The Crisis of ISIS

As ISIS beheads its way to Baghdad, leaving scores of headless bodies of police and soldiers along the roads, and President Obama promises aid, refusing to rule out military engagement, there are lots of questions.

  • How did the U.S. and its allies not see this coming? It sure didn't happen overnight.
  • Were the billions of dollars we spent training Iraqi forces just a waste?


  • Since Al Qaida disassociated itself from ISIS months ago, in part because of the over-the-top violence it employs, why didn't it use its fighters from AQAP and elsewhere to take out ISIS? Does this indicate Al Qaida lacks the resources to do so? If so, isn't the threat from al Qaida over, warranting an end to the U.S war on terror, especially at home?
  • Why should the U.S. return to Iraq to fight another of its internal wars? Isn't this a chance to say we will no longer be the world's global police force and let these countries fight their own battles?

Oil prices hit a three year high today. Here are ISIS's rules for the Nineveh Provence, which gives you a good idea of the ISIS philosophy.(Added: ISIS's Al Hayat English twitter page is here. Al Hayat is their media arm.) From their most recent speech:

Continue your advance, for the furnace of war has not been fully heated, and it will not be so except in Baghdad and Karbala. So strap up and be ready.

The Daily Mail has compelling photos, keep scrolling down.

The Economist: Two Arab Countries Fall Apart

And then there's this:

On a lighter note, does anyone else think of Bob Dylan every time they hear the word "ISIS?"

< Thursday Open Thread -World Cup Edition | Iran Sends Quds to Help Iraqi Military Fight ISIS >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I hesitated to put my lighter note (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 02:18:12 PM EST
    in, but then I saw yours. I have been lamenting that I can no longer name my next dog Isis, after the dog in Downton Abbey. Altogether an unfortunate acronym.

    On the serious side, perhaps one of the more prescient ideas Joe Biden ever had was his opinion expressed many years ago that Iraq should be divided into 3 countries. Maybe if it had been done in a more organized way back then, some of this extremism would have been avoided? Maybe not. It seemed like such a huge feat to try to accomplish at the time, and Turkey was against it, so the idea did not get any traction. I wonder if it is going to end up that way in the long run though.

    Like you (none / 0) (#2)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 02:21:06 PM EST
    I know this is a serious story, but every time I read about this group, all I can think of is the spy organization on Archer.

    And in the midst of all this (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 02:55:17 PM EST
    The Kurds took over Kirkuk?

    We gave them a bunch of military equipment to protect themselves with and as the Sunni and Shia fight....they have gone rogue too.

    We just need to stay out of it, but what about our giant embassy?

    Just let them have the damn embassy, whoever "them" turns out to be.

    The most (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 03:16:45 PM EST
    interesting part of the story is the Iraqis did not even fight and pretty much turned around and ran when they saw ISIS coming.

    This is what my nephew who was over there told me. He said it was stupid because the Iraqis would not even fright for their own "freedom".

    And George W. Bush was stating a while back that he had no regrets about Iraq because it was a "functioning democracy" Another stupid statement in a long line of stupid statements from him.

    What a surprise (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by koshembos on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 03:37:23 PM EST
    The war in Syria that followed the war in Iraq has been almost from the beginning a Shia/Sunni war Lebanon, Iraq and Syria (and may expand further). The world has chosen to ignore that reality despite more that enough facts to that effect.

    Similarly to Europe in the 20th century, the Arab world goes into convulsions of extreme violence in the 21st century.

    The way out is yet unclear.

    From the fall of the Ottoman empire (violence (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 04:48:02 PM EST
    prevalent) at what point in time has the middle east sustained a peace with itself?

    I remember the night GWB invaded Iraq. (5.00 / 9) (#29)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 04:52:24 PM EST
    I was in a hotel room in Pa. on business, and watching it on TV. I called my wife immediately and said, "Honey, are you watching this? They have no "effing" idea what they've unleashed tonight. God help us, and, the world."

    I was too modest; it turned much worse than even I thought then. And, we've got a long, long way to go before we can assess the total damage that moron bequeathed to the world.

    A dimwitted, draft dodging, deserting ne'er do well gets elected President and, then uses The United States Military Forces as his own personal Tonka Toy.

    After that horrible disaster, how the hypocritical cowards that comprise the bulk of the Republican Party dare to open their mouths against a President who inherited his pile of sh!t and trying to extricate ourselves from this death debacle is hubris, on steroids.

    Wish I could give you a 10 (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 05:00:12 PM EST
    One thing
    He wasn't elected.  At least not at that point.

    Yeah, (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 06:22:52 PM EST
    shoulda used the ole "scare quotes"

    I often (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by lentinel on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 05:25:25 AM EST
    think of the Iraqis in Baghdad who went without power and water thanks to that "shock and awe" bombing campaign.

    One of the most heartless exercises in our history.


    It is odd isn't how some believe (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 09:30:22 AM EST
    That what Isis is doing is horrific, and it is, but fail to see that it is minuscule when compared to what our shock and awe did to the people of Iraq?

    Me too, it was so clear that it was so so so wrong (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 09:43:03 AM EST
    I can't remember being sadder about my country.

    Shopoter, please quit calling Clinton (1.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 05:19:43 PM EST
    a draft dodger... even though he was.

    And if joining the Air National Guard is desertion is bad then we had a lot of bad.


    Joining was fine. Not fulfilling (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 05:26:01 PM EST
    his responsibilities was not.

    You still pushing that lie??? (1.00 / 1) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 05:39:48 PM EST

    They let him go early because they didn't want to invest any training time in the 102's replacement because his time would be up.

    Nothing new in that but since you know zip about the military and how they try and manage people and hardware you'll never get it.

    Of course you don't want to.

    You'd rather be wrong.


    I spent 2 + yrs. as a Navy wife smack dab at (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 05:46:17 PM EST
    the height of the Vietnam war.

    And what does that have to do with (1.00 / 1) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 06:17:37 PM EST
    what Bush did??

    Look, I had a Navy wife for 8 years (+ 48 more) and have a feel for the strain and pain of deployments but I don't see the connection unless you just want to push the lie that Bush deserted, went AWOL, etc., etc.


    I do know zip and more about the (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 07:04:13 PM EST
    military. Contrary to your assertion. The military controlled my life.

    I didn't say that you didn't. (1.00 / 1) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 08:19:51 PM EST
    But what did that have to do with the lies told??

    Then where exactly was he, Jim? (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 07:41:09 PM EST
    Because George W. Bush was certainly not where he was officially supposed to be, which was at Dannelly Air Base in Montgomery, AL. In fact, nobody who served at Dannelly AFB recalled ever seeing him on post during that period, from the base commander on down. And surely, someone there would've remembered having served with him, since after all, he did go on to become president. From Robert Hagan's "Truth or Consequences" (Texas Monthly, April 2012)

    "But after receiving relatively high marks as a pilot of the F-102, Bush suddenly stopped flying in the spring of 1972. Despite the declaration in his 1999 memoir, A Charge to Keep, that he flew jets for 'several years' starting in 1970, his flying career actually ended two years later. That was the year he left Houston to work on the long-shot Senate bid of Winton 'Red' Blount, a candidate from Alabama whose campaign manager, Jimmy Allison, was an old Bush family friend. Bush had committed to continuing his Guard service with a unit based in Montgomery, but nobody from that unit remembered seeing him, including the commander of the base. As the Globe story reported, Bush's next documented duty in the National Guard was a year later, back in Houston. It seemed that not only had Bush avoided Vietnam by entering the Guard, but he may have simply disappeared for a spell, failing to fulfill his duty to fly planes for a full six years." (Emphasis is mine.)

