Left’s Reaction to Obama’s Iraq Surrender: Triumphalism and Hate

Pages: 1 2

Reaction on the Left to President Obama’s announcement that the remaining 40,000 troops in Iraq would be coming home at the end of the year — with no residual force to counter the Iranian threat — has not been surprising. With a mixture of triumphalism and hate, leftists are celebrating their victory; not over al-Qaeda or the achievement of democracy in a totalitarian prison state, but over their domestic political enemies, while still advocating the prosecution of “criminals” who led the battle to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein.

Despite the fact that George W. Bush has been out of office for nearly three years, there are many on the Left who can’t shake their feelings of loathing and hate for the man who led the nation for 8 years, and who took us to war in Iraq. Bush Derangement Syndrome is alive and well among leftists and it colors their analysis and criticism of the Iraq War to this day.

Perhaps most remarkable of all is the surety with which the Left has pronounced history’s judgment on the war as a universal failure, a blunder, a waste. History doesn’t give out grades before the results are in. And Iraq, as it has been since the beginning, is a work in progress. That progress has been slow at times, but a foundation for democratization has been built in a sea of Islamist totalitarianism. Although not perfect, what we have today is nascent democracy where before there was only mass oppression and killing. For the US, Iraq today serves as a vital strategic asset for America in the Middle East — all now to be given away by Obama to Iran. And the Left applauds.

It is impossible for anyone today to see how the Iraqi experiment will play out over the next few years. Yes, some of the immediate results are not good, even if we had been able to keep a small force garrisoned for a few years. But to believe that this can’t change is to ignore the underlying historical forces that the liberation of Iraq has unleashed. Indeed, dismissing the idea that a struggling democracy on Tehran’s borders doesn’t constitute a threat to the mullahs’ total control is to ignore Iran’s own actions in seeking to destroy the Iraqi government in its cradle. The Saudis, too, were worried enough about contagion from Iraq to spend billions of dollars building a fence to keep the disease out. The Iraqi experiment, consequently, serves as a threat to Islamist totalitarianism in the region and, therefore, serves the interests of America and freedom.

But leftists are not interested in these humanistic endeavors or American achievements — which explains their celebration of Obama’s surrender in Iraq. Successful democracy in Iraq would have meant the discrediting of the Left’s ferocious opposition to the entire operation. In celebrating America’s willing defeat in Iraq, therefore, the Left is cheering the defeat of democracy and security in the fragile, developing country, which makes the progressives’ triumphalism and hate all the more disturbing and hypocritical.

This perversity could not have been more adequately expressed as when radical leftist Tom Hayden gleefully wrote in The Nation that the Iraq decision was a “stunning…victory for the American peace movement.” Not a victory for Iraq, but for Hayden and his allies. Hayden doesn’t exhibit the slightest concern for a fledgling democracy in need of support to preserve the precious gains it has already made; he shrugs off the reality that the country has been “delivered… to the orbit” of the fanatical, despotic mullahcracy next door. And this is a person who purports to care about human rights.

In “Good Riddance to a Woebegone War,” Paul Pillar, writing at The National Interest, encapsulates the view that history is so judgmental that it renders its verdict with blinders on; he refuses to acknowledge an unknowable future:

The return of the last combat troops from Iraq will be a good time to reflect on the nature and broader consequences of what future historians will regard as one of the biggest blunders in U.S. history. That reflection can consider how a small number of determined advocates of war were able to use the post-9/11 political milieu and scary themes about dictators giving weapons to terrorists to get enough people to go along with their idea. The reflection also can consider the full range of costs and damage to U.S. interests, from the more than four thousand Americans dead and tens of thousands wounded, to the trillions of dollars of direct and indirect fiscal and economic losses, to the tarring of America’s standing abroad and the boost the war gave to America’s extremist enemies.

Much of what Pillar writes is simply untrue. In the first place, it is not clear at all that our “standing abroad” could have gotten much worse than it was before the invasion. Whether we are loved or hated, despite notions of “soft power” to the contrary, the world can’t ignore us and must deal with us as we are, or as we choose to be.

The assumption that history’s judgment, flowing from the immediate past to the immediate future, is set in stone and unchangeable is disingenuous. The last Iraqi election saw a secular, nationalistic party, the Iraqi National Movement, out-poll the coalition of religious parties led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. A party not even in existence for a year had gained two more seats in the Iraqi parliament than Maliki’s coalition, a political power in Iraq since 2004. This was a huge success. Would a future Iraqi government made up of secular parties be able to resist Iranian influence and work to heal the nation’s sectarian divide? Perhaps the better question is: Does Pillar honestly believe that this objective could be better achieved if Iraq is left to twist in the wind?

