Obama’s Iraq Surrender

IRAQ-articleLargeAfter almost a century of existence, the borders that form the modern Mideast nation states appear to be on the verge of disintegration. Part of the driving force behind this meltdown, as observers are beginning to acknowledge, is of course the intractable sectarian war in Syria. But a far bigger part of the picture is the accelerating destabilization of Iraq. The breakdown of Iraq, with its far-reaching regional ramifications, is attributable in no small part to President Obama’s abandonment of the U.S.’s mission in the country, a betrayal committed in total defiance of the military establishment’s recommendations, which squandered the hard-won victory handed down by President Bush. As predicted, our precipitous withdrawal has left the once pacified nation riven with sectarian strife, primarily among Sunni and Shia Muslims and the Kurds. As the region descends, the consequences of Obama’s folly are only becoming more obvious: a nation that once stood a chance at being a source of stability in the region is instead rapidly becoming its maelstrom.

In 1916, Sir Mark Sykes of Britain and Georges Picot of France signed a secret agreement, with Russia’s approval, to dissolve the Ottoman Empire. The Sykes-Picot agreement was concerned with creating Middle East spheres of influence for France and Great Britain following their victory in WWl. The League of Nations facilitated the mandates over the territory captured by both nations. France got Syria and Lebanon, and Britain got Iraq. The agreement also separated the British mandatory Palestine, known by its Arab residents prior to WWI as “Surya al-Janubiyya” (Southern Syria), from the French mandatory of Syria to the north. For its approval of the deal, Russia received territory that eventually became Turkey.

Thus, the artificial borders of five countries were established. In the ensuing years, two critical realities were also realized: in Syria, the Alawite minority, the sect to which current president Bashar Assad belongs, was granted power over the Sunni majority. In Iraq, the Sunni minority was empowered at the expense of the Shi’ite majority. In other words, borders created to satisfy European sensibilities largely ignored the realities of historic ethnic, tribal and sectarian divisions. these divisions were exacerbated by the rise of dictators, tyrants and Arab monarchs who maintained power after the French and British withdrew in the middle of last century.

It is those divisions that are now asserting themselves.

The current flashpoint involves the 370 mile border separating Iraq from Syria. The civil war on the Syrian side has drawn everyone in the region into the conflict. On the Shi’ite side, troops from Iran and their Lebanese-based proxy, Hezbollah, have aligned themselves with Bashar Assad. Troops from Saudi Arabia and Qatar are fighting on the side of the rebels, along with elements of al Qaeda. Turkey also has Sunni allies in Syria, but their main ambition appears to be separating Kurdish elements from both Syria and Iraq, because they have made peace with the Kurdish rebels within their own borders, and are seeking to expand their regional influence as a result.

Then there is Russia. They have proposed a “peace” conference scheduled for June 15-16 in Geneva, Switzerland, as an attempt to end the two years of fighting in Syria. Yet their motives are profoundly transparent, as evidenced by the reality that they have reportedly shipped anti-aircraft S-300 rockets to Assad. This move preempts any effort by Western nations to establish a “no-fly” zone over Syrian airspace (an idea the Obama administrated toyed with, but never followed through on), thereby tipping the balance of power in Assad’s favor. Yet more importantly, it establishes that Russia’s position at the peace conference will be an effort to dictate post-war terms, with the intention of keeping Assad in power. Since rebel forces consider this completely antithetical to their ambitions, the fighting will undoubtedly continue.

The most likely outcome of that fighting is a stalemate leading to the breakup of Syria into three mini-states, respectively controlled by Kurds, Sunnis and Alawites. Since most of the Alawites live in the coastal corridor that includes Damascus, even this seemingly chaotic scenario accrues to Russian interests. They maintain an influence in the region, and they will still have their naval base in Tartous.

On the Iraqi side of the border, the developments are even more ominous. Despite being largely ignored by the American media, the disintegration of Iraq is continuing rapidly. The deaths of 700 Iraqis killed in sectarian violence throughout the country in April represents the largest number of casualties in the last five years. In the northern part of Iraq, the province of Iraqi Kurdistan has, for all intents and purposes, dissolved its ties with the Shia-dominated government of Nouri al-Maliki in Baghdad. They are in the process of cutting autonomous deals with international oil companies, and next September a new pipeline will carry oil from Kurdistan to Turkey linking them to their Kurdish brethren in that region. In the process they have ignored U.S. opposition to any oil exports “without the appropriate approval of the Iraqi federal government.”

Iraqi Sunnis, who held a vise-like grip on power during the days of Saddam Hussein, have little incentive to remain united with the current government either. In late April, after Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) opened fire on Sunni protesters in Hawija, Kirkuk, killing 20 and wounding over 100, Sunni tribal militia began mobilizing against the government. Several clashes between the ISF and the militias have taken place, with thousands of tribe members in Kirkuk and Salah ad-Din vowing to seek revenge. Other clashes have broken out in the Anbar provice cities of Ramadi and Fallujah as well. In Mosul, protesters demanded a withdrawal of government forces.

Furthermore, the efforts of Sunni leaders to maintain ties to the Maliki government have undermined their credibly with their constituents, who see them as sellouts to a regime that has consistently ignored the concerns of Sunnis. Many Sunnis are convinced that Maliki is intent on establishing a “Shi’ite crescent” in conjunction with Iran. The Sunni counterweight to that reality is their alliance with Sunni rebels in Syria. That effectively obliterates the Syrian-Iraqi border, and establishes the possibility that they will precipitate a civil war with Maliki to realize a separate state comprised of Sunnis from both nations.

In a column for the Washington Post, former Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker explains that the battle in Hawija represented a critical turning point in the effort to keep Iraq united. Yet far more importantly, he inadvertently reveals the fecklessness of President Obama’s politically motivated and premature withdrawal of American troops from the country. “Al-Qaeda in Iraq has already begun to reestablish itself in areas that Iraqi and U.S. forces cleared at enormous cost over the past five years,” he writes.

And Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda in Iraq’s front group in Syria, is attempting to hijack the secular resistance to Syrian President Bashar al­Assad. These developments threaten not only to unravel the gains made since 2007, but also to energize the forces of violent extremism in the heart of the Arab world, already burning in Syria.

Crocker further notes the current Sunni-Shi’ite confrontation is reminiscent of the one which occurred in 2006 that precipitated the troop surge so vehemently opposed by Obama and the Left. Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) declared that the war in Iraq was “lost” before the troops even arrived in country. Yet Crocker notes that, as a result of the hard-won security established by those troops, “Sunni and Shiite leaders opted to resolve their differences through accommodation rather than through violence.” He believes the current impasse can be resolved by “a sustained, high-level diplomatic effort.” Yet absent the presence of U.S. troops to add weight to that diplomatic effort, such a prescription appears hopeless.