    And therein lies the rub, dude. Because for all your blustering and name-calling and screeching about it all being lies, lies all lies, neither you nor anyone else can tell us with any sense of certainty where Bush was for that entire period in question.

    Rather, what little of the official record that still exists does show that Bush had officially lost his flight status and was grounded as a pilot in August 1972, after failing to show up and undergo a flight physical, which in the regular U.S. Air Force would have been considered a very serious offense deserving of court martial. Further, there are incomplete pay records which nevertheless do indicate that Bush was compensated for attending two weekends of (non-flight) drill in Alabama during both January and April of 1973 (but not February or March).

    However, there is also conflicting documentation from Houston for that same period, which conclusively places Bush in that city during the first half of 1973. While visiting his family in Washington in Dec. 1972, he had gotten drunk and crashed the family car. And because his 14-year-old brother Marvin had been a passenger (both were unhurt), Bush's father finally confronted him regarding his personal behavior. By most all accounts it turned into a very serious personal row, and Bush apparently threatened his father physically, which compelled 18-year-old brother Jeb to step in between them.

    Shortly afterward, George W. Bush was compelled to volunteer for PULL, a nonprofit poverty program in Houston, on which his father served as a board member. And how do we know that? Because the executive director of PULL had Bush both sign in and sign out on a daily basis at the office, so that he could keep a running tally of the number of hours he served, and could tell the father exactly where his son was, and what he was doing.



    The question is (1.00 / 1) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 08:52:32 PM EST
    What don't you ask the 4 people that CBS fired??"

    And then we have

    The White House yesterday released military records that it said demonstrate conclusively that President Bush completed the required drills leading to an honorable discharge from the Texas Air National Guard in 1973.

    "These documents clearly show that the president fulfilled his duties," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan as he waved copies of smudgy, 31-year-old pay and accreditation records stored on microfilm in a U.S. government military archives in Colorado.

    Bush's drills with the Alabama Guard confirmed

    And I hate to tell you this but Base Commanders don't pay attention to lowly 2nd Lt's...


    Brig. Gen. `recall' in 2004
    Brigadier Gen. Turnipseed, 75 and retired in Montgomery, Ala., says he's sorry he ever said he would have "had some recall" of Bush had he attended a meeting of the Alabama Air Guard unit.

    "I don't remember whether he came or not. Our unit had about 900- 1,000 men and he could have attended many meetings without me ever knowing it," Turnipseed said this week.

    As for Bush being AWOL, Turnipseed said, "No way. He was never assigned to our unit so he couldn't be AWOL. Like so many Guard and Reserve soldiers during the Vietnam War, they moved around and temporarily attended meetings with other units but Bush never left his original unit in Texas."

    Turnipseed has said all along there would be no mention of the president in the Alabama unit since Bush was paid out of Texas.


    You know, we know more about Bush's flight suit that we about Obama's entire "career." ;-)

    As for the "flight physical" if a pilot is not going to be flying there is no need to take the physical. At that point Bush knew he was not going to extend and be trained in the 102's replacement and the demand for flight time was such that he wasn't going to be allowed to fly in the 102.

    Let me explain something to you. A pilot doesn't just walk down to the line shack, catch a ride out to a jet and blast off into the wild blue.

    Flight time is rigidly controlled. It is expensive in fuel costs, maintenance, etc. And if a pilot has indicated that he will be leaving, which Bush had done, he will be at the bottom of the list.

    They just won't spend the money on him. And they don't care if he doesn't take a flight physical.

    Of course I know that you don't understand such things.

    And the issue, which you are trying to duck,  is that Obama has had 6 years to fix whatever problems that existed.

    He hasn't.

    He is totally incompetent.


    Dubya was a partying frat boy drunk (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Angel on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 10:19:09 AM EST
    and we all damn well know it. You just won't admit it.  

    And he also (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 10:48:27 AM EST
    Had some really bad qualities

    Oh, but I was talking about his good qualities. (none / 0) (#100)
    by Angel on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 10:54:03 AM EST
    There IS "nothing new" ... (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 09:02:11 PM EST
    They let him go early because they didn't want to invest any training time in the 102's replacement because his time would be up.

    ... in that tired, lie - and still no evidence to support it.  Funny how you keep pushing that falsehood even after the President's spokesman (the one who made the claim) denied saying it.

    In a 1999 Washington Post interview, Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett was quoted as saying that Bush's release from the 111th [Fighter Interceptor Squadron] was appropriate because the unit had phased out the F-102s, and that Bush was transferred from Texas to a reserve unit in Boston. Both statements appear to be inaccurate.

    "Although F-102s were being phased out by 1973, they were still being flown. There is no record of Bush signing up for reserve duty in Boston. Bartlett, now White House communications director, said last week through a representative that he must have either 'misspoke' or been 'misquoted.'"


    Bush was suspended from flying for failing to take a flight physical, after the taxpayers fronted all that money to train him for champagne duty and 2 1/2 years before his commitment was supposed to end.


    hehe (1.00 / 1) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 09:06:31 PM EST
    You have no knowledge about this.

    So blather on.

    BTW - The 102 was called by many "The Widow Maker"

    But whatever Bush did it was much much much more than what you did.


    The "Widow Maker"? (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 09:17:54 PM EST
    Your boy GW may have been well-acquainted with the "Widow Maker" while playing in the Champagne Unit, but it wasn't the kind you're talking about.  The F-102 requires you to actually show up for duty and even (gasp!) take a flight physical.

    Guess that's why you always choose to make some inane attempt at an insult rather than address the facts right in front of you.


    Yman you are just so uninformed (none / 0) (#113)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 12:41:07 PM EST
    yet you flap your jaws.

    In November 1970, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, commander of the 111th Fighter Squadron, recommended that Bush be promoted to First Lieutenant, calling him "a dynamic outstanding young officer" who stood out as "a top notch fighter interceptor pilot." He said that "Lt. Bush's skills far exceed his contemporaries," and that "he is a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership. Lt. Bush is also a good follower with outstanding disciplinary traits and an impeccable military bearing."[3] Bush was promoted.[citation needed]
    Air National Guard members could volunteer for active duty service with the Air Force in a program called Palace Alert, which deployed F-102 pilots to Europe and Southeast Asia, including Vietnam and Thailand. According to three pilots from Bush's squadron, Bush inquired about this program but was advised by the base commander that he did not have the necessary flying experience (500 hours) at the time and that the F-102 would soon be retired.[1][4]

    Bush's four-year part-time obligation to serve required him to maintain his immediate readiness to be recalled to active duty in the event of a national emergency. Bush performed part-time Guard duty as an F-102 pilot through April 1972, logging a total of 336 flight hours.[5


    Here, educate yourself:

    Regardless, the F-102 was still far more dangerous to fly than today's combat aircraft. Compared to the F-102's lifetime accident rate of 13.69, today's planes generally average around 4 mishaps per 100,000 hours. For example, compare the F-16 at 4.14, the F-15 at 2.47, the F-117 at 4.07, the S-3 at 2.6, and the F-18 at 4.9.