Pages: 1 2

  • SHmuelHaLevi

    The agreggate losely labeled as "left wingers" include a significant segment of the US population. One would imagine that if the US would come under attack, citizens would be called to arms.
    I would like to know if the general citizen is prepared to trust those people to fight to defend all citizens?

    • Dispozadaburka

      Obama is creating a vacuume which will be filled by either the Iranians or the MB.
      This has all been planned out for a very long time. "(Albert Pike wrote a letter to Guisseppe Mazzi dated August 15 1871, in which he outlined his vision for three world wars that would ultimately bring about one world government."
      All of these seemingly benign random incidents are all in sync with the Mayan Calendar. If one can step away for a moment and look at Obama from a more prophetic stance, he is the "one man"( mentioned in The Lost Book of Nostradamus, History Channel. ) that will bring in the apocalypse. This is supposed to happen when the Saudi King Abdulah dies. When he passes away, Iran will know that it is time to strike Israel.

  • Geneww

    The evil greed for wealth and power rejects all concepts of righteousness and cares less about human suffering and their rights. Evil seeks immediate payoff and rejects the long term price and consequences of the sufferers. The systematic killing and elimination of the Judeo-Christian by the hundreds each day and the influence of the God authored Bible [see one page proof at http://jc.does-it.net is symptomatic of our ‘One World Leaders’. Ungodly reporters will not touch that story for fear of the Godless [Atheist and Muslims] religious. Investigate all related to the Bilderberg’s, Council of Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission who built and runs the UN and it ownership of the One World Bank with its International Monetary fund.

  • PatriotX

    We’ll pay for this and of course it will probably be around the time Obama leaves office, which will never be soon enough. One of the most self destructive habbits politicians have when it comes to foreign policy is the time tables they predict.

    I knew that as soon as Bush set a time table for this operation it was destined for disaster and of course if this, by chance, does blows up while old Barack is in office, him and his constituents will probably blame Bush as usual. How pathetic.

    • Herman Caintonette

      The deal was cut by Bush, and it's not like the natives were protesting in the streets, begging us to stay.

      The blame belongs at the feet of Shrub and the Little Dick.


    So following through on the timeline set by GWB is surrender?
    What should he have done? Left our service members there to be prosecuted under Sharia law?

    You are right in one aspect Bush Derangement Syndrome is alive and well…
    in the sense that those on the right are still deranged about the truth if the Bush presidency.

    • Herman Caintonette

      Very true. They seem to think that the gas out of his tail-pipe smells like rose petals. A cult, even more virulent than the People's Temple.

  • tagalog

    Left, right, or in between, once our leaders decided not to define victory in a way that our armed forces could reasonably obtain, it was time to bring our troops home without delay. We can't win if we aren't willing to close with our enemy and destroy him.

    If we want to be diplomatic and engage in nation-building, send the diplomats, not the troops.

    I think it's a crime to send our armed forces into harm's way unless we're going to define a winnable victory and then fight to win it.

  • Brujo Blanco

    We won in Iraq bit I fear that the left will now surrender to every challenge. They see terrorists as allies. There is a bond between the left and the enemies of this country. Obama as instructed those fighting terrorism not to. Use terms such as Islamist and Jihad. He does not want to offend those that want us dead. How can we protect ourselves from an enemy that we cannot acknowledge?

    • ziontruth

      "We won in Iraq…"

      You didn't and you couldn't. No one could when faced with guerrilla warfare, unless they started believing the land was really theirs to protect, their home to expel all invaders from. It's the 50th anniversary of France's evacuation of Algeria, and that event is instructive.

      The French assigned Algeria—the northern, coastal part of it—a department of France, a province like all its other provinces. De jure, it meant they considered Algeria to be an integral part of France. In reality, they didn't. Why? Because they didn't act like it. If Algeria was considered an integral part of France, what were all those non-French doing there? Just like Israel after 1967, France maintained colonial rule over land they considered an integral part of theirs. That's a foul, because if you consider a land to be yours, the logical thing is to care for its contribution to national cohesion. Colonial-type rule leaves a foreign population on the land, is a statement that you don't believe it's really your land, and sooner or later will have you packing after years of guerrilla warfare.

      If you believe the land is yours, you send all the foreigners packing, then repopulate with your nationals. You might ask how this is relevant to Iraq—after all, the U.S.A. could never consider Iraq to be an integral part of it, right? I agree. What I'm saying is that the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, for all the states involved, distracted them from defending their homelands—where they do have the right, nay, the duty, of repulsing all invader populations.

