Hey "Patriot" -In spite of the worst wishes of
"Conservatives," Obama has been gradually helping this nation from the
disaster the previous administration left for us.Hey Lost -"HAHAHAHAHA" . . . I feel you.I'm happy that Obama
is President too.
Prediction: We aint seen nothing yet - There is no peace to be had in the
Middle East. Perhaps Pres. Obama is right - for now. But when it all hits the
fan - American will be drawn into a conflict that will make World Wars I and II
look like a walk in the park.
IRAQ is burning to the ground and has now become terror central...and Barack got
it right? Cutting and running is easy ...even Jimmy Carter could do that. Having
a plan - any plan is what is missing in IRAQ. Going into Iraq was a mistake no
question HOWEVER Obama was handed a stable Iraq and now the place is on fire. We
could have done better with a real leader. We have no leader.
IRAQ was a mistake ...Obama's handling of it has been an even BIGGER
mistake...going from bad to WORSE.
@lost in DCI will not personally attack your opinion as that would be
against the posting policies of the DNews. We're fortunate to live in
America where all people have their right to an opinion even if they are
mis-informed. Bush's average 2nd term approval rating was 37% but
he left office with an approval rating in the low 20's. BO's current
approval ratings are higher than both. My opionon is based upon the
thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's that died and
suffered due to the decisions of Bush/Chenney. Additioanlly, the croynism that
Bush/Chenney advocated that greatly contributed to the greatest economic
calamity to our country since the great depression. Both acts that happened
under Bush/Chenney were much worse than anything I can see under BO.
Does anybody, left or right, really believe that Saddam Hussein could in any way
be worse than the mess we have created in Iraq by waging a totally unjustified
FTHAHAHAHAHA,TOO funny!BO is the absolute worst in
the history of the US. Carter was glad when BO was elected, because now Carter
is no longer the worst in history.A June 20, 2014 poll puts
BO's unfavorables higher than bush's. You are in the minority
thinking bush was worse than BO. bush's favorables outweigh his negatives
- not so with BO where his unfavorables are higher than his approvals.bush was the worst? HAHAHA, please stop, my sides are aching. no contest, BO
is the absolute worst.
BO will always get it right when compared to Bush/Chenney. That was the worst
administration in the history of our country.
"Then he wouldn't have to tell us why he decided not to take Osama
out,while he was a loser and in the crosshairs of the CIA."Well
if we want to go that far back... why don't we just keep going and talk
about the Taliban being armed by Reagan.... we could go on for ever like this.
The propensity to dodge responsibility only dooms us to keep on making the same
mistakes over and over again. Its kind of like the parents whose kids never do
anything wrong... they just end up raising a brat. This works for both
sides.I do think Obama's response so far has been proportional
to the threat and benefit to the US. That said, I do also hold him responsible
for giving the impression that we might do nothing - leaving the door wide open
to ISES. We should have aided in the fighting of ISIS in Syria too... because
this is an idealogical group, one that doesn't acknowledge borders.But lets stop deflecting responsibility, and start working on
Yes, Obama has it right so far. To begin with, if it weren't for Bush,
Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc., anything going on in Iraq today would be being
overshadowed on news websites today by videos of skateboarding dogs. In any
case, Bush signed a treaty in 08 that said we were to get everyone out. And we
honoured it. And in retrospect involvement in Iraq was a costly mistake. So
let's stay out. As much as we can. As for terrorists, we need to be
vigilant and prepared at all times be they from ISIS or Nebraska.
It's true, if Bill Clinton wasn't soo busy acting like a Kennedy and
trying to assault or have a relation with every girl that got into the
crosshairs.Then he wouldn't have to tell us why he decided not
to take Osama out,while he was a loser and in the crosshairs of the CIA.Bill was soo worried that taking any action on any terrorists or
dictator,would appear that he was trying to cover up hisscandals.Which he's
right.However,sometimes youdo that right thing,insteadof worrying
about yourselfBill.Had he done his job...The bottom line,it's
no presidents fault that their are psycho terrorists trying to create a
caliphate and force everyone into Islam.The blame lies on those that brainwash,
join, recruit, carryout attacks etc.The war is far from over.This will only be a
break.They will attack again.The next time we'll lose more freedoms to
"protect" us.The left will still be blaming Reagan and Bush for
everything.But,if liberals are right.We don't need toworry
about terrorists.Climate change will kill all of us before then.They claim
wehave justa fewyears leftanyway....
Ohhhh! This is so fun!I love the revisionist history being made
here!Clinton and Gore are now responsible for 9/11.Obama
is now responsible for Iraq.Boy oh boy, the party of accountability
is doing it's best to shirk any accountability for what it's done over
the past 15 years!
Obama hasn't done the right thing about ANYTHING, ever. If he would have
been paying attention, he would have seen this coming long ago, and steps could
have been taken to curtail it. But I don't think he really cares.
Whatever goes wrong, he can just continue to blame the Bush administration, and
find some other diversion. He's messed up big time on Obeymecare, the
"Fast and Furious" fiasco, the IRS, the VA, the NSA,
"immigration" (invasion), "climate change," and everything else
he's touched. It doesn't take a mental giant to see the pattern here.
But maybe he's getting better at golf and his family seems to be learning
more about vacation spots around the world, because we tend to improve in areas
that we specialize in.
If you want a show of force... Please let's do this the right way...Write your congressman and ask him to invoke Article I Section and
declare war.Short of that the President's hands are tied. I am
glad this is all he is committing too.