    Even the Marine Corps' AV-8B, regarded as the most dangerous aircraft in US service today, has a lifetime accident rate of only 11.44 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours.

    The F-102 claimed the lives of many pilots, including a number stationed at Ellington during Bush's tenure. Of the 875 F-102A production models that entered service, 259 were lost in accidents that killed 70 Air Force and ANG pilots.


    Anyway you slice it takes a special person to strap fighter to their butt with the intent if engaging in mortal combat.


    You're right (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Yman on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 08:12:00 PM EST
    Anyway you slice it takes a special person to strap fighter to their butt with the intent if engaging in mortal combat.

    And it takes another kind of "special person" to join a Champagne unit to avoid engaging in mortal combat.  From the source of your link in Wikipedia:

    It was May 27, 1968, at the height of the Vietnam War. Bush was 12 days away from losing his student deferment from the draft at a time when Americans were dying in combat at the rate of 350 a week. The unit Bush wanted to join offered him the chance to fulfill his military commitment at a base in Texas. It was seen as an escape route from Vietnam by many men his age, and usually had a long waiting list.

    Bush had scored only 25 percent on a "pilot aptitude" test, the lowest acceptable grade. But his father was then a congressman from Houston, and the commanders of the Texas Guard clearly had an appreciation of politics.

    Bush was sworn in as an airman the same day he applied. His commander, Col. Walter B. "Buck" Staudt, was apparently so pleased to have a VIP's son in his unit that he later staged a special ceremony so he could have his picture taken administering the oath, instead of the captain who actually had sworn Bush in. Later, when Bush was commissioned a second lieutenant by another subordinate, Staudt again staged a special ceremony for the cameras, this time with Bush's father the congressman - a supporter of the Vietnam War - standing proudly in the background.

    Yeah - the guy who promoted Bush and allegedly told him the F-102 was soon to be retired was thrilled to have a "special" Bush in his unit.


    BTW - The F-102 wasn't retired until long after Bush decided to skip his flight physicals and lost his flight status.  Guess it takes a "special" kind of person to skip out on his obligation (even in the Champagne Unit)to volunteer on a political campaign.


    He was AWOL an entire year. (none / 0) (#116)
    by Angel on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 12:45:33 PM EST
    He did not fulfill his service commitment.  

    BTW (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 09:23:26 PM EST
    By regulation, National Guard pilots were required to take and pass an annual physical in order to remain in flight status, in the three months prior to a pilot's birthday (in Bush's case, July 6). Bush did not take this mandatory physical examination in mid-1972. As a result of his failure to take his physical, his flight status was suspended by his commander on August 1, 1972, confirmed by Col Bobby Hodges on September 5, 1972 and confirmed again by a National Guard Bureau order on September 29, 1972, which meant he no longer was authorized to fly as a pilot.

    Although the previous two physicals that Bush had taken were done by flight surgeons, Bush said in 2000 that he wanted to wait to take the physical until it could be done by his own private doctor. But regulations require that the physical be performed by an Air Force doctor. Air Force flight surgeons were assigned to Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama, located across town from Maxwell AFB at the Dannelly Field Air National Guard Base at Dannelly Field airport, where Bush was paid for drilling in October and November 1972 and in January 1973, his only drilling dates between April 1972 and April 1973.

    According to his released military records, Bush never flew again as an Air National Guard pilot after April 1972.




    Well, I can see you are back to parsing and (1.00 / 1) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 12:53:25 PM EST

    I have explained, here in this thread and in past threads, why Bush didn't bother to take the physical.

    He was leaving and the F102 was being replaced and TANG didn't want to waste money on training someone who wouldn't be around.

    What you won't admit is this simple fact. If you aren't gonna be flying and if your boss doesn't want you to take up valuable flight time from someone who is staying.... DON'T TAKE UP MORE TIME WITH A USELESS FLIGHT PHYSICAL AND OTHER QUALIFICATIONS.

    Happened all the time at all levels. You want specific training then sign up for X more years. Don't wanna do that?? Then take an early or just wait and we'll end it.

    Now, toddle off. You've proven you have no experience in this subject and just want to argue.


    You do realize ... (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Yman on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 08:14:45 PM EST
    ... that your repetition of these silly lies is useless when addressing the facts I've given you ...

    ... don't you?

    ... or do you really think that your linkless, irrelevant posts are going to convince someone?


    You're so full of it. (none / 0) (#122)
    by Angel on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 01:07:26 PM EST
    Facts count. (1.00 / 1) (#127)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 06:44:34 PM EST
    And that's what I deal in.

    Yman just wants to attack Bush, and me, in that order.

    He has no knowledge of what he writes about but is good at restating the same thing over and over again until the uninformed accept it as the "truth."

    Elitists, formed in the image of dictators everywhere all follow the same plan.


    Facts do count, Jim (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Yman on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 08:15:37 PM EST
    Your silly, fact-free, evidence-free posts, OTOH ...

    You change (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by lentinel on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 05:27:55 AM EST
    the subject from the heartless slaughter of civilians and the heartless treatment of our veterans to whether Bush was a draft dodger or not.

    Fk Bush.

    May he rot in h-ll for eternity - and then some.


    "Shopoter?"........Now, listen you!! (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 06:28:21 PM EST
    The word is "Master." Got it? "MASTER!!"

    Make that mistake again and I'll take away your straw. Try eating your dinner then!


    Mess with me and I won't let you (1.00 / 1) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 08:53:51 PM EST
    any Sides.



    Not the "Air National Guard" (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 08:54:53 PM EST
    You need to be more specific.  The 147th Fighter Group of the Texas Air National Guard.

    Aka - The Champagne Unit.


    You like (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by lentinel on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 05:21:58 AM EST
    to change the subject.

    You can't face the reality of what Bush, and the Congress, did to us.


    John Boehner: (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 06:04:16 PM EST
    Speaker John A. Boehner on Thursday warned that the progress that had been made in Iraq was "clearly in jeopardy," and urged Mr. Obama "to get engaged before it's too late."
         "The president celebrated our exit from Iraq as a hallmark of his foreign policy agenda," he said, "but our focus should be instead on completing our mission successfully."


    What progress in Iraq (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 06:52:39 PM EST
    We brought Iraq no progress, and while being there for the time that we were, broke our military.  The veterans of the Iraq War can't  get John Boehner to fund the after care of the injuries they sustained while they were there.  Imagine if we had allowed more American soldiers to have become mentally, emotionally, or physically damaged by that war.  22 plus veterans commit suicide everyday in this country and John Boehner doesn't care, never speaks about that crisis, never addresses it in any fashion.

    No Tracy (1.00 / 1) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 08:54:50 PM EST
    Obama got every dime he asked for.

    Read (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by lentinel on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 05:18:51 AM EST
    what Tracy wrote, Jim.