      Traitors in your midst say the Iraq occupation was immoral. I don't say that. But still I say it was a mistake, not for moral reasons, but for the reason of priorities. When the Islamic imperialists are already within the gates of Vienna (or Paris, or Dearborn, Michigan), sending troops to Constantinople (or Baghdad) is a tad premature.

  • BLJ

    Screw the Left. We need a surge in this country to get rid of them.

    • trickyblain

      "Bring it on."

  • http://www.contextflexed.com Flipside

    You dare call it surrender, you pee wee, when it has been part of the US foreign policy plan all along to remove troops from Iraq? Maybe you need to station yourself there in perpetuity if you feel so strongly that Iraq needs to be occupied forever. No one is stopping you. Go set up your blog in Sadr City.

    • mlcblog

      I don't read your stuff any more.,

  • William Z

    A post-WWII Democrat loses another war. Not surprising.

    • Herman Caintonette

      Bush is a Democrat? News to me.

  • mrbean

    Observe that while Obama and his liberals criticize the Iraq war for killing our troops, they propose no alternative policy that would protect America against Islamic totalitarianism and its state supporters, including the militant, terrorist theocracy of Iran. Liberals’ only policy proposal is that we not take military action in Iraq or in any other country beyond Afghanistan. Why? Because they believe that America has no right to defy the “international community” or “impose its will on the rest of the world”—i.e., to aggressively pursue its self-defense. They, like the conservatives, advocate self-sacrifice in foreign policy. Denying our right to an all-out military defense, liberals say we must engage committed enemies like Iran with endless “diplomacy,” i.e., bribery, appeasement, and inaction. One does not support our troops by keeping them home when their and our freedom requires military action. Our soldiers did not join the military to sit on their hands while Iran prepares for nuclear jihad.

    • trickyblain

      Really? Have you heard from Mr. bin Laden or Mr. Al-Alwaki latey?

      • Herman Caintonette

        Smart power (Obama/Clinton) vs. incredibly dumb power (Shrub/Condo "How could we have known?" Rice). Better to use our power more judiciously.

        It's all about Eretz Yisrael for these clowns. Iran poses no material threat to American interests, and we should be engaging them constructively.

        • ziontruth

          "It's all about Eretz Yisrael for these clowns."

          It's all about the Phakestinians for clowns like you.

          • Herman Caintonette

            It's about morality for me … but to ask a Christian to be moral is like trying to get a pig to sing.

          • ziontruth

            "It's about morality for me…"

            You wouldn't recognize morality if it slapped you in your face.

            "…but to ask a Christian to be moral is like trying to get a pig to sing."

            Orthodox Jew here, but nice to see you're an equal-opportunity hater of anyone who's neither a Deist or a Muslim.

      • BLJ

        You were one of the same liberal morons who chastized GWB for his "dead or alive" comments about Bin Laden. You disingenous libs make me want to puke. Preferably in your pock mocked mark face.

        • Herman Caintonette

          I wanted him alive, so that we could see what really happened behind the scenes in that situation. Our 9-11 Commission was a whitewash, which is usually what happens when people have something to hide.

          What was really odd to me was that bin Laden disclaimed responsibility for the attacks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2J5sMbuhwVo It would not be totally unprecedented for our CIA to fake a confession, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19eVwHAbmRI&fe… ; we even thought of faking a vid depicting Saddam as gay! http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/05/c

          A trial would have quieted all the skeptics and naysayers … which is probably why ST6 assassinated him, when he could have been taken into custody peaceably.

        • trickyblain

          Was I? Can you prduce proof that I "chastized GWB for his "dead or alive" comments "? No?

          That's because you are a lying imbicile.

          Should see a doctor about, not only your nausea, but your delusions about other posters' faces.

  • trickyblain

    Such a joke – if troop withdrawal had occurred under a Republican admin, Rick Moron would be gleefully claiming victory.

    I do wonder what Moron's definition of "victory" is. Is it now something different than was originally stated? Those, goals, thanks to Petraeus, are long accomplished.
    Why does moron keep moving the goalpost?

    Saddam is gone. Iraq has had itself a Sharia-based constitution for over five years (thanks, W!). A permanent presence of American troops is a tremendous strain on our struggling economy. It keeps our troops away from their families for no coherent reason. Does Moron suggest we stay as long as Iranian influence is no longer a possibility? Does Moron understand that if a military presence is required within the borders of an "ally," it might not actually be an ally? Does Moron understand that, as long as Iran borders Iraq, that influence is a possibility, regardless of whether American troops are there or not?