On Friday, October 21, 2011, President Obama, in a statement similar to the one he made last week regarding the war on terror in general, “declared” that the war in Iraq was over. “I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year,” Obama said. “After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over.” In doing so, he ignored the advice of military commanders who insisted a minimum of 20,000 troops should be left behind to ensure the stability that America’s fighting forces fought and died to establish. Thus,  Obama has made a mockery of our soldiers’ sacrifices and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory — all so he could placate his leftist base.

The tragic consequences of that decision are unfolding at a rapid pace. A complete — and bloody — realignment of the entire Middle East is occurring, none of which accrues to America’s interests. In the Middle East, the U.S. has traded possible stability for almost certain chaos. As for our new role in shaping events there, it is best described by NY Post columnist Benny Avni. “What are America’s interests in any of this?” he writes. “Doesn’t matter. By opting to sit out, we’ve basically forfeited any say in the outcome.”

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Marti

    The name in Arabic is “Suriyya al-Janubiyya” not “Surya al-Janubiyya”.

    • ziggy zoggy

      I could make the same noise by hawking a loogy but why would I care?

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

        You better be careful or the IRS might audit you….

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

          And join you there?

          No thanks. I bet you have your own 'high temp' thermostat for your own personnel hell.

        • Drakken

          Your liberal tendencies are coming out again.

    • patriothere

      There are a lot of typos in this piece.

      ”I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year,”

      But if this is what Obama really said then lets hop he keeps this promise. We don't need to spend another dime on Iraq or send another troop there. It's none of our business.

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

        Yes, you iranian loyal hacks would love that.

        Thanks to Obama we conquered iraq, when you couldn't and then handed it to you on a preset schedule.

        • EarlyBird

          Oh wait! Now Obama has conquered Iraq? Are you drunk again? In every other post you state that he's "lost Iraq." What is it, troll?

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            I was not stating the fact. Bush conquered Iraq.

            But you fail to realize for the last several days Patriot has been claiming obama deserves all the credit for any victories especially since he took office. He totally ignores Bush so for the sake of emphasis I went with it, not because I agree, but to mock him.

            Like I do with you.

          • patriothere

            bush ruined Iraq.

    • Mary Sue

      Potato, pohtato.

    • welldoneson

      marti, I'm here to tell you that nobody reading this gives a flying fish's fin how it's spelled. or pronounced. besides, you're probably wrong.

      • Power2daPeople

        Such is the mentality of the nitwit neocon ideologues posting here, that a factual correction receives scorn and a net "thumbs down" rating. Pathetic.

        • Drakken

          Look in the mirror Sparky,the names you call people is a direct reflection upon you leftist/progressives, it's called projection, so great job Hunyuk.

        • Mary Sue

          It's not a "factual correction" it's a phonetic correction. The original word does NOT even use the Roman Alphabet, so the objection is moot!

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Nakba2daUmmah,

          I gave you a thumbs down too.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      "Suriyya al-Janubiyya" translates to English as F U Mohammed.

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    Firstly, going into Iraq (to avenge 9/11/01 and then to "democratize" it) was a fool's errand, a waste of American blood and treasure. If anything, Bush should have headed straight into the lion's den via Iran. That being said, there is little doubt that the Islamist-in-Chief created the gateway for Iran's entry into Iraq due to all his "missteps". As a result, Iraq is lost and the ENTIRE Mid East is ablaze, all credit due to his "Arab Spring" and Benghazigate – http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/05/30/war-drums-bla

    Hence, for all time, the Pyromaniac-in-Chief is his new moniker!

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

    • EarlyBird

      What "missteps," you disgusting witch? Getting our troops out of a quagmire? I'll take those "missteps" any day over your preferred "wins."

      It was Bush's disastrous invasion and occupation of that country – which as you are perfectly aware of had NOTHING to do with 9/11 – which destroyed the Sunni control of that country, created a Shia government which is naturally allied with Iran, and which gave Al Queda and other Islamist groups access to the country to begin with.

      You wretched, disgusting liar. May a Hamas rocket hit your house tonight.

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

        He came to office with al qaida hobbled with no major funding or safe haven.
        Obama has done everything possible to reverse that.

        And may you find a lonely goat tonight.

        • EarlyBird

          "He came to office with al qaida hobbled with no major funding or safe haven. Obama has done everything possible to reverse that."

          Oh, you're ridiculous. Pretty much every analyst in the world would disagree with you. They would say that they were doing quite well in Western Pakistan and Afghanistan, until Obama came around and started kicking a$$ with drones, and surging in Afghanistan.

          Stop embarrassing yourself.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Have you heard of a place called Libya?

            You really need better talking points.

        • patriothere

          Obama came to office with a ruined economy a tarnished reputation around the world and he is trying to correct what bush has done. IF you remember bush almost got us into a nuclear war with Russia. That's how bad of a president he was.

        • patriothere

          Obama killed the leader of al quaeda. How is that NOT hobbling al quaeda. That's crippling Al quaeda and that's why he said the war on terror has got to end.

      • Mary Sue

        will you stop hacking on Adina FFS. You're being so nasty and it's really uncalled for.

    • buddy

      You'd be half way right, and half way decent,

      if what you say America should do,
      would be what Israel should be doing.

      You're an Israeli parasite. And I genuinely love Israel.
      and you're out of control

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

        Israel survives, in spite of all the hate against it.
        They have for thousands of years. Who do you think built the lower seven layers of stone in the wailing wall? Not palestinians.

        • buddy

          That's just what Israel doesn't have today, stones!

          Did the texans wait for the comanche to start loving
          their children? Yeah, not really!

          Israel needs to fight and fight harder!

          I love Israel. We owe everything to Israel, all of us.
          The rule of law, and law itself.

          But current day Israelis can go to hell if they don't fight.

          And fight now!

        • patriothere

          israel survives while americans die for it. American patriots will bring down israel.

        • patriothere

          The canannites are the Palestinians ancestors.

    • Snow White

      Bush's strategy was based on the old adage, "If you can't ring the mountain to Mohammed, Bring Mohammed to the mountain." Bush knew that he British, French and Russians had all failed to win a war in Afghanistan because of it's unfriendly terrain which favors guerrillas who hit, run and hide. . The next best thing was to lure the terrorists and jihadist out of their hiding places and to an area where our modern military machinery would be effective. Ergo. We attacked Iraq. We already had reason to go after Saddam Hussein because of his support for, and direct targeting of American leaders. Obama, who apparently doesn't know about history not to repeat others' mistakes, abandoned Iraq and declared War on Afghanistan. Not a single Muslim in the whole Middle East is worth even one of our young people being mutilated and maimed as they are being now., yet Obama is feeding our best and brightest into the Islamic killing machine as fast as he can.