    She is describing the reality.

    Have you no heart?


    The realty for MT is false (1.00 / 1) (#128)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 06:50:18 PM EST
    Obama got all the money he asked for.

    What you have seen since he took office is just that," Carney said, noting that the president "asked for and received from Congress significant increases in the Veterans Affairs budget."

    A report on the agency's budget history shows it grew by more than $20 billion during Mr. Obama's first two years in office.

    CBS News

    MT is one of the most partisan commentators here.


    Ha! You say partisan like it's dirty :) (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 12:30:20 AM EST
    It's only Conservative Dirty to be partisan when the partisanship is more Liberal.  When it's Conservative...well that's normal.



    Uh, when Obama was elected (1.00 / 1) (#147)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 09:01:48 AM EST
    everyone of you guys demanded the Repubs not be partisans and racists and just do everything Obama wanted...

    Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.




    He he he he (none / 0) (#150)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 09:25:45 AM EST
    You are as predictable as poking a horned toad.

    Why doesn't Boehner argue (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 09:49:34 AM EST
    That the vets aren't being properly cared for? Why isn't he fighting for them?  Why is he only up their fomenting that more of them need to be damaged when he isn't even willing to see to it that they properly cared for?

    Sorry, why isn't he up there :)? (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 09:52:19 AM EST
    And why isn't he?  

    MT, again (1.00 / 1) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 06:51:38 PM EST
    You are making things up.

    This is the perfect time Jim (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 12:26:42 AM EST
    For Boehner to vow to do everything in his power to repair the VA system.  This is the perfect time to discuss with the nation 22 plus suicides a day.

    The point is that it is Obama's job. (none / 0) (#146)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 08:57:47 AM EST
    The House gave him all the money he needed.

    Obama has failed.

    And it's Boehner's fault??????


    Why don't you go picket Obama's vacation home??? HI was a lot better climate than TX.



    It is every politician on that hills I ob (none / 0) (#152)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 09:29:46 AM EST
    And you are voting for them.  You are now enabling the suffering of Vets.  Now you really deserve the ticket to Iraq the next time you lament that we must fix Iraq.

    First (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by lentinel on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 06:27:25 PM EST
    Cantor - and now Al Qaida.

    There appear to be people who make them look moderate.

    Good grief!

    As to the questions posed;

    - How did the U.S. and its allies not see this coming? It sure didn't happen overnight.

    Because they're stupid.

    - Were the billions of dollars we spent training Iraqi forces just a waste?


    My question:

    Why aren't Bush and Cheney in jail?

    For John McCain (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 07:20:26 PM EST
    It's like Christmas in June.  

    Here's your answer, from today's WaPo. (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Angel on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 11:13:49 AM EST
    Fareed Zakaria: Who lost Iraq? The Iraqis did, with an assist from George W. Bush

    If the Bush administration deserves a fair share of blame for "losing Iraq," what about the Obama administration and its decision to withdraw American forces from the country by the end of 2011? I would have preferred to see a small American force in Iraq to try to prevent the country's collapse. But let's remember why this force is not there. Maliki refused to provide the guarantees that every other country in the world that hosts U.S. forces offers. Some commentators have blamed the Obama administration for negotiating badly or halfheartedly and perhaps this is true. But here's what a senior Iraqi politician told me in the days when the U.S. withdrawal was being discussed: "It will not happen. Maliki cannot allow American troops to stay on. Iran has made very clear to Maliki that its No. 1 demand is that there be no American troops remaining in Iraq. And Maliki owes them." He reminded me that Maliki spent 24 years in exile, most of them in Tehran and Damascus, and his party was funded by Iran for most of its existence. And in fact, Maliki's government has followed policies that have been pro-Iranian and pro-Syrian.

    Obama didnt' want to stay (none / 0) (#102)
    by Slado on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 11:20:36 AM EST
    That is just excuse making by Fareed who has been wrong more then once on Iraq.

    Not sure how blaming Bush is helpful.  It would be great if we could travel back in time to 2003 and all the democrats (including Hillary) who supported the war then would have put up actual opposition to the invasion but they didn't.  

    Obama ran for president.  He inherited Iraq.   If he wasn't up to the job he should have staid in Illinois.

    This is his mess.  funny how he is never responsible for anything when it reflects poorly on his leadership.

    Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan need I go on?   always an excuse.  Always somebody else's fault.

    It'd be one thing if you said, Bush got us into this mess and Obama failed to get us out.   That would be one thing.  But no, just go back to the old faithful "it's all Bush's fault".  

    If Hillary some how become president will we still blame Bush and pretend Obama never happened?

    I might be up for that.


    Obama stuck to Bush's timeline (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 11:28:35 AM EST
    Remember?  It was Bush who set the date of our leave taking

    We all need (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 11:32:05 AM EST
    to accept the fact that Iraq was a mistake from the get go. We were lied into it. A lot of people bought into the lies for whatever reason--they were scared though George W. Bush was Jesus or wanted a holy war with Islam. It does not matter.

    It was never a winnable war. My nephew served there. The Iraqis did not want what we were selling or what we were bringing therefore they would not even fight for their own freedom. We could have stayed there and spent trillions more and still had the same result. Sometimes you just have to cut your losses and move on. It's time to do that. The same people who thought Vietnam was a good idea thought Iraq was a good idea too. This is the Republicans Vietnam. Move on.


    Your fellow Americans (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by vicndabx on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 11:59:01 AM EST
     - a majority "didn't want to stay."

    Your fellow Americans - a majority didn't want us involved in Syria.  Your fellow Americans - a majority, want us out of Afghanistan.

    I suspect if Obama ignored his citizens, kept or sent troops in these countries and some tragedy occurred that took more American lives you'd be offering up the same criticisms - it's all Obama's fault, with little to no (apparent) understanding of the facts.

    You got another $700 billion for us to deal w/some other country's problems?


    Barack Obama said (1.00 / 1) (#154)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 11:02:04 AM EST
    Four years ago, I promised to end the war in Iraq. We did. I promised to refocus on the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11. We have. We've blunted the Taliban's momentum in Afghanistan, and in 2014, our longest war will be over. A new tower rises above the New York skyline, al Qaeda is on the path to defeat, and Osama bin Laden is dead.

    Well, he did manage to finally let Bush's team kill Osama.


    Heh - conservative time travel (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 11:21:38 AM EST
    Well, he did manage to finally let Bush's team kill Osama.

    You guys contort yourselves trying to blame Obama for everything bad that's happened in the economy from the day he was inaugurated, despite taking over an economy put in freefall by your boy GWB.  Then you try to use time travel to give Bush credit for killing Bin Laden, despite the fact it happened more than 2 years after Bush left in disgrace, after failing to get Bin Laden for a decade.  All, of course, after trying to travel backwards in time to blame Clinton for 9-11.

    Predictable, funny and hypocritical all at the same time!  You got your hat trick, Jim!


    It's like trying (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 11:52:39 AM EST
    to reason with a Moonie. Bush is Jesus who controls all good things and never should be held responsible for anything bad that happens. Bill Clinton and Obama are the anti-christ. Give up trying to argue with someone who has an apocalyptic cult mindset.