    Moron doesn't care. Moron hates America and hates our troops.

    • Herman Caintonette

      All the columnists are Israel-Firsters, who would sell our country and way of life out in a heartbeat for the greater glory of Eretz Yisrael. See the infamous PNAC report, and you will get a precise idea of what they want the Middle East to be.

      By invading the former Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Afghanistan (while not invading North Korea), we sent a message to every tin-horn dictator in the world: Nuclear weapons are an essential insurance policy as against Western aggression. Thanks to the unhinged mindset expressed by FPMers, Iran has a legitimate reason for acquiring them.

      • ziontruth

        "All the columnists are Israel-Firsters, who would sell our country and way of life out in a heartbeat for the greater glory of Eretz Yisrael."

        All the Democrats and Ron-Paulites are Phakestine-firster, who would sell America and its way of life in a heartbeat for the sake of appeasing the Muslim world on the Jewish State's expense.

        "See the infamous PNAC report,…"

        Shouldn't you be quoting the Protocols instead? For truth about your sources?

        "Nuclear weapons are an essential insurance policy as against Western aggression."

        Yeah. Think about it. Especially when you ask Israel to give up what little land its has to the Arab imperialists, or pony up for your unsolicited extortion, uh, I mean, "foreign aid."

        • Herman Caintonette

          Support for "Israel" is not in our nation's self-interest. David Ben-Gurion admits:

          "Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? "

          The Zionists have STOLEN their country. There is no moral argument that can be made for that. Why should we align ourselves with thieves?

          • ziontruth

            "Support for Israel is not in our nation's self-interest."

            I can agree on that. But, if no support, then no telling Israel what to do either.

            "David Ben-Gurion admits:…"

            None of your business.

            "The Zionists have STOLEN their country."

            No, we haven't stolen our own country, but again, that is none of your business.

            "Why should we align ourselves with thieves?"

            Yes, why indeed should you align yourselves with the Arab imperialists?

  • Herman Caintonette

    At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the SOFA mandating our departure by the end of 2011 was negotiated by George W. Bush. The Iraqis don't want us there, mostly because Shrub and his minions blundered the occupation badly. Why is it "Obama's surrender," and why should we stay where we are not wanted?

    Of course, it is all about Israel for you. Israel uber alles!

    • mlcblog

      I don't read your stuff any more.

      • Herman Caintonette

        But you respond anyway.

        • mlcblog

          That was in error. It won't happen again.

    • ziontruth

      "Of course, it is all about Israel for you. Israel uber alles!"

      It is all about the Phakestinians for you, you neo-Nazi SOAB.

  • bert

    Let's send the troops home. The military must regroup. Think over what military stands for. Why we are trained to fight after diplomacies have failed. Keep the fighting spirit among the Armed Forces. Let's be tough once again and stop being a babysitters for the world or they use to call it…World Police.

    • Herman Caintonette

      Been saying that for decades. I opposed out operations in the former Yugoslavia and the imperial invasion of Iraq. Afghanistan was also ill-advised, as history has proven time and again that it is where empires go to die (see Sun-Tzu for why this was going to be a bad idea). (Support for surgical actions like those taken in Libya is a little easier to grant, since it cost us $1 billion, as opposed to $4 trillion.)

      The world has grown up, and doesn't need America to be its hall monitor.

  • Bukkdems

    I don't see why troops still being stationed in Japan, Germany & Guam don't bother the left, but preserving our gains in Iraq is a bad idea. Obama purposely neglected to negotiate the Sharia law thing because he is a Muslim and wanted a political "victory".

    As the slaughter of our friends in Iraq begins will the left have any pangs of guilt? No.

    My belief is they HAD to undermine our victory in Iraq because Bush could have achieved a legacy so important it would shine for thousands of years. They can't let this happen and they can't give neo-cons credit for the strategy working. That is why Obama withdrew all support for democratic movements in Moslem countries his first week in office and has not lifted a finger to influence the post revolutions. It is a triumph of Satan.

    • Herman Caintonette

      The Germans actually want us there; we're an integral part of NATO. Bush bungled the occupation so badly that we are almost as popular there as Saddam Hussein….

      Guam is an American territory. We could probably do without being in Korea and to a lesser extent Japan and the Philippines, but again, the natives WANT us there, because we didn't screw the pooch like BushCo. Abu Ghraib was not our finest moment….