Ltrain -"It was Clinton/gore who gutted the intelligence
community and allowed Osama to get powerful and pull off 9/11. They had him on a
silver platter several times and did nothing. They are responsible for
9/11!!!!!!"WRONG . . . Your forceful and impressive use of
exclamation marks not withstanding.Clinton/Gore did not "gut the
intelligence community." It was in good repair when he left office. But
like all good "Conservatives," GW had a tendency to ignore whatever he
didn't want to hear."U.S. intelligence officials warned
President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that Osama bin Laden's
terrorist network might hijack American planes . . . " - ABC News"The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack
began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the
White House of a report that “a group presently in the United
States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the
daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,”
although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible." - The New York
TimesFace it Ltrain, "Conservatives" just are not good
In a situation in which there are no really good options, Professor Davis is
right in identifying the least bad option open to us. The problem with air
strikes is that guys in pickup trucks make poor targets. The best option by far
would be to hop into a time machine and not invade at all. Failing that, hold
our noses and offer air support to corrupt and incompetent Maliki.
@ GaryO Koolaide drinker,It was Clinton/gore who gutted the
intelligence community and allowed Osama to get powerful and pull off 9/11.
They had him on a silver platter several times and did nothing. They are
responsible for 9/11!!!!!!
This part of the opinion says it all: "The U.S. cannot solve Iraq’s
problems." I have not seen anyone that knows the history of the middle east
say otherwise. So, while I understand that we need to help clean up the mess we
created, this opinion piece acknowledges that we will not solve Iraq's
problems. I believe we will not solve the middle east's problems either.
The effects of our involvement in the middle east has proven that we have not
solved any of the problems that we were told we were trying to solve in our
operations there. Again, this opinion piece states that ISIS is "far more
dangerous than Saddam Hussein ever was." So, in reality, it appears that we,
the United States, have made the middle east far more dangerous than it was
before we entered the picture. It is worth noting that we installed Saddam
Hussein in the first place. It is high time we stop sticking our nose in places
where it don't belong.
Finally---a piece about Obama in the D News that is factual, makes sense, and
shuns the typical boilerplate GOP nonsense spewed about him.Well done!
Remember when Bush and Cheney forced Saddam to invade Kuwait? It's all
their fault that the dictator invaded, and then went on to slaughter his own
people using WMD's.Personally, I feel Saddam had to go. But,
at the same time, who do you replace him with? I would rather have had Bush
focus on winning in Afghanistan and killing Osama been hiden, along with
dismantling that terrorist network. For the most part, they were on the run and
Osama was viewed as a loser, until we invaded Iraq. That gave the network new
life and recruits. We should have worked on wiping them out, before dealing with
Saddam.Saddam was at least holding Iran and most of the terrorist at
bay. Yes he was slaughtering his own people. The trouble is, every nut job
terrorist group needs Iraq in their caliphate. No one is giving up that land,
which is holy to them.
@mohokatThe Bush administration signed the statement of forces agreement
in December 2008. The Iraq government didn't want to renegotiate.What was
Obama supposed to do, invade them again?
Mr. Davis aka GaryO from VAyour periodic defense of BO is expected,
but still laughable.if BO had actually done it right, Iraq never
would have deteriorated to the state it is in now. BO inherited a relatively
stable situation and totally screwed it up.Thanks for wasting the
blood and treasure spent in Iraq because you do not know what to do.Maverick,bush left a stable situation - BO got us into this mess.
mohokat: "And if Obama had negotiated a real status of force agreement and
not cut and run to appease his base this would not be a conversation."And this dishonesty continues. It was Bush, not Obama, who negotiated
the status of forces agreement. Obama sought to renegotiate, but Maliki said he
would only do so if diplomatic protections were taken away from forces left
behind. Would you have supported Maliki being able to arrest any American
military members for his own political purposes? Of course not, and no
president, ever, would have agreed to such a condition. So what would you have
had him do? Occupy the country as an Emperor?
mohokat -"And if Obama had negotiated a real status of force
agreement and not cut and run to appease his base this would not be a
conversation."Obama and the American military abided by the then
existing SOFA signed by GW in 2008, which stipulated that the US had to be
completely out of Iraq by the end of 2011.The Iraqis insisted on
it.All this "Conservative" nonsense about it being
Obama's fault is ridiculous.You would be just as correct if you
blamed Obama for the United States losing in Vietnam.Trying to
deflect from continual Right Wing malfeasance by lashing out with false claims
makes the Republican leadership look pretty petty silly.
Absolutely!Now Dr. Davis, expect to be mercilessly attacked by the
same right wing posters as usual. Why? Because you committed the unpardonable
sin: you said something nice about Obama.Never mind that it was
Cheney and Bush who got us into this mess!
“Hussein kept his distance from Islamic extremists.” No, he
didn’t. He CRUSHED them.Saddam’s Baath Party was all Sunni
but completely sectarian. The God worshipped above all gods by the Baath Party
was Saddam himself.“ It also could have been averted if the
Iraqi government had broadened its coalition to include Sunnis and Kurds rather
than forcing them out.” Right . . . if, if, if, if . . . If GW Bush had not hand-picked Malaki to lead the country, and if the
GW Bush administration had not seen to it that all former Baathists (all Sunni)
were purged from the government, the military, and the police forces, and if
GW’s hand-picked Iraqi leader behaved in a manner far more reasonable
than GW could ever have done. . . .Then just MAYBE GW’s huge imbroglio
would have been neutralized somewhat by now.And IF the American
people had voted for GORE in 2000, then 911 could have been averted . . . And a
long string of horrible Republican mistakes that rendered our nation weak
physically, morally, financially, and spiritually would have never happened.In the final analysis, the fault lies with gullible American voters and
their “Conservative” tendencies.
And if Obama had negotiated a real status of force agreement and not cut and run
to appease his base this would not be a conversation.