    My question is (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 12:01:10 PM EST
    Why do you keep trying?  It's obviously pointless.  If he argues with himself it's no fun.

    Just sayin


    I don't (none / 0) (#163)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 05:21:25 PM EST
    anymore. I've put him on ignore. It's obvious that he like a lot of conservatives have really become a cult.

    'Second that, vicndabx (none / 0) (#125)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 05:08:07 PM EST
    IMO, the pertinent question for slado & his pals is:  Would you make the decision to return, on the ground, to Iraq and fight alongside the Iranian Qud forces?  Further: If you would advocate for any substantial return (i.e., more than strikes of a limited nature), what would be the goal and, more importantly, how would you persuade a citizenry here to support what they have repudiated sometime ago?  Would you advocate action that the American public cannot be shown to support as to Iraq?

    Finally:  In retrospect, do slado and other opponents of the President continue to regard the 2003 decision to enter into war with Iraq as the correct foreign policy decision or not?  Is there anything more to the current Republican naysaying on this matter than the inability to stop naysaying?


    Indeed (none / 0) (#126)
    by vicndabx on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 05:12:40 PM EST
    McCain this AM - there are no viable options in Iraq, yet.....it's all Obama's fault.

    You, like Jim, choose to ignore the facts. (none / 0) (#103)
    by Angel on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 11:23:25 AM EST
    You are hellbent on blaming Obama.  Period.

    Obama (none / 0) (#106)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 11:35:56 AM EST
    got stuck with this mess but he wanted to be president. However Republicans are upset because they know this is going to hurt them way more than it's going to hurt Obama.

    I hope it does (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 12:02:47 PM EST
    It belongs to them.  So much suffering and death, for nothing.

    It's that misguided Southern Pride thing again (none / 0) (#118)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 12:50:46 PM EST
    it has nothing to do with rationality or fairness or decency or what's good for the country.

    Background for you (none / 0) (#110)
    by vicndabx on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 12:11:37 PM EST

    The split in Islam goes back to a dispute about who should succeed the Prophet Muhammad after he died in 632. Those who wanted his position to be inherited by his closest associates became Sunnis. Those who thought his descendants should succeed him became Shia.

    In modern times the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 started a new upheaval in Islam's sectarian divide.

    The removal of Saddam Hussein, Shia Iran's most bitter enemy, was a blow to the traditional Sunni ascendancy in the Middle East. Thousands of Iraqis have been killed in sectarian violence since then.

    A good article with some good points (1.00 / 1) (#131)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 07:24:31 PM EST
    but the foment in the ME goes back much further.

    In the 50's we had Egypt seizing the Suez Canal and we stiffed our allies by refusing to help regain control. And the stability that the West had brought to the Islamic world, a Pax Romana if you please, started to collapse.

    At about the same time we can see the communist influence in Iran with the following coup installing the Shah..and then the Midwife of Modern Islamic Terrorists, Jimmy Carter, let the whole thing collapse by withdrawing support for the Shah.

    Things have since just spiraled out of control because we stupidly believed that the Muslims, given freedom would settle down and use all that oil money to create a modern society.

    And modern day weapons and transportation mean we can't withdraw, pull down the shades and ignore what is happening.

    Sad to say, and I doubt I will live to see it, we are going to have to either a:

    Give up and become a Islamic theocracy, or

    Just take over the world and run it.


    Your Islamaphobia ... (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Yman on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 08:21:49 PM EST
    Things have since just spiraled out of control because we stupidly believed that the Muslims, given freedom would settle down and use all that oil money to create a modern society.

    And modern day weapons and transportation mean we can't withdraw, pull down the shades and ignore what is happening.

    Sad to say, and I doubt I will live to see it, we are going to have to either a:

    Give up and become a Islamic theocracy, or

    Just take over the world and run it.

    ... is seriously funny.


    Well, I am glad to see that even someone as (1.00 / 1) (#140)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 09:59:35 PM EST
    disconnected from realty as you understand that this is a very serious situation.

    And I laugh at your BS call of  Islamaphobia...

    Of course to you anyone pointing out a fact that doesn't paint the Muslim world as all peaceful and calm is  "Islamaphobia."

    In the meantime let me know when the various sects start fussing with each other over who has what night for their bingo game instead of sawing off heads and stoning gays.


    "Shariah law is coming!" (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Yman on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 11:15:38 PM EST
    Heh, heh, heh ...

    Gee, and for a second (1.00 / 1) (#145)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 08:55:14 AM EST
    there I thought you had caught on.

    Sigh.... But you aren't that smart.

    BTW - CAIR, who claims it doesn't want Sharia law in the US, opposed the OK law which was to block Sharia in OK law......

    Now let me see. I don't want it so I oppose a law stopping it.



    Heh - the OK law (none / 0) (#148)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 09:02:02 AM EST
    You mean the one that was unconstitutional?

    Heh, heh ...

    I guess we've established that CAIR, the ACLU and the many other groups that correctly pointed out that the law was unconstitutional are "that smart".  But the fact that you think you're equipped to assess the intelligence of anyone is pretty funny.


    Yes, the law that CAIR opposed (none / 0) (#149)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 09:04:24 AM EST
    And you don't have to be smart to know why and to assess you.



    Because it was blatantly unconstitutional ... (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 09:26:46 AM EST
    ... and discriminatory against Muslims?

    Sure - that's why anyone with double-digit IQ and an ability to understand the Constitution opposed it.

    Oh, ... wait ...


    Let me see (1.00 / 1) (#153)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 10:58:50 AM EST

    It is discriminatory against ANYONE that want's Sharia law part of the US, or any state's, laws.

    You know, the law that calls for stoning gays, fornicators, female circumcision, etc., etc.

    I knew that you understood something.

    Of course the question is, if you want to be a US citizen, why do you want Sharia????


    You need to learn to read (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 11:07:57 AM EST
    Then, you need to read the courts rulings, which make a mockery of your silly claims.  The OK law was so bad that the State of OK was required to pay the plaintiff's attorney fees.

    OTOH - deliberate inability to comprehend is something that even basic reading skills won't overcome.


    when Sharia becomes (1.00 / 1) (#158)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 11:59:12 AM EST
    part of US code you may...just may... understand why any reasonable American opposes it.

    OTOH you probably won't catch on even when they come for you.


    "When"?!? - Heh, heh (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 12:14:46 PM EST
    Right after the Easter Bunny is elected POTUS and Humpty Dumpty shows up in the ER.

    ... and conservatives find their imaginary WMDs in Iraq ...


    The (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 05:19:59 PM EST
    really funny thing is Jim doesn't know what Sharia Law is. He thinks they have it in Great Brittain which they don't. He thinks honor killings are the same as Sharia Law. Places like Uganda have it and there is even differing kinds of Sharia. As long as we have a SECULAR government which Jim and cohorts want to get rid of there is ZERO chance of sharia law happening in this country.

    I find your paranoia hilarious. (none / 0) (#160)
    by Angel on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 12:08:09 PM EST
    Oh where oh where is the (1.00 / 1) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 02:54:11 PM EST
    criticism of Obama?? If it was a Repub in the WH the 'Net would be glowing with vitriol.

    As to why we are caught with our pants down...