  • http://laptop20134.com/best-laptops-under-500/ james228

    for me i don't support arms struggle in anyway as said, it is waste of resources and lives of our people. and it is a known fact that their are no true victory in war, both parties are victims especially the innocent civilians.

    • ziggy zoggy

      In other words, we should just submit. .

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

      There is true victory when you actually win a war. Obama is determined not to allow us to do that.

      His muslim heritage won't allow it.

      • Jack

        The United States has not won a war since WWII, because Presidents no longer listen to their Generals. The politicians get us into wars, but then think they no more than the military leaders and fall prey to public opinion.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

          I wish I could argue and say you're wrong.

          I'd like to think we are a nation of winners. Sigh….

        • patriothere

          Obama listened to his intelligence officers and put the team together that killed OBL.

          The Syrian civil war is spilling over into Iraq and lebanon. Naturally they are going to defend themselves. Hezbollah and the Syrian government are protecting shiite villages and shiite shrines. Shiite villages and shrines are being decimated by sunni terrorists. As long as the US doesn't intervene. This isn't our fight. Whatever happens in the middle east let it happen. We don't have a dog in this fight.

          • D-Boy

            all obummer did was brag for something he didn't do and gave away national secrets. Just one of a few times Obigbummer was a traitor to America. All those years sitting under Rev wright is paying off for Evil's sake.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Clearly he must have hit a nerve and you jumped in to try controlling the debate.

            He was right and you're a guest hack that can't even have his own profile.

          • patriothere

            He gave the green light.

        • EarlyBird

          Wrong, Jack.

          Living in a democracy means that it will always be "the politicians," i.e., elected representatives, who get us into wars, not generals (thank God) and listening to "public opinion" (thank God).

          We won the Gulf War – a conventional war with limited goals – about as totally as any war can be won.

          The US didn't win WWII alone. Allies gave millions of lives to keep from being enslaved by the Axis. The fate of humanity was literally at stake, and the human cost was appalling.

          We could have started WWIII over Korea but why? We could have "won" Vietnam by dropping nuclear bombs and killing millions and becoming the world's pariah, but why? To what end?

          Not every war is won by applying enough fire power, especially unconventional wars like Afghanistan or Iraq. The generals themselves recognize this.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            We live in a constitutional republic.

            You are as ignorant as a liberal. Oh, you are a liberal? It's all starting to make sense.

            We were the one that made victory in WW2 possible, even if you don't like American exceptionalism.

          • EarlyBird

            Idiot, a "constitutional republic" is a democracy.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            No, it's not. It's rule of law over mob rule.

            For example a republic has an election on illegal immigrants taking public funds for things under programs such as welfare. A republic looks to see if Prop 8 in Claifonria met the constitutional tests. It didn't, the court struck down the election results.

            A democracy would say "The masses have spoken' and the consitution would be meaningless.

            Obama and marxists seem to like democracy as long as they tell us what we're allowed to think.

      • EarlyBird

        Roger, yo pathetic idiot, it was a lost cause to begin with, and we had already "lost" the war in Iraq long before you ever learned the name of Obama. You know this, so shut the f*** up.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

          And did Falluja hold out for long when the politicians got out of the way and allowed them to do their job?

          And Obama has been in my spotlight since his speech to the democrat convention 4 years before Iraq hoped he would interfere for the iranians.

          • EarlyBird

            Sure…And we coulda won Vietnam too if them darn libruls just let us nuke Hanoi! If you just shoot enough people they'll learn to love you.

            Idiot: the people were trying to help over there hate us, or at least deeply suspect us and don't like us. Get it? We can't even define "win," the goals are so amorphous. Alas, when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Not every problem is solved with war.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            We did control 90% of the country when KIssinger started negotiating.

            Facts, you just don't get to control them.

          • Drakken

            When dealing with muslims a hammer always works.

          • Mary Sue

            No, the communists hate you. Even though you were trying to be friends with them.

          • EarlyBird

            The lobotomized love you, Mary Sue.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Upset she's correct?

            You get that way a lot.

      • patriothere

        True victory has clear objectives set out. There is no victory because it is just endless war. Netanyahu, the real leader of the USA said America will be occupying the middle east for 100 years. That's what these zionists have in store for American patriots.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

          There is a clear objective. Survival on our terms.

          Not a clerics.

    • Roelf-Jan Wentholt

      So the Americans and Canadians and British and Australians etc did the wrong thing when they attacked Hitler Germany? Are you out of your mind? With your attitude we in Europe would all be slaves now. Thank you!

      • EarlyBird

        If you actually gathered that from my comments then I can't possibly bother to clarify them to you.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

          You can't clarify if you had to anyhow.

    • Mary Sue

      Sheep who don't struggle get led to the slaughter.

  • Billyb9

    Odd as it seems, the Democrats were the reason for the war in Iraq to continue as long as it had. True be it, the jihadists that wanted to kill Americans headed there instead of the homeland- Containment of the fight where fewest American civilian casualties took place…

    But here is what most fail to look at. Democrats wouldn't sign on to any funding bill- and regularly threatened to leave our troops in that hell hole without funding- if they weren't allowed to strap billions in pork. The Democrats needed that war as their cash cow until they got their super majority after the 2008 elections. Otherwise, knowing how W constantly attempted to get placate the liberals, (George- they're never going to love you… NEVER) they could have easily have convinced him that the war had been won and the troops need to be coming home…

  • digdigby

    2013 and you STILL don't get it? We are at war with ISLAM. Muslims killing each other is the one chance we have been given to win.

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

      It would be nice if the last muslim standing didn't have a nuclear weapons program.

      • patriothere

        All your hate and Muslims are still standing. There are a billion of them so you're gonna have to learn to live with them.

        • gee59

          Or kill them

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Islamofascists are like scorpions in a bottle.

            Let 'em BOTH win.

        • fiddler

          As long as we keep our gourmet cookware locked up.

        • Drakken

          Well Sand ape, it is you muslims that can't live with us, so in that vein of thought, fk yours and love mine.

        • Mary Sue

          I will not be put under sharia.

          • EarlyBird

            "I will not be put under sharia."

            No, honey, you won't. So relax.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            No thanks to you.

            Do you prefer the hajib so you can pretend you see neck and hair?

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          There are more cockroaches than Muslims, and NEITHER will take over the world.

  • Chezwick

    I couldn’t disagree more. Much of the carnage in Iraq would be occurring with or without the presence of American troops. If we were still engaged there, the world would be associating the continued violence with our presence….and Americans would still be squandering its blood and treasure trying to tame a 1400-year-old doctrinal schism (Sunni vs Shia) within Islam that is not only none of our business, but the existence of which actually furthers our interests by dividing the Muslim world.

    Barak Obama has for four years been doing everything in his power to undermine the future of the United States. His withdrawal from Iraq has been perhaps his ONLY policy initiative that actually furthers the interests of the USA. May the civil wars in Iraq and Syria continue on indefinitely….and in the process, dissipate the energies of the Muslim world.