    • mlcblog

      The left had to do it. They are driven. Bush has no impact on their drive and purpose.

      • Herman Caintonette

        Obama had no choice in Iraq. The agreement was set in stone, and nobody wants us there.

  • Dr. Bukk

    Darling, do you think the Germans, Japanese and Koreans have always embraced our presence? Lord we have more than 6 decades there, and you have no idea how we were hated after WWII and since then, as benign conquerers and builders/investors. When you spend your money and blood to stop murdering despots, do you think no one is grateful?

    Your mistake is to cast all people as an amoeba, no distinctions of opinion. All perfect DNA matching opinions, all hating Bush. There will be a majority of people in Iraq, especially women, who come to revere his interference in the murderous regime of Saddam. They will build statues of GWB in their squares, mark my words.

    • Herman Caintonette

      Not after Abu Ghraib.

  • mlcblog

    Harry Reid is echoing Walter Cronkite in declaring an end to this war we have invested so heavily in. The leftists are so pathetic in their lack of understanding that a great country like ours needs a standing defense because the rest of the world is either trying to get here legally, or they are jealous and aiming for us, or full of hate and trying to take us down, thinking that will make them feel better.

    • Herman Caintonette

      We can't afford it … unless you want to impose a 70% top tax rate and eliminate the tax subsidy for capital gains to pay for it.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    While I’m certainly not a delusional leftist by a long shot, I feel I must point out the undeniable fact that under the GWB administration the Republican Party was morphed into the second coming of the Dhimmicrat Party. Indeed, thanks to GWB, the Republican Party and the Dhimmicrat Party became two sides of the same leftwing coin, as GWB like a Dhimmicrat on steroids and in response to 9/11, doubled the size, scope and power of the federal government, as if growing government and increasing its power is the solution to all that ails up, while at the same time pursuing two nation-building missions in Afghanistan and Iraq that not only couldn’t have been more fantasy based and counterproductive, but were also preordained to fail even before they were ever implemented because they were based on false PC multicultural fantasies, myths, and assumptions.

    Thus, when the left calls for holding those responsible for engineering the two greatest strategic blunders ever in the history of America, as GWB and his administration irrefutably did, I must support them. Not because I agree with them ideologically or suffer from unhinged Bush Derangement Syndrome, but because the problem with the USA is no one is ever held responsible for their dereliction of duty. Indeed, how many people have been prosecuted for the financial meltdown? Unless we start holding these people accountable for their major disasters, we will only continue encouraging people to be incompetent.

    Hence, by the same token I also want to hold BHO accountable for the economic damage he is wrecking on the economy and for his incredibly naïve and self-destructive foreign policy. Indeed, what’s wrong with holding people responsible for their major strategic blunders? As a matter of fact, thanks to both GWB and BHO, the country is teetering on the precipice of bankruptcy and rapid decline. I mean if they are both mutually responsible for destroying our American way of life for us along with our children and grandchildren, then by all means they both should be held accountable.

    And Iraq, as it has been since the beginning, is a work in progress.

    Only a Wilsonian neo-con masquerading as a conservative could say something so utterly absurd and foolish. Indeed, if this loon writer believes that a Sharia state will be a loyal friend and ally of the USA and the West, then I have a refurbished bridge I need to sell him. As a matter of fact, president Karsai said earlier this week that in the event the US goes to war with Pakistan, Afghanistan would go to war with the USA. Just how blinded by PC multiculturalism can this Wilsonian neo-con masquerading as a conservative be? Indeed, he embodies everything that is wrong with the Republican Party today.

    That progress has been slow at times, but a foundation for democratization has been built in a sea of Islamist totalitarianism. Although not perfect, what we have today is nascent democracy where before there was only mass oppression and killing.

    Let me spell it out for this unhinged loon, Western-style democracy in the Islamic world is absolutely impossible as the freedoms and liberties it embodies leaves the door wide open for its demise, as Islam does not tolerate any other forms of governance. Not only that but because Sharia has been enshrined as the ultimate source of law in both Afghanistan and Iraq’s respective constitutions, those respective governments for all intents and purposes always have been Sharia states. In fact, those two governments were never ever democracies to begin with as democracy encompasses far more than just holding democratic elections. Hell, just the notion of creating liberal democracies in the Islamic world was incredibly fantasy-based and also a measure of how incredibly blinded by false PC multiculturalism and incompetent the GWB administration obviously was.