    The Obama admin couldn't manage a kid's lemonade stand. That is how dysfunctional it is.

    I have zero criticism for Obama on this (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 02:56:10 PM EST

    His administration (2.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 03:54:17 PM EST
    saw this coming?  Hopefully they warned the Iraqi gov't.  Maybe that is why they pulled out. Regrouping.  

    There was NO WAY for this not (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 04:30:00 PM EST
    To happen other than for the Iraq War to have never taken place.  You have no soldiers who were or are willing to go do this either.  It will require a draft.  You go first.  You and Jim, go ahead, go take care of this, I'll watch.

    You're (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 04:45:50 PM EST
    right about that. Iraq is the reason my nephew got out of the military.

    Brent Scowcoft who tried to warn little Bush that this would turn into a freaking disaster should have  some sort of medal awarded to him.


    Been there and done that, MT (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 04:50:58 PM EST
    Got lucky and only lost one close friend and some shipmates.

    Now it is your turn.

    The question is, do we have the smarts to use the weapons we have to win a quick and dirty war.

    I don't think we do.

    I think the Left has convinced the populace that the military should be used to clean up after hurricanes and other natural disasters but not to protect us.

    And yes, I have and do condemn Bush for his wrong headed "nation building."


    Well it's time to go again Jim (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 04:54:49 PM EST
    Heavens to Betsy! How on (none / 0) (#24)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 04:47:41 PM EST
    earth did you infer that from my post?  We should not be over there.  You had no criticism for President Obama.  I asked you if he or his administration saw this coming.  If they did see is coming, did they warn anyone?  They seen to have been caught flat footed again.  By the way, J. asked the same question why don't you take her to task?

    Oh, so this is your concern again? (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 04:56:48 PM EST
    What emails were sent?  What will Rice say was sent?  When will she say it was sent?  To whom will she say it was sent to?

    Again? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 05:14:55 PM EST
    I asked you if the you think administration saw it coming.  

    It's not their country (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 05:15:54 PM EST
    And, I ask you if (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by christinep on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 05:25:42 PM EST
    Is it your position that the US should have entered Iraq in 2003 and, after all that transpired, that we should have remained?  The question is related to your question, obviously ... because whatever is happening now is clearly related to what was initiated in 2003.  If you think otherwise, please state why that is so.  

    Nope (none / 0) (#164)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 07:50:24 PM EST
    If your question is (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 08:42:40 AM EST
    Did they see this specifically coming I would say no.  If the question is did they expect some sh!t to hit the fan I would say probably.  Didn't everyone? Warning that some sh!t would eventually hit the fan in the Middle East is like warning of gravity.

    Also if you think the comments here are about defending or excusing Obama I think you have this confused with some other site.    


    Where it always is (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by sj on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 02:57:12 PM EST
    spewing from the mouths of the likes of you.

    Since you're so concerned Jim (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 02:57:22 PM EST
    You go, you go hold that ground....whatever ground you think you should hold that will make this all getter.

    Okay (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 03:13:40 PM EST
    Well, since you claim to have ten years experience in the military perhaps you should go over there. I'm sure they could use you.

    He never said, "military." (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 04:33:12 PM EST
    I believe he used the term, "Naval Aviation."

    Don't really know what that is, but, obviously, it must be something.


    Uh, shooter (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 04:38:42 PM EST
    Naval Aviation is a branch of the US Navy which, last time I checked, is part of the military.

    Okay (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 04:43:13 PM EST
    Now Go :)

    lol (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 06:21:39 PM EST
    you're funny, MT

    Any day you can get a chuckle from a miserable subject is a good day....thanks.


    heh (none / 0) (#22)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 04:43:19 PM EST
    Wile (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 04:55:55 PM EST
    Shooter never needed air support...

    gotcha (none / 0) (#39)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 05:16:26 PM EST
    Hey, I've got an idea! (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 05:05:03 PM EST
    Let's take up a collection or set up an account on PayPal to cover Jim's travel costs to Baghdad, so he can actually put his old keester where his big mouth is. I further propose that the first dollar from every donation be used to buy him some very badly needed clues.

    I got a better (1.00 / 1) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 05:31:50 PM EST
    why don't we let you talk'em to death.

    That seems to be the thing you are best at.


    Jim is what he is (none / 0) (#46)
    by sj on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 05:27:40 PM EST
    I think we all know that. But were you looking for a bridge of your own? The ugly and spiteful and just plain mean is coming back. You and squeaks and jim and christine and MT and oculus and GA are welcome to TL. Playground level bullies, the lot of you.

    Not that any of you need my or anyone else's permission to ugly up the site, so... carry on. I'm tired of taking the bait and helping y'all drag it down.

    For now, any or all of you may have the last word in comments and/or ratings.

    Maybe things will be better in 2 or 3 months.


    or not.


    And it is IMO (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 05:50:41 PM EST
    Really horrible to tell someone who is gay, or a feminist, or Liberal, or an ethnic minority and living where most of us that you have been attacking live that it is all really just a cakewalk for us, and the isolation and shunning we experience is all in our heads.

    I don't endorse donald's comment. Why drag me into (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 05:43:14 PM EST
    condemnation of it?

    One (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 08:26:51 PM EST
    Where have I been all (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 08:45:51 PM EST
    my life?

    sj, you have your brand of ugly, spiteful, (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 05:45:38 PM EST
    And mean too.  Come on now

    Yes (none / 0) (#84)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 09:20:53 PM EST
    Some of the nastiest comments at TL have been penned by sj...
    The knife does not cut itself, the finger does not touch itself, the mind does not know itself, the eye does not see itself.

    Making your mousse tonight (none / 0) (#107)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 11:37:48 AM EST
    Ga, I did my part back when (1.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 04:42:49 PM EST
    the Cold War was very cold and the Fellow Travelers, Anti-War Leties, and Useful Idiots, as Lenin described them, demonstrated and almost lost us that war.

    Thank God for Reagan.

    "Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accept the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay-and claims a halo for his dishonesty." - Robert Heinlein


    Oh, (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 04:52:08 PM EST
    geez get the BOULDER OFF YOUR SHOULDER. Who lost the confederacy for you then Jim? Was it those "lefties" too? LOL.

    LOL (1.00 / 2) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 05:00:23 PM EST
    I can always tell when you know you have lost the argument when you start blathering about something completely off the subject.

    Since (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 05:58:14 PM EST
    when is Vietnam the subject? Are you conceding that you lost the argument even before I brought up the confederacy? I guess so since this thread is supposed to be about Iraq.

    Thank God for Reagan? (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 06:21:57 PM EST
    "Some men have so much respect for their superiors that they have none left for themselves."
    -- Peter McArthur

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
    -- The Rev. Martin Luther King. Jr.


    Tear down that wall (1.00 / 1) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 09:02:58 PM EST

    "I'm Obama and I'm here to apologize"


    "Here mister Ayatollah (none / 0) (#112)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 12:29:09 PM EST
    have some wmds - just don't tell anyone"


    Obama's alleged apology.

    Not even a tough call. Even for a savant like Jim.


    We did lose that war (none / 0) (#114)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 12:41:31 PM EST
    mainly because the Vietnamese were committed, battle-hardened, and had moral right on their side.