    • Chezwick

      A perfect case in point……this female, American convert to Islam went to Syria to fight on behalf of the opposition. She is now deceased. She'll never perpetrate an act of terrorism against her fellow Americans, she'll never provide support to others who would, and she'll never become a conduit for the conversion of other Americans to Islam.
      http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/31/us-usa-

      The civil wars in Iraq and Syria are consuming the lives and the hatreds of Muslims around the world. This is a good thing.

      • WilliamJamesWard

        I tend to agree but wonder if there could be a way that did not call for continuous bloodshed
        and some draw to peace that has been overlooked. The decent of Iraq back into the
        days of hundreds of people blown up waiting for a bus etc. is very disgusting and it is
        impossible to believe all are guilty and deserving to die. However Iraq went right to
        Sharia and Religious Police, murdering High Schoolers because of western dress,
        stoned to death by the Religious Police, can you imagine that happening here, so I
        say Hell has and antichamber and it is in Iraq with out buildings in Syria, Iran, Afghanistan
        and all other Muslim Nations. I see no other way other than Divine intercession for these
        people to be saved from and intrenched evil that boggles the mind…………….William

        • Chezwick

          I appreciate your point, William. You're obviously a man of compassion….and feel the loss of innocent life is always tragic. In the abstract, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

          I would only say that the non-Muslim world is today facing an existential struggle for its survival against a Muslim world, which is theologically driven to wage holy war. If the theology of Islam mandates that Muslims kill and oppress (as many of us believe it does), isn't it better that they expend their energies killing and oppressing one another, and not us?

          • Stephen_Brady

            I agree with you, Chez. Also, William is a man of compassion, as am I (though I don't sound like it, sometimes). That said, it is much better for them to use weapons supplied by Russia and China against each other, than against us.

            I was for our staying put in Iraq (the "50 years" statement by McCain was one of the only things I ever agreed with him, on). But we didn't. We left, and the country is descending into the sectarian strife we predicted that an American pullout would produce. It's better for them to kill each other, than to kill us.

          • WilliamJamesWard

            One thousand killed in Iraq in May, was it a fools erand to try and change
            a people without freeing them of the chains of Islam, as long as thier
            slavery to Islam was in place nothing changed, like a recurring cancer
            after chemotherapy…………………………….William

          • Stephen_Brady

            Islam is the problem with the entire Muslim world, and they're spreading their disease to us. When will we learn?

          • WilliamJamesWard

            If we hang on to what is right and do not waiver and are unyielding to
            the convenience of leftist propaganda and falsehood we will win out
            through our families and posterity. There must be enough American
            men who still have core beliefs that have not failed throughout the
            past few centuries, no not through all of the blood, sweat and tears.
            William

          • Stephen_Brady

            One of the most serious problems we have is our unyielding attitudes towards our freedoms, especially, freedom of religion. It is one of our primary values.

            Unfortunately, Islam is like no other "religion" that we've ever encountered, and makes demands upon the political system that must be met, or violence will ensue. Getting rid of Islam from our shores involves actions that would violate other core values of our nation's history … values that our people have suffered, bled, and died for.

            You see what I'm doing here. I'm trying to establish a "conversation" in which other people will join, and short of the ultimate sanction, come up with a solution for the problem of Islam in America.

          • WilliamJamesWard

            Ephesians 5:11 Have nothing to do with the works of darkness but
            reprove them……………Hard to say what can be done within a Nation
            that sits on it's hands. Religious freedom was for true Religions,
            Islam is a political power using cult vagaries to control and enslave
            which is not a freedom, it cancels itself out from our guarantees.
            We do not guarantee a freedom to what we outlaw, honor killings,
            pedophelia, rape, mutilation and torture and so forth……..Islam is
            not in our history except for when the Barbary pirates were dealt
            with. I am not able to see Islam as a credible presence outside
            of it being the incarnation of evil and destructive of mankind and
            not connected to God Almighty but under the powers of evil
            that will be destroyed in end times and here we may be in the
            end hours……………….Deportation by extradition is simple for me,
            Eisenhower deported over ten million people to free up jobs for
            veterans, it can be done to free up Americans from incoming
            violence and subversion…………………………William

          • Stephen_Brady

            This is where the sticky part comes in, William. Like you, I truly don't believe that Islam has a place in American culture or society, and especially in its government. The only way to do this is mass deportations, and that leaves us with the sticky problem of what to do with Muslims who are US citizens, or US citizens who become Muslims. Would this require a Constitutional Amendment?

            I remember Eisenhower's deportations, because some public school teacher was ranting about it to my class in the 6th grade!

          • WilliamJamesWard

            "what to do with Muslims who are US citizens, or US citizens
            who become Muslims." This question could parallel this,
            "what to do with Mafia members who are US citizens or
            US citizens that become Mafia members." As a criminal cult
            that calls for felonious activities, let the laws on the books
            be enforced and let Congress visit the issue as well as
            State Legislatures. This must be done before we find
            ourselves in and internal war, one that is on the way and
            there is no stopping it……And ounce of prevention is always
            worth more than a pound of cure, what is done quickly will
            be saving America more than it has to loose………..William

          • Chezwick

            Great to hear from you Stephen. Hope all is well.

            I too supported the initial invasion. In hindsight, whether or not it was the right thing to do is open to debate. I'm certain the 80% of Iraq that is Shia and Kurd would readily agree that they are better off today, the terror notwithstanding…but the question remains, was it right for AMERICA to intervene in Iraq, not only in terms of the exorbitant expenditure of blood and treasure, but also the anti-war sentiment generated at home that had so much to do with Barry Obama's successful nomination and election. No fair-minded person could deny the linkage between the domestic opposition to the Iraq war and Obama's nomination (he was the principle anti-war candidate among Dems)…and no conservative could deny how destructive Obama's presidency has been to America, particularly its finances.

          • Stephen_Brady

            Always good to talk to you, Chez!

            I'm not sure that President Bush looked at the Iraq War in terms of how it would affect him … or future candidates for the Presidency … politically. Like most of the world, he looked at the evidence of WMDs (some of which had been provided by Saddam, himself, in an attempt to make his regime look intimidating), and came to the conclusion that he must act. It will be up to history to judge him. We're too close to the event … heck, I still think that Vietnam was yesterday, so real it was too me.

            You won't get any argument from me about Obama's presidency, however. It has been an unmitigated disaster, and looks to get worse.