    Indeed, I believe the writer of this lame garbage is so naïve and blinded by false PC multicultural fantasies, myths, and assumptions himself that he also assumes the so-called Arab Spring will lead to a new age of democracy and freedom sprouting in the Islamic world like fellow Wilsonian neo-cons masquerading as conservatives such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if those morons believe the Arab Spring is the inevitable outcome of GWB’s so-called “War on Terror,” and never mind the fact that terrorism is a product of Western civilization only and jihad, which is holy fighting in the cause of Allah against unbelievers to make Islam supreme, is a product of Islamic civilization only.

    For the US, Iraq today serves as a vital strategic asset for America in the Middle East — all now to be given away by Obama to Iran. And the Left applauds.

    Par for the course, the Wilsonian neo-cons plan to blame Obama and the Left for their preordained inevitable failures of Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, I have no doubt that the Left is applauding those failures because they hate America, Republicans, and GWB, while I, on the other hand, am rolling my eyes because those Wilsonian neo-cons are refusing to accept the responsibility for their own strategic blunders while trying to cast off the blame to the Left and Obama.

    It is impossible for anyone today to see how the Iraqi experiment will play out over the next few years.

    Not really. Some of us who haven’t been blinded by PC multiculturalism have been pointing the inevitable out for years now and when we did, we were not only attacked by the Left, but also by Wilsonian neo-cons like the writer.

    Now I’m not a delusional Leftist, thus I don’t believe the Bush lied and Americans died mantra that the Left incessantly screams. However, at the same time it couldn’t be anymore obvious to me that the Wilsonian neo-cons were and still are incredibly blinded by false PC multicultural fantasies, myths, and assumptions.

    • Herman Caintonette

      It was working pretty well in Iran back in the fifties … so well, that the government was actually acting for the people's benefit, instead of the oil companies'. And we couldn't let THAT happen, now could we?

      Bush did lie. And young Americans did die as a result. How can that be denied? Even Bill Buckley changed his position before he died.

      As General Powell pointed out, you break it, you own it. Whatever happens there is blood on the Shrub's bumbling hands. The guy who traded away Sammy Sosa and couldn't find gas in the Emirates shows once again that his primary competency is incompetency.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        It was working pretty well in Iran back in the fifties … so well, that the government was actually acting for the people's benefit, instead of the oil companies'. And we couldn't let THAT happen, now could we?

        I hate to rain on your unhinged kook parade, but you have obviously had your ignorance's exploited to the hilt. Indeed, only a moonbat that is dumb enough to swallow what is old KGB propaganda lock, stock, and barrel could be mentally handicapped enough to regurgitate that idiotic garbage.

        Bush did lie. And young Americans did die as a result. How can that be denied? Even Bill Buckley changed his position before he died.

        With respect to the lead up to the Iraq war, the answer is GWB never lied period as the left dishonestly pretends. Now that is not to say that he wasn't blinded by PC multiculturalism, because he was. Of course, had he not been blinded by PC multiculturalism he never would have occupied Iraq or Afghanistan for that matter to pursue two silly fantasy based and extremely counterproductive and futile nation-building missions to win the hearts and minds of Muslims and to spread democracy in the Islamic world, both of which are absolutely impossible in any event, and instead he would have ousted the ruling Mullahs of Iran and taken out Pakistan's nuclear weapons arsenal and nuclear weapons program.

        Additionally, had GWB not been totally blinded by PC multiculturalism the same way you are also, by the way, instead of doubling the size, scope, and power of the federal government like a Dhimmicrat on steroids and usurping our freedom of speech and expression and right to privacy at the same time for the purpose of continuing to accommodate mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage, he would have outlawed Islam instead and banned and reversed mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage, and all the people that were killed by jihadist inside America since 9/11 would still be alive and well today and our federal deficits wouldn't be skyrocketing through the roof like they are as well.

        With respect to Bill Buckley, he never cited Bush lied people died, which is the mantra of mentally deficient moonbats afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome like you. Instead, he claimed that it was stupid to abandon peace through strength and deterrence in favor of silly fantasy-based and extremely counterproductive nation-building missions based on PC multicultural fantasies, myths, and assumptions. Indeed, he stopped supporting the Wars because they both not only ran counter to what had been previous conservative principles but also because they were seriously misguided, fantasy-based, and preordained to fail.

        As General Powell pointed out, you break it, you own it. Whatever happens there is blood on the Shrub's bumbling hands. The guy who traded away Sammy Sosa and couldn't find gas in the Emirates shows once again that his primary competency is incompetency.

        With all due respect, Colin Powell is a thoroughly incompetent and unhinged leftwing moonbat, and his you break it you own it doctrine is one of the most absurd, self-defeating, and self-hating stupidities I've ever heard in my life. Indeed, prior to GWB, who morphed the Republican Party into the second coming of the Dhimmicrat Party and also into the second side of a two sided leftwing coin, peace through strength and deterrence had been America's defense policy. Indeed, had GWB not abandoned peace through strength and deterrence in favor of Colin Powell's you break it you own it defense policy, the two biggest strategic blunders ever in American history in Afghanistan and Iraq would have been totally avoided altogether. Hence, that moronic moonbat Colin Powell deserves a lot of the credit for both of those two biggest strategic blunders ever in American history. Hence, I'm not surprised you idolize that moron!

        • Herman Caintonette

          ObamaYo: "With respect to the lead up to the Iraq war, the answer is GWB never lied period as the left dishonestly pretends."

          Here's a quick chart: http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/22_li…. What kind of drugs are you ON? Have you broken into Limbaugh's medicine chest? The government that gave us the Gulf of Tonkin and almost Operation Northwoods always tells the truth, right? See also, When contemplating war, beware of babies in incubators, Christian Science Monitor, http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p25s02-cogn.ht

          BushCo sold us a for-profit war through fraudulent claims, just as his daddy did for Gulf War I. Vietnam was the product of LBJ (it's bipartisan), and even the Mexican-American War was probably incited by government fraud (that's where Abraham Lincoln got the nickname "Spotty" Lincoln. Cheney used the mushroom cloud and general fear of Muslims engendered by 9/11 to get his for-profit elective resource war. Goebbels explains how it works:

          "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

          OYo: "With respect to Bill Buckley, he never cited Bush lied people died,

          Buckley was too articulate for that. What he did say was what a lot of principled conservatives were also saying, even before the invasion. Conservative Sam Francis elaborates:

          "With the benefit of minute hindsight," he told the Times, "Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war."

          That makes Mr. Buckley as much of an "unpatriotic conservative," by Mr. Frum's standards, as Pat Buchanan, Joe Sobran, Chronicles magazine, Robert Novak, me or any of the other unusual suspects he lumped into the unpatriotic category.

          The only difference is that we didn't have to wait until more than 800 Americans and an untold number of Iraqis were dead, billions of dollars wasted, and half the planet despising us to know what would happen. "

          You didn't need a PhD in Middle Eastern Studies to see that this one was a train-wreck just waiting to happen.

        • WilliamJamesWard

          OYM we must not forget that Colin Powell was Bush Sr's. guy and raised
          up by him to high government position. Presiident Bush the elder is quoted
          as desiring a one world government. He parceled out the NAFTA
          agreement and on top of the sending off shore much of American
          business and presided over the destruction of the American economy in
          favor of a World economy in which we are seeing the end result, a tear
          down and a build up on the way favoring the elites who have taken away
          our liberty and freedom. Our political class has sold us out and how they
          expect to thrive in the new World I can not tell but destroying our
          wealth via Obama, the Obama Bush and the Republicans gave us
          and who is the other half of the coin of blame and gladly is so has
          another year to subvert and destroy the Nation. Congress plays lip
          service while being complicit, it is probably to late for anyone to turn
          us around before we sink in the slime of leftist disorder…………William

  • mlcblog

    Thank you, Mr. Moran, for the rundown on what the hippie leftist folks are saying (that they have always said). So predictable.

    • Herman Caintonette

      Moron doesn't travel in that crowd.

      What they are saying is that Iraq is and was Bush's tar baby, that THE SOFA BUSH SIGNED dictated that we leave Iraq by 12/31/11, and that traitors like Daniel Pipes got us into it in the first place.

      And they are right.

  • BS77

    Just read some 13 US troops killed in Afghanistan by a ….guess what?….suicide car bomber….How many thousands of US young men and women have died in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the bestial MIddle East? How many more are injured for life, languishing in hospitals….it's horrible….a crime against their honor….to now see us summarily withdraw and watch as the rotten Taliban takes over again, as civil war breaks out between Sunni and Shia in Iraq. Please help our troops by contributing to CSAH and other charities who support the wounded veterans.

  • Abdul Ameer

    Indeed, our venture in Iraq was one of the greatest blunders in American history. It was right to overthrow Saddam. He was a threat to our interests, and the world is better off without him. But, it was WRONG for us to try to remake Iraqi society. What have we achieved for the tremendous price we have paid in American lives and wealth? We have turned Iraq into an Islamic state which has made life hell for Iraq’s Christian minority. By putting the Shiites in power in Iraq, we have made Iraq into an ally of The Islamic Republic of Iran. This is success??? It is a disaster. After overthrowing Saddam, we should have gotten out and let the chips fall where they may. Both the Iraqi Sunni Moslems and the Iraqi Shiite Moslems are our enemies; and we should have let them fight it out among themselves. Our only interest in Iraq was to prevent Iraq from becoming an international threat; and we can always go back in from the air if we need to do so. There is no way that a Moslem society can ever be remade into a democracy as we understand the term. We have paid an enormous price for trying to do so, and we have failed. The sooner we get out, the better.

  • N. Albert

    The biggest blunder in 100 years was when Carter betrayed the Shah of Iran, and installed Ayahtolla Khomeini. Essentially, he opened Pandora's Box by validating Islamo-fascism.
    The attempt by Bush to overturn thousands of years of depravity by empowering 26 million women with constitutional protection and giving 50 million Muslims the vote should NEVER be denigrated. It was a gamble which could have paid off in terms so laudable they are not even describable. And it would have actually happened except Obama and democrats could never let it happen.
    It would cement Bush as a great leader and deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize.

  • Reshhia

    I wanted him alive so we can see what really happened behind the scenes in this situation. Our 9-11 Commission was a whitewash, which is usually what happens when people have something to hide. http://www.dailytalkblog.com/

  • Flowerknife_us

    The Left hated the idea of democracy in Icrap and afcrapistan. But love it in all the rest of the muslim countrys. Americans leaving Icrap now only plays into the current trends of establishing theocratic muslim states-only at the opposite end of the islamic sprectrum.

    The sanctions on Icrap were desolving by a tidal wave of bribery by Saddam. The leftists UN were bought off. Then Bush p-ssed off the bribed by a coalition of the un bribed

  • paul

    I am an independent. These two wars have been going on long enough. we
    are sacrificing our "precious " blood and our money( in the form of a loan)
    to fight two wars which we cannot afford. In the meantime, we are borrrowing
    about 40 cents to the dollare on our federal budget. Furterhmore, the cost of
    caring for troops with PTSD will cost millions. How about the cost of replacement
    for those worn-out equipments and air planes after the war. Should we borrow
    more money from China to replace them. My suggestion is to get out now.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    We can stay in Iraq, we can return to Iraq in force any time and as a matter of fact
    we can go anywhere we want with force and destroy those who attack us. Our
    problem is that those who we elect to high office are not on America's side, they
    work for the top 5% of monied and power mad world potentates, our Congress
    is down hill from the thrones of power and will not support our Constitution and
    serve the American citizenry, we are being disolved as a Constituional Nation
    and formed into a lunatic bin of competing Communist and Socialist agendas
    but still in the destructive aspect of our downfall. Leftism is like a cancer spread
    throughout our body public, a leftist subversive for every third citizen, they
    have done their job in our schools, churches and all associations. A second
    American Revolution is all that is left to Americans and that not forthcoming
    a Republic of the big banana, chaos, look around we are half done……….William

  • mj

    Iran will always have influence in iraq but if saddam was in power it would be tens times worse. Iraq is better off even with a muddy democracy the iraq forces now working on their new air force with us not iran. Iraq is not a threat to the world anymore talk to the people on face book who cam say what they want without having their familys killed or worse as weve seen saddams rape and tourture black sites. The awakening picked us over the extremist this movement is stronger today the Iraq forces did a great job at the iran meetings with security they are buying their own airforce and drones from the usa violence is much lower than 07 to 2010 and the people of iraq can chose their own future which they could not under saddam then under his sons and their sons. Millions upon millions would have died under this dynasty of dictators. The forces we put in place stand stronger dont let gop campaign tactics scare you I don’t like obama at all but for the gop to say obama lost iraq is false Iraq is and will be much better off than under 100 years of the husseins thanks to our troops one of the worlds worst threats TO human life is gone and an enemy is now more friend than foe. The truth is only time will tell but past is the best indicator for the future so far so good for the forces we created after our withdrawl

  • Herman Caintonette

    "I will start with the most recent polling. In March of this year ORB conducted a poll for the British Channel 4, asking Iraqis what they would like to see happen with the Multinational Forces. Seventy percent said they want the Multi National Forces to leave, with 78 percent of this group wanting them to leave within six months or less and 84 percent within a year."
    http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/h… (Jul. 23, 2008).

    When the deal was cut, 80% of Iraqis wanted us gone. Why should the diplomats cut a new deal, when public sentiment was so firm?

  • trickyblain

    They key difference, of course, being that their population wants us there, or is indifferent to their presence.