The war in 2003 and the mess over there now is in Bush II's lap. It's all his.
Funny thing too is as 2016 gets closer I'm betting Bush III(Jeb) will be more and more isolationist about Iraq then even Obama is. LOL.. Bush I and Bush II had wars there. I doubt Jeb wants to be known as the 3rd Bush president(if he wins) who got us into a war there. If he's the GOP nom he'll backpedal like crazy away from wanting boots on the ground in Iraq.
Yes, it would be just like it was between the years after the Gulf war and Bush's invasion, which was magnitudes better then it's been since.
Easy for you to say, you werent spreading mustard gas on your hotdogs.
Obama, as any objective American would, hates bad cops, which while the small minority of them are, must be dealt with nevertheless.
For all the Bush administrations dire warnings to the opposite, Saddam Hussein wasn't spreading mustard gas on my hotdogs either. In fact despite claims made by that administration, he wasn't affiliated with OBL or al Qaeda, hadn't the inclination nor the means to deliver a mushroom cloud over a US city, and wasn't a threat to the US whatsoever.
"Bad cops" in the mind of Obama is interchangeable with "white cops". He hates white cops.
You are making the claim that Saddam Hussein did not gas his own people.
More cluelessness from the RADICAL progressive left.
Boots on the ground is the only way to bring peace to that region. And no, the mess is not in W's lap...its in Obama's. Every policy he has had over there has been a complete and utter inarguable failure.
Oh stop your racist snivelling, and knock that chip off your shoulder, it's not conducive to quality police work.
You have a regular pattern of being wrong.
Reagan derangement syndrome. You guys need therapy.
Were they? Were they 'wrong'? Were they 'lying'?
Or were things significantly better there and then they got completely ****ed by the typical amateur hour
The war in 2003 and the mess over there now is in Bush II's lap. It's all his.
Funny thing too is as 2016 gets closer I'm betting Bush III(Jeb) will be more and more isolationist about Iraq then even Obama is. LOL.. Bush I and Bush II had wars there. I doubt Jeb wants to be known as the 3rd Bush president(if he wins) who got us into a war there. If he's the GOP nom he'll backpedal like crazy away from wanting boots on the ground in Iraq.
Coming from a blamebushbrokenrecord like you, I take that as a compliment.
How do you figure Obama is isolationist about Iraq? He continued the war without missing a beat, got out of Iraq only when forced by the Iraqi government, and is now eagerly getting the US involved again. The original war is on Bush, no doubt, but present involvement is utterly and completely BO's war.The war in 2003 and the mess over there now is in Bush II's lap. It's all his.
Funny thing too is as 2016 gets closer I'm betting Bush III(Jeb) will be more and more isolationist about Iraq then even Obama is. LOL.. Bush I and Bush II had wars there. I doubt Jeb wants to be known as the 3rd Bush president(if he wins) who got us into a war there. If he's the GOP nom he'll backpedal like crazy away from wanting boots on the ground in Iraq.
How do you figure Obama is isolationist about Iraq? He continued the war without missing a beat, got out of Iraq only when forced by the Iraqi government, and is now eagerly getting the US involved again. The original war is on Bush, no doubt, but present involvement is utterly and completely BO's war.
If this cut-and-run surprises Mr. Obama's Secretary of Defense, it shouldn't. We can expect to see more of the same skittishness, shown in various ways, from nations who either are or might have been our allies. When the United States is strong and stands by its commitments to those nations, it makes them more willing to follow our lead. But when it disappears on or even betrays its allies, they realize we are not standing behind them--and react accordingly.
With this president, every government in the world knows it is dealing with a weak sister, and that there is no U.S. foreign policy worthy of the name. Mr. Obama's shameful appeasement of the Islamists who rule Iran has encouraged them to become more aggressive in Iraq, among other places, and that has put the Sunni population there in a very difficult position. Most of them probably don't much like the evil jihadists in ISIS, but they may well consider them less of a threat than millions of Iraqi Shiites--some of whom are also jihadists--under heavy Iranian influence. Any sense that they are all countrymen and can trust each other seems to be almost completely missing.
The U.S. cannot live with ISIS, and neither can the rest of the civilized world. The ugly truth is that the people fighting for that group are fanatics who are determined to kill not only unbelievers in that region, but unbelievers like us. They have a vast safe haven, and they have plenty of money and plenty of time to draw their plans. Americans will never be safe from large terrorist attacks--possibly another 9/11, or even worse--while ISIS exists. Defeating it probably would not require killing every last person who fights for it, but it would certainly require killing most of them. It should be obvious we cannot rely on Iraqi forces to do the job, and it should also be obvious that it will not get done with the small and half-hearted air campaign that has been the main feature of the U.S. effort so far.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?