          • WilliamJamesWard

            I concur, let Islamists do themselves in fighting each other and while they do that
            we can oppose Islam here and it's threat to our freedoms, I am not of a mind that
            they should be in America as ever where they go it is to colonize, overtake
            and subject thier victims to slavery……………………………William

    • Drakken

      I am in perfect agreement with you Chez, I say get out the lawn chairs and a good Brandy, sit back and watch the savages have fun with each other, to make it a tad bit more fun,I would get the Russians to arm the Kurds so they can be a pain in the ass of everyone else. Ah chaos, panic and disorder in the muzzy world, our work here is done.

  • Jamesd

    First let me say as a Vietnam Vet, Bush when he was in was a deserter and a coward who used his fathers influence to keep him from serving that's a proven fact. 2. He was told by political and military experts even his dad told him if you go over there and break it you own it. That's why Reagan funded Iraq in a war against Iran, he understood the war between Sunni's and Shi'ites and kept us out and was on the side of Saddam who was brought to power and trained by our CIA. 3. 19 of the 22 hijackers on 911 were Saudi's and so was Ben Laden so why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia one of the largest funders of terrorism along with Iran. because of oil and the Ben Laden's being members of the Carlyle group. Also I watched Bush on Fox news say in March 2003 that the war in Iraq would be paid for by Iraqi oil, another lie along with saying we would see cheap gas prices again in the 90 cent a gallon range another lie it just skyrocketed. Believe me I am no Obama fan I despise both democrats and republicans and see them both as traitors to our country and that we desperately need a third party by and for the people and get rid of these self serving lying rats. As for the reason for going to war in Iraq it was to establish military bases in the middle east where the US government and the oil companies could exert pressure on the region to gain control of their oil. As for Obama pulling out well make up your minds you complain that the debt keeps going up, well wars cost money thats why in WW2 FDR had the wall street rich paying 90% income tax, but today they are called job creators (who create no jobs except in 3rd world countries for cheap labor) and then say no taxes on us. Vietnam ended when President Ford shut the money off and we came home and now we wind up doing the same with the same result, the military contractors make billions the military generals get to play war and the regular people get stuck with the bills and their family members damaged crippled and dead. Maybe it'll be like Vietnam where we just had to stop evil communism before it spread and now we use those countries for cheap labor and layoff The American people that the government sent to fight these wars. Let me just add that on all of these websites that the majority of the people that comment about the wars have never served in one or else they would realize that the majority of them are a waste of lives, time and money 10 years over there and it's worse than when we began. You don't want terrorism here, stop letting them in the country.

    • logdon

      There are a lot of great points in your comment and you may think I'm nit-picking but try paragraphs.

      Easier to read and they separate the individual threads within the whole.

      By the way your final sentence nails it.

      They don't want us there, fine. I'm happy with that. But the quid pro quo is we curtail immigration to suit.

      And furthermore if Muslims in either the US or Europe decide to go for a nice jaunt to Afghanistan or any other war zone that's where they stay.

      No if, buts maybes or so called 'rights'.

      • Jamesd

        Logdon Thanks for the the tip and From now on I will make that correction sir.

    • reader

      "Vietnam ended when President Ford shut the money off and we came home"

      Errr. Yeah, I remember, when the Congress shut the money off, we had to cross Delaware under old George's command to come home…. Oh, wait, it's not exactly what happened…I might not even been there. Never mind.

    • Mary Sue

      As I recall, it was Nixon that got them out.

      Get real, the American govt never had the foresight to fight a war 25+ years before they'd be getting cheap goods out of them.

      We don't attack Saudi Arabia because Mecca's there, that's why, and the House of Saud for the time being pretends to be our ally. Mainly because they need us to stand between them and Iran.

      No, the bush desertion thing is not proven fact. Are you a Democrat or something?

      • Jamesd

        No Mary Sue, I am Just somebody who served 5 years in the military and 1 year 4 months and 16 days there! Were you there? And vietnam did not end with nixon just like Iraq didn't ceased to have troops after Bush declared mission accomplished. Learn your history, the last troops left in May 1975 with the fall of Saigon, after Nixon began troop draw downs we still had operation end sweep and in Jan 74 I was in a special op called believe it or not operation "Tea Party" which is still classified today. Vietnam was so unpopular by then in late 1973 and 74 that when Ford took over to get the military out quick he got congress to cut the military budget so far that we were abandoning equipment and leaving.

        Also if you read the news just 2 weeks ago they had burial services for the last 13 guys who died in the Vietnam war, they were killed in early 1975 in the mayaguez incident look it up.
        And as far as getting cheap labor let me tell you what do you think Nixon and Henry Kissinger were doing on their trips to China trying to open up the pacific rim. It halted under Ford and then Carter who was backed by the unions, but when Reagan got in he began breaking the unions and opening the pacific rim with Japan and China. And corporate America got their agenda. By the way I am an independent a can't stand either of these 2 lying political parties who promise to do good for the country and then only self serve themselves and their corporate contributors.

        • Walt

          All of your posts are so devoid of facts that a normal person would be embarrassed to type therm. What do you believe you gain by lying? So what if you are neither Democrat or Republican, you are still a person that seemingly can't put a sentence together with out lying.

          Research is a wonderful thing, especially if done before you open your mouth (or post on a blog)!

          • Jamesd

            Well Walt my military service that I wrote is backed by my DD 214 that is a federal military document in case you didn't know. It is from what I witnessed from Being there. So If you say I am lying please post for us your military info such as when and where you served and what you experienced while in South East Asia and Vietnam in particular. If you did not serve you have no right calling me a liar.

            Next for the China nixon thing what has happened to this country did not happen over night, these are plans that take time to develop you only have to see where the country has gone since post war WW2 from very good economical times in the 50's and 60's to the winding down in the 70's to wages flattening out in the 80's for the working class and wages and profits for banks and wall street corporations has greatly increased.

            Take an average worker in 1978 making $9.00 an Hour cost of average house $28 to $33,000.00 cars $7,000.00 to $12,000.00 Gas under 90 cents a gallon. Today we know how expensive these things are, also in 1978 I paid $30.00 a month for car insurance today about $130.00. Now the federal government website says inflation averages out at 3% per year that is why new car sticker prices go up 3% a year.
            So take $9.00 an hour and do 3% increases for 32 years and you will find that by 2010 that worker would be making over $30.00 an hour. This they could figure out as they do long term assessments. So look at the cost of things and what wages are and where they are going.

            So Walt let me close by saying rather than attacking me with your childish tirade why didn't or don't you post your own opinion or facts as you know them as a rebuttal to what I posted, giving us all the benefit of your knowledge. And last it's easy to call people names and be a rambo on a blog as no one knows who or where you are, but I can guarantee that if you were sitting face to face with me you would have never addressed me like that.

          • reader

            Dude, there were no combat troops in Vietnam after Nixon had resigned. There were a handful of marines guarding diplomats and civilian contractors, and it had nothing to do with the funding cuts. The Congress cut funding for South Vietnam, which resulted in their defeat and consequent atrocities on a mass scale. Just talk to hard working and law abiding Vietnamese at your local mom and pop business and tell them how you are proud of that, jerk.