    And also because fighting hellcats like you, Bush, Rush, and Cheney decided to spare the Vietnamese by staying out of the war.


    The criticism of Obama is on Fox News.... (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by magster on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 03:28:53 PM EST
    Go there instead.

    What, is he president of Iraq now? (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 03:45:19 PM EST
    You are gifted in comedy (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 05:14:10 PM EST
    Subtle yet on the mark deadly accurate :)

    Spouse said someone in his (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 07:38:15 AM EST
    Car ride yesterday said, "Well, we lost Mosul."  And he said, "What, nobody can find it?"

    Jim... (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 03:49:08 PM EST
    would you prefer another 5/10/20 years of occupation, with all the spilled American blood and treasure that entails, and then the Iraqis have it out in a civil war?

    Cuz this was inevitable, and many of us saw that from jumpstreet of the occupation.  Just like the USA 150 years ago, they gotta do this the hard way, I don't see any other way.


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 04:02:53 PM EST
    He would.  

    No, kdog (1.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 04:36:45 PM EST
    Like Vietnam the Lefties who used it to attack Bush, even Tracy who you would think would support the military, sent a clear signal to the "rebels," and I use that word guardedly, that we would give up and leave.

    And that they would lose the battles but win the politics.

    Obama cast it in concrete when he refused to give the military the troops they asked for in Afghanistan and told the Taliban when we would leave.

    The single most stupid thing any President has ever done.

    What can we do now?? Short of calling up the reserves and flat out destroying the ME groups causing the problem, nothing but....

    Wait for the next "9/11" to happen. The only question is where the dirty nuclear bomb will go off.


    You just (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 04:50:11 PM EST
    stated why the GOP cannot be in control of foreign policy again. They don't realize what the problem is. Criticizing Bush didn't cause this. Plenty of people predicted this would happen before we went in there even a lot of Republicans. The fact that Bush wouldn't listen and lied to the public to get us in there is not the problem of the average American. I'm glad to know that 80% of Americans are "lefties".

    You just simply cannot handle the fact that it is bad policy. It's easier to make excuses and blame someone else instead of realize the policy is bad and just never would have worked.

    If we all had sat around and clapped louder it would have not been successful. And if you believe criticism caused the problems then you have to blame the GOP for their criticism of Obama for the current problems.


    You are forgetting why we went in. (1.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 05:17:06 PM EST
    Although you won't admit it, Bush had every reason to go in to Iraq.

    Now even Obama has told us that the war in Iraq was won.

    Was he wrong?



    Poor Jim (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 05:21:56 PM EST
    Must hurt horrible

    Bush definitely "had every reason (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 05:23:54 PM EST
    to go into Iraq," but please specify why, in your opinion, he was justified him in ordering our military to invade Iraq?

    Good grief??!!! (1.00 / 1) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 05:34:54 PM EST
    You seem to forget that all of the world's major intelligence agencies thought Iraq had WMD's...

    Should Bush have ignored that??

    You make a fine Monday morning quarterback.


    Soooooo easy (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 09:10:28 PM EST
    You seem to forget that all of the world's major intelligence agencies thought Iraq had WMD's...

    Jim, you need to come up with some new winger myths.  You keep going back to the same, old fairy tales that are so easy to debunk.


    No, no, no (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 09:36:05 PM EST
    I have personally shown you at least twice the cites to Hans Blix's UN Reports issued prior the invasion that showed no WMD and complete cooperation by Iraq.

    You just won't believe your eyes.

    You believe in fantasy.


    fantasy.. (none / 0) (#121)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 12:56:21 PM EST
    seven days of creation..no man-made greenhouse gases..Vietnam was "winnable"..

    In psychoanalysis they call that a delusion constellation.


    Bush (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 06:02:20 PM EST
    lied us into Iraq. I know you and your fellow conservative travelers cannot accept that. Sadaam was not building nuclear weapons. He had no WMDs and Bush was told ten days after 9/11 Saddaam had no connection to 9/11 yet Bush continued to lie to you and everybody else that Saddam had ties to Al Queda. I understand you're fine with being lied to. Fine. No problem. That's your business. I really could care less. The facts aren't going to stop you from your Bush apologia. I get it.

    Heh hehe (1.00 / 1) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 09:00:49 PM EST
    You have no proof.

    All you have is made up nonsense.

    OTOH we have Obama on video telling lie after lie after lie.


    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 09:11:15 PM EST
    for proving my point. I knew you couldn't handle the truth and you just proved it.

    Not surprising that 676% of Republicans think we actually found WMD's in Iraq.

    Yeah, I know Bush was a moron.


    Whatever Bush was (1.00 / 1) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 12:44:19 PM EST
    millions had jobs that are now unemployed.

    And you have no evidence of your claim.

    OTOH we know that the current work force participation is at the 1976 level.....



    Ironically (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 12:55:26 PM EST
    Obama has created more jobs than Bush did in 8 years. So the facts don't back you up but again, I'm sure what you are saying resides as actual facts in the right wing bubble.

    MKS and other people have shown you link after link after the link and you refuse to read them and continue to deny the facts and then when another person realizes you're not going to read any of the links you "have no evidence". It's just a game to you. You keep moving the goal posts around making excuses for George W. Bush. Fine. You think he's Jesus or something. No facts or any links are going to change your mind. It's like trying to talk to a Moonie.


    So the war was a disguise for job creation? (none / 0) (#117)
    by Angel on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 12:46:42 PM EST
    What will you come up with next?

    He drove the economy off a cliff (none / 0) (#137)
    by Yman on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 08:26:05 PM EST
    You're just ridiculous, Jim. (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 05:55:16 PM EST
    What's happening is the inevitable fallout of the previous administration's reckless decision to invade Iraq in 2003 and overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein, without doing any contingency planning for what was to follow.

    The government set in place afterward was the Bush administration's jury-rigged attempt to hand off responsibility for the country, and wash its hands of a self-inflicted clusterphuque. That government never enjoyed popular support. Its imminent collapse should therefore hardly come as a surprise, even if the speed at which it's apparently taking place arguably might be.

    That said, President Obama is no more to blame for Baghdad's soon-to-be fate, than was President Ford to blame for the fall of Saigon and South Vietnam in April 1975. In fact, Obama would do well to emulate Mr. Ford's example, and pay no mind to the mindlessly clucking chickenhawks who are presently urging him toward American re-intervention in Iraq. They're idiots and morons who've learned nothing for our country's dubious experience there.

    The Iraq War is over, Jim, and it's time for you to face the fact that we lost. Deal with it like a mensch, rather than whining about it like a petulant child.

    You still want to seek blame, them I strongly suggest that you go to your hall closet, pull out the pom-poms you were waving when George W. Bush landed on that aircraft carrier -- codpiece and all -- to prematurely declare "Mission Accomplished" in May 2003, carry them to your living room and place them on your coffee table.

    Then, sit down and take a good, hard and long look at those pom-poms, lying there flat and lifeless on that table, a sad metaphor for the nearly 5,000 Americans who lost their lives in a war that was commenced under patently false pretenses.

    Because to be perfectly frank and honest, buddy boy, you and your know-nothing kind are wholly to blame for what's happened in Iraq, and nobody else.

    Because both you and those fools you ensconced in the White House simply refused to listen to people who were actually in the know, and to be honest with both yourselves and the country as a whole.

    Look at the multitude of evidence undercutting your specious claims about WMD in Iraq, which served as the U.S. pretext for invasion. Hans Blix and the UN inspection team uncovered much of that evidence well before the order was ever given to march to Baghdad. They said both publicly and often that there was no there there. You simply refused to listen.

    So, you wingbats got exactly what you asked for, and all the resultant blood that was shed is on YOUR hands, and not mine.

    Next time, don't be so friggin' ignorant and obtuse when it comes to risking our children's lives -- and in the future, YOUR grandchildren's lives as well -- on a speculative whim turned grandiose folly. Because when all's said and done, one's ego is never a very good rationale for war.

    Aloha, as in "adios."


    Oh hooey, Donald (1.00 / 1) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 08:59:21 PM EST
    I repeat.

    Obama has had 6 years.

    He has destroyed our foreign policy in the ME.

    Of course Billary helped.

    As for the rest of your insults, guess what I am thinking you can kiss.


    In the bubble (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 09:12:21 PM EST
    I'm sure all this is true. Oh, yeah, Donald forgot to leave out the tea party talking point of how Saddam hit his weapons in Syria. ROTFLMAO.

    The U.S. is not there (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 11:09:19 PM EST
    So we did not get caught with our pants down.

    This is now a war (again) between Shia and Sunni.

    More specifically, this is between Iran and Al Qaeda?  Do we want to get in the middle of that fight?


    Obama is president (none / 0) (#98)
    by Slado on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 10:46:36 AM EST
    He failed to negotiate a status of force agreement.

    He has been continually supplying weapons and training to the Iraqi military even after we left.

    So this is his mess.

    When we pulled up stakes and left a weak government and military in our place we created a power vacuum.   ISIS is filling it.

    I find the picture of Bush humorous.  Why not the pictures of Jay Carney and Obama bragging that Iraq is a foreign policy success story?   Those words seem silly now don't they?

    There is plenty of blame to go around but Obama ran for president knowing Iraq was an issue.   He inherited an Iraq recently made better after the surge.   His job was to get us out and leave it is some semblance of order.

    He failed.

    It's perfectly reasonable to argue that we should have never been there but too late for that.

    Also what about Hillary?  She now has two strikes against her on Iraq.    She wanted to go to war and her state department worked with Obama to leave this mess in place.   Great job Hillary.

    At some point you need to recognize that Obama is president and responsible for something.   It has been 6 years and he is responsible for how we left Iraq and what is happening to it.

    I would get tired if I was an Obama apologist constantly making excuses for him.  

    The only logical argument is we don't care.   We had to leave and if they kill each other it's not our problem.   That is fine but what's happening now is a direct reaction to the choices made by this administration.

    Not the last one.   Does anyone think if Bush was still president this would be happening?   Of course it wouldn't.   Instead the screams would be about why we still have 15K troops in Iraq.

    More lies (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Yman on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 08:30:57 PM EST
    The US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement 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.

    Don't like it?  Send a note to your guy GWB and thank him for selling the war on lies, invading Iraq and then establishing the withdrawal that you have the issue with.


    Bush signed it, sure... (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by unitron on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 07:49:25 AM EST
    ...but all those deadlines were scheduled for after Inauguration Day, 2009, so obviously it's all Obama's fault.

    Just ask any right winger.


    So NOW you remember the SOFA (none / 0) (#111)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 12:21:40 PM EST
    We left on Bush's timeline.  We broke their military Slado.  How were they supposed to defend themselves in the region if they were indeed going to be a democracy?  We had to leave them equipment.

    Remember why Obama rejected the SOFA though?  Let's see if you can remember or google or something.


    I know all about the excuses (1.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Slado on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 01:36:09 PM EST
    people are making for him.

    I also know that he didn't try very hard to get the deal we needed.   He wanted out and we got out.  Simple as that.

    Look.  Obama is giving us the Iraq policy he campaigned on and he promised.  I just wish people wouldn't act like what's happening now isn't because of his policy choices.

    Defend the chaos.  Defend the choices.   No matter what happens the goal was to get out of there and we succeeded.

    Obama being Obama he can't simply do that.  He has to talk of supporting the government, now maybe send in some drones or airstrikes, blah, blah, blah....International coalition, blah, blah blah...you get the point.

    Just say we don't care what happens in Syria, Iraq, Crimea you name the war zone and leave it like that.   Stop pretending you care when you don't.  


    Complete bull$hit (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 08:21:29 PM EST
    Bush broke, deliberately destroyed, the institutions that created Iraqi unity.  Maliki and the majority of the existing new Iraqi leadership would not agree that infractions committed by US forces would be handled by our leadership.  We have NO forces in any country and allow them to administer justice to our troops.

    Maliki couched his inability to agree to a sane SOFA by saying he could not defy the demands of Muqtada Al-Sadr and his brigades because it would create too much violence.

    My President was and is strong and decisive.  He would never be able to repair Bush's piece of $hit he was handed.  We tortured Iraqis under Bush.  We tortured and murdered people who never did anything to us and we knew they hadn't. You don't repair that, it can't be repaired in our lifetimes.  And you don't destroy your existing military when the nation is handed over to your care

    There is no way to redeem yourself to people after you have done to them what Bush had our troops do to Iraq.  You are never welcome there.  You are never trusted there.  

    I don't know why you freakshow Conservatives act like nothing happened over there that you couldn't force the people to accept.  I do know one thing.  You didn't serve over there, Jim didn't , Wile didn't....you are all chickenhawks.

    I don't give a $hit what you think because critical thinking is not your forte.  If you want Americans to fix this though I guess it starts with you, get your a$$ over there and fix it or STFU.


    NYT's (none / 0) (#124)
    by Slado on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 02:03:08 PM EST

    A lot of revisionist history going on these days.

    As this article shows Obama didn't really have his heart in leaving anybody there.

    This quote is enlightening...

    As we reviewed the 10,000 option, we came to the conclusion that achieving the goal of a security partnership was not dependent on the size of our footprint in-country, and that stability in Iraq did not depend on the presence of U.S. forces

    -a senior Obama administration official said.

    Obama wanted out.  Plain and simple.

    Today we see the results.

    Not that he shouldn't have left.  Just acknowledge that the Iraq policy we have now is the Iraq policy he wanted.

    End of story.


    The vast majority of the American ... (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Yman on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 08:33:43 PM EST
    ... people wanted out, having been sold a war and an invasion on false pretenses.  Obama inherited the mess you guys sold and followed GWB's timeline for withdrawal.

    End of story.


    Yes indeed (1.00 / 1) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 06:58:59 PM EST
    And he is showing what he wanted in his latest statements re studying, etc.

    Obama sees the west as a colonialist group and the US as part of that group. Therefore he just wants to let the Muslim groups in the ME do what they want to while he hopes they don't attack us again inside the US.

    But if they do he won't be particularly bothered. We will just be getting what we deserve. Which is a position held by many others on the Left.