          • Jamesd

            First I am not a "dude" second I never said there were combat operations I just said we still had a presence in vietnam until 1975, the guys killed in 75 were killed at an island off of cambodia which they considered an extension of the war. Marines are troops, and there were cleanup operations that went on in 73 and early 74. Obviously you were not even born when this all took place by the choice of words calling people dudes, if you are in your 50's or older speaking that way it says a lot about where you are mentally.

            Also I can tell you have emotional issues concerning Vietnamese people or you are Vietnamese. I have never in my responses been derogatory towards the Vietnamese people that is something you out of anger issues created in your own head. There are atrocities in every war and every day in our own society and it is a horrible thing that anyone has to endure them. I guess calling me a jerk in someway has helped you relieve some of the hatred and resentment you harbor inside.
            Last it is the United States Government who certifies the end of the Vietnam war as May 1975 with the fall of Saigon.

          • reader

            I have emotional issues toward people slaughtered en mass and I have a problem with liars. I have no problem with the language, strangely enough. I guess, one of us is mental, and I honestly believe that it's not me. But, as they say, the truth is in the eyes of the beholder.

          • reader

            And another thing. I know a few vietnam vets, and I can ensure you that they' d be insulted by what you posted here.

    • Mary Sue

      but what are your thoughts on swift boats?

      • Jamesd

        Which ones the military ones or the ones that torpedoed John Kerry?

        • logdon

          James,

          Ignore them.

    • Stephen_Brady

      Vietnam ended when President Ford shut off the money supply?

      As a member of Delta CO/2/501/101st (1968-69), I took something of an interest in what happened with this war, after I came back to the world. It seems to me that the Democrats violated their solemn oaths to the South Vietnamese … entered into in the Paris Peace Accords … and cut our allies off from all military supplies in 1975. Artillery with 1-2 rounds per day. Fighter/bombers that had enough fuel and munitions to fly one sortie, every 2-3 days. I don't blame the Vietnamese for throwing down their weapons and heading to the hills.

      I spent most of my time in country gathering intelligence in the bush. My best friend was blown in half by a 152mm howitzer shell that impacted ten feet away from us, while my eardrums where blown away and my face burned. My brothers-in-arms died en masse to take a hill in the Ashau Valley that was abandoned as soon as it was secured. I say all of this so that you can be sure that I, at least, was someone who served …

      Get over the leftie propaganda from the war, please. Your life will mellow out, considerably …

      • WilliamJamesWard

        Good advice and yes the Democrats cut off funding of South Vietnam in the Congress and
        let what was left of the North move in with the South out of almost everything but courage.
        If I remember correctly the North had no troops left over ten years old and under sixety,
        we killed them all and the Tet Offensive was a disaster for the North but the grand liar
        of media Walter Cronkite lied his face off for a propaganda plus for the communists.
        Leftists ruined what should have been a sure outcome and freedom at least for the
        South. I hate to get started on this, it makes me ill thinking about it……………William

  • kaz

    obama's willingness to abandon iraq is the one correct thing he has done, even if for all the wrong reasons. even a blind monkey finds a banana occasionally. obama's antiamericanism had to get something right, and the only thing he is doing wrong about iraq is keeping our men there long after he could have removed them. the only reason that our troops should ever set foot in a muslim country is after severe provocation, and with the intention to kill every muslim in that country, then leave. any other action in a muslim country is a waste of time and treasure. muslims whine incessantly about our being in "their" land (meaning an area where they have conquered, then genocided, the revious inhabitants). we should respect their sensitivity about lands they have swept free of any other religions, and sweep our own lands free of muslims. by doing so, we can obtain real peace without being genocided by the religion of genocidal peace. to do that we must first sweep our land free of obama and his poisonous minions.

    • Jamesd

      Kaz I agree with what you wrote you get it. What frustrates our military is the political games the politicians play, if you are going to war then take them down and show no mercy until they surrender. This business of selective targeting is insane.
      When you look at footage of WW2 when we bombed Japan and Germany we took everybody out and they had to surrender or die today they are allies as they respect us, when we start wars and don't let our military do the job and we refuse to retaliate for actions like Somalia it makes us look weak and incompetent and we loose all respect.

  • http://twitter.com/triopticaonline @triopticaonline

    I'd like to think we are a nation of winners. Sigh….

  • Jim_C

    Here's the deal: I've been coming to this site for about ten years. Generally, I think it has the right idea concerning the threat of Islamism and calling totalitarianism for what it is. But when it comes to Iraq, FPM reminds me of Bill Clinton lecturing someone on the sanctity of marriage.

    • EarlyBird

      Jim, it's called "propaganda" for a reason. There is ZERO chance that Ahlert actually believes the deranged lies he has propigated in this shameful piece of garbage he's posted here. Like so much on FPM, it is a conscious, fully intentional attempt to lie, distort, confuse and manipulate the truth to move opinion. Period.

      To many readers' credit, this one might have been a bit too over the top even for them.

      Horowitz has openly declared himself as more than willing to use the very same lies and propaganda as Communists did in their campaigns of misinformation. He considers that his form of art. That's what this entire site is about: lies and inciting resentment and rage against Horowitz's chosen enemies. He's a miserable, poisonous man, and so is his site.

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

        His premise was sound. The reader didn't agree, and explained why.

        Your'e just a troll who wants to leave us weak and the islamists strong.

        It's not hard to notice.

        • EarlyBird

          No jerk off, I am someone who hates lies and stupidity. I hate left wing lies.

          This is a poisonous place which draws in well-intentioned dolts like you so they can whip up anger and resentment about their chosen enemy. If you had a brain in your head, and weren't so partisan, you'd immediately see how rotten and absurd so much of the "Obama is pro-Muslim terrorist" garbage is, and how bad it is for our country. I hate this filth. It demeans our politics and governance.

          I literally consider people like Horowitz, Greenfield and Adina K, sources of evil because their campaign is to whip up destructive hatred with lies.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            You are a left wing lie.

            This is a realistic place. That leaves you without much cover.

            There is no vice to survival and self defense. You don't want any resistance to the forces that want us dead. I find that revealing.

          • fiddler

            Funny why after 9-11 2001 the Left was wringing its hands and saying "Why do they hate us?" Sometimes it reminds me of the old Star Trek episode where a two planets "fought" a war by merely trading casualties. It seems that to the Left "moral equivalence" means pretty much that. There are no winners or losers, just dead on my side; dead on yours. This was nowhere better evidenced than by Bill Clinton's speech about how guilty America was.

          • Drakken

            Fiddler, do you remember the Star Trek episode with a muslim in it? Me neither. The again it was cast into the future.

          • EarlyBird

            I can't speak for "the left," but the question should not be "why do they hate us?" so much as "what are we fighting over, and about?"

            They are fighting to rid themselves of the power structure that was placed upon them by the Great Powers 100 years ago. Period. They are struggling to throw off the yoke of imperialism. After WWII, the US picked up where the Great Powers left off. They don't run their own countries, we do, by extension. The preferred autocrats who were able to maintain order can't any more. You can only keep a lid on a boiling pot for so long.

            Their disgusting religion might instruct them to "hate" us, but they would not be giving their lives in a war against us if it wasn't to remove us from their lands, economies, governments and societies.

            The question is: why do we feel compelled to keep that lid on? What would happen if we left them alone? I suspect after a decade of leaving them alone, radical Islam might look a bit less radical. Imagine that: allowing other people to run their own lives.

          • Drakken

            Your high on drugs, It was because us Imperialist kept our boots on the muslims for the last 100 year to keep them from resurging, now that the dictators are going, resurgent islam on steroids is taking its place, but hey you keep on singing that kumbaya there Sparky for reality is going to be a painful experience for all of you of the leftist persuasion.

      • Stephen_Brady

        "He's a miserable, poisonous man, and so is his site.

        Then don't come here …

        • EarlyBird

          Stevie, I come here to shake you freaks up.

          And how dare you have a picture of Ronald Reagan, given that he wouldn't be caught dead on a hate site like this, and would today be slimed as a RINO by the radicals who've taken over his movement.

          • Stephen_Brady

            EB, I knew Ronald Reagan. Did you know Ronald Reagan? No?

            Then don't tell me what Reagan would have thought, because Marxists like you don't have the slightest notion …

          • Drakken

            Careful now Stephen, you just pulled earlys punk card, and he just might call you a name or two and hurt your feelings. I sure as hell wish Reagan was back, for we sure as hell need him more than ever.

    • Looking4Sanity

      Jim,
      You hung that comment out there like a pork chop for feral weasels. I'd like to hear the rationale you base it on. Regardless of why we went in (and there were several fine reasons for doing so), we had it sewn up more or less until Oballah decided to implement his uber-fecklessness campaign.

      If you agree with his "strategy" in Iraq, please enlighten us. From what I'm seeing in the headlines, it doesn't look as good as it did in 2007…but then again, I suppose that depends upon your perspective. And that brings us right back to you. Let's hear your take on it.

      • VLParker

        I agree with Jim about Iraq and this site. I have the utmost respect for David, but on Iraq he is dead wrong and so is this author. Under Saddam, Iraq was a Sunni buffer to Iran's Shia. All the US invasion did is enable the Shia sect of Islam to take over Iraq and become an ally of Iran. It also led to a massive exodus of Christian refugees. For heaven's sake, the US agreed to an Iraqi constitution that guaranteed sharia law. Iraqi Constitution excerpt:

        First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:

        A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

        And that is all you need to know about how "free" Iraq is.

        • Looking4Sanity

          Iraq was never free at any time in its history. Muslims do not value freedom, and we gave them exactly what we said we would…Democracy. They used that freedom of choice to enslave themselves again. The majority of Iraqis ARE Shiite. Sunnis were always a persecuted minority there, which is why the Sunni, Saddam Hussein, was such a brutal dictator…and WE put him in power to begin with. That alone was reason to go in and correct our mistake.You need to find a way to break free of your liberal statist programming. It isn't healthy to believe everything you hear on the evening news.

        • Drakken

          Well since it went from bad to worse, we should give the Kurds a little encouragement and let the Russians arm them so they can be a nice huge pain in the ass to everyone else as a nice big F you to the hadjis of every stripe.

      • Jim_C

        I agree there were several fine reasons for going in. But there were many more fine reasons for not doing so. I remember being called a "traitor" for even suggesting this. I always ask people if their first thought after recovering from the shock of 9/11 was to invade Iraq. Most people would say no. However, it was the first thought for Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, and we know that as a matter of record. That does not sit well with me, and we can paper over it all we want, call it water under the bridge, whatever. It does not change the fact that we leapt into a serious error of judgement. Are we any MORE free now? No, we are less free. Are we any more safe because we invaded Iraq? Not in any measurable way. Worth the cost?

        There are many here who say "Let them fight each other" and I agree. If my friends and relatives go to war I want it to be for our country against another that has truly harmed us–not FOR another country's "freedom" that it doesn't even want, and not against a shadow. There are other ways of dealing with terrorism, and better ways of killing terrorists.

        I applauded Mr. Bush for putting it starkly: You're wither with us or you're with the terrorists. I hoped he was doing the right thing. But good intentions….

  • UCSPanther

    Not you again, freak.

    Begone!

    • Mary Sue

      Aw what did despawn say?

  • reader

    That's because your memory lane is full of Nancy Pelosi and Barak Obama talking points on the subject instead of reality. Ten years down the drain, Jim. What a waste.

    • EarlyBird

      "That's because your memory lane is full of Nancy Pelosi and Barak Obama talking points on the subject instead of reality. Ten years down the drain, Jim. What a waste."

      You're an infant.

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

        He has an opinion backed by fact.

        You have talking points and a lot of hate twisted with a flawed sense of humor.

        • patriothere

          No he doesn't. Opinion is not fact.

      • reader

        I look young for my age, thank you very much. But you're still an ignorant moron. I've proved it here many times. Do you really want another round of humiliation?

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        You're and EarlyTurd.

  • gee59

    So we have millions of Muslims killing millions of Muslims and destroying the borders of their artificial countries. Does anybody really see a problem?

    So long as they are killing each other – we need to stay out of the way and just keep them contained to their lands. Sooner or later they will kill all of each other. It is not like Arabs are capable of winning a war even against other Arabs.

    • fiddler

      I have often felt that there needs to be a gigantic bubble placed over the Middle East (except Israel) and they can settle all of their affairs, dispute, rebellions on their own.

    • Drakken

      I say grab a cocktail and enjoy the show. No better reality TV than muslims slaughtering each other.

      • Looking4Sanity

        Don't be silly. Once they consolidate…and they will…there will literally be Hell to pay. I figure the bill will come due in less than five years.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          The Sunni .vs. Shiite is like Spy .vs. Spy.

          The HATE each other with a murderous vengeance.

          Blowing up each others mosques and holy sites is par for the course.

          Keep Sand nazis OUT of the US.

          • Looking4Sanity

            Makes you wonder why Baptists and Methodists aren't running around lopping each others heads off for heresy, doesn't it?

        • Drakken

          If we were smart, we would let the Kurds declare independence in the region and really make it interesting.

          • Looking4Sanity

            I like the Kurds better than either the Iraqis or the Turks, but that's never going to happen.

    • Looking4Sanity

      Yeah. I really see a problem. The problem is that this bunch of Muslims aren't killing each other nearly fast enough to suit me. Combine that with the fact that they all agree on one thing (They are ALL antiSemitic assassins) and surround a small, prosperous and peaceful nation (Israel) who just happens to be our ally. That causes me more than a little concern.

      You need to take the threat of a nuclear Iran, led by antisemitic mullahs, more seriously. Give it another year and get back to me…if you're able.

  • EarlyBird

    The gall it takes to write this sentence is staggering: "The breakdown of Iraq…is attributable in no small part to President Obama’s abandonment of the U.S.’s mission in the country, a betrayal committed in total defiance of the military establishment’s recommendations, which squandered the hard-won victory handed down by President Bush."

    What "victory"? The victory of ruining a nation, opening it up to Al Queda, establishing a pro-Iran, autocratic Shia government at a cost of 4,500 dead and tens of thousands of maimed Americans and $1 Trillion dollars? THAT "victory," of Bush's which Obama "squandered?"

    And the Commander in Chief "defied" the military? What about the treaty signed by the US and Iraq wherein Iraq demanded we leave at the time we left?

    What BALLS it takes to write this wretched propaganda. What stupidity it takes to agree with it. A pox on Ahlert's house!

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

      It was a chance for victory under the last of Bush. The awakening councils were making a difference.

      Why do you support the marxist president of muslim heritage? It's the heritage part isn't it?

      • EarlyBird

        Oh right. Things were doing great in Iraq until Obama showed up.

        Go away, nit.

      • patriothere

        You don't know what you are talking about. Everybody knows the true winners of the Iraq war were Iran and Israel. The US gave Iran a shiite government, a new ally. The US also took out one of israels enemies. Now israel wants the US to fight syria and iran. Two of israels enemies. I say quit telling us what to do. American patriots are tired of being slaves to the israelis.

    • D-Boy

      the early turd doesn't have a clue of the carnage to come by giving Islam a free hand. Yeah it's easy to see your the smart one in this debate.

  • buddy

    These postings are mere trash.

    It's not Bush's fault or America's,

    IT'S THE IRAQI'S FAULT

    THEY WERE GIVEN A CHANCE TO LIVE FREE

    THEY WERE GIVEN A CHANCE TO SELF GOVERN THEMSELVES

    THEY WERE GIVEN A CHANCE, and they blew it.

    They chose Islam and they chose their own deaths.

    Now they get what they deserve.

    • 4_Constitution

      We should have left a base there just like we did in Berlin.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        If that wasn't a joke…seek mental help!

        • Looking4Sanity

          BS. If we're going to play global policeman, the least we can do is take the job seriously. She's right. This is no different than Korea. You want to bitch about our involvement there too?

      • Drakken

        We do have a base there, it is called the Green Zone,where we have 20,000 contractors defending it.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      It's not Bush's fault or America's,

      It is Bush's fault that Iraq and Afghanistan inevitably turned into the two biggest strategic blunders ever in American history because every premise he based both wars on were absolutely bogus and utterly absurd. Moreover, thanks to Bush also most Americans, including obviously you, remain totally oblivious to the real threat emanating from Islam.

      • buddy

        A strategic blunder?

        It was a strategic masterpiece to blood an army and a generation of men on the islamic enemy. We now have an experienced military fighting this enemy.

        We now have men who have seen and experienced what this enemy is and what it is not.

        This is the Bush genius. He took out the military against the leftist, howling hoards, and he deployed it at the exact right moment. History will look upon him as Lincoln or even perhaps Washington.

        Bush is the first modern to deploy a military against a religion. But he won't be the last.

        And in moral terms, he left the people of the region a choice.

        And they chose poorly.

        You are an idiot and a fool. You know nothing about strategy.

        • Looking4Sanity

          Buddy got him a head on his shoulders!

          You're right about it not being the last time, but I fear that that is NOT going to work in America's favor. Round two will see the U.N. marching against Christians on our own soil. It is inevitable.

  • Power2daPeople

    Hard-won victory in Iraq? By Bush, the mass-murdering war criminal? Seriously? Iraq was a VICTORY by your standards? How many of you chickenhawks have strolled through the streets of Baghdad lately? Proclaim your "victory" to the thousands of dead American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. You people are sick.

    • UCSPanther

      Then join up with al-quada or some other "oppressed" terror group and die for them like the good little turncoat you are.

      I'm sure you wouldn't like this little fact as well: Saddam Hussein and the Assad Clan's regimes both ideologically were near-direct descendants of REAL WWII-era fascist ideology (and not the emotionally charged accusation you brain-dead leftists like to throw at your opponents).

      • EarlyBird

        Yeah! Nazis and World War II and bad guys and stuff! And, and…you're a turncoat for admitting that Iraq was a disaster, and you must love Al Queda too!

        Oh, and Obama is a commie terrorist Muslim! And a leftist and, and….America's Number 1! America's Number 1!

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

          You really can't stick to any serious debate. All name calling, and all half truths is just another liberal hack.

          Do you guest on MSNBC by any chance?

      • Power2daPeople

        Al-Qaeda is a creation of your neocon imperialist foreign policy…with your love of violence and wanton slaughter of civilians, you're much ideologically closer to them than I. If you believe so much in what the U$ and its allies are doing, why don't get off your computer, enlist, and deploy? Yeah, that's what I thought. A chickenhawk.

        • UCSPanther

          One of these days, you leftist troublemakers will face your reckoning.

    • EarlyBird

      Yes, Power, the shamelessness of this piece of propaganda is just amazing, isn't it? We had "Victory" in Iraq before Obama messed it up? How can anyone possibly believe this? Well, Ahlert doesn't, nor does Horowitz, but their job is to lie. They actually commit evil when they lie on this scale.

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

        Obama disregarded Bush's 'benchmarks' and gave Iraq'a enemies a clear timetable on when to escalate violence.

        You might want to pay attention to the news, things aren't going so well there now, as a result of Obama's policies.

        • patriothere

          You would rather have the US waste all their resources occupying iraq for 100 years.

    • Drakken

      How can I put this as nicely as I can, oh yeah, let the muzzy savages kill each other to their little hearts content, fkem! As for our own? We must never let these goofy pols dictate rules of engagement in a war zone.

      • Power2daPeople

        The racism and reckless disregard for human life you express here speaks for itself. You wonder why everyone detests your ideological ilk.

        • reader

          You know, calling yourself "everyone" reeks of mental disorder. Of course, this is just a fraction in a laundry list of your symptoms.

        • Drakken

          Racist no, realist and culturalist yes, my western culture is vastly superior to anything anyone else has, so if you want to go there and preach peace and love and kumbaya I highly encourage it, please make sure you have someone video tape it for a highlight reel, talk about cheap entertainment at it's finest and besides, Darwin needs another winner. The bottom line is love us and ours, fk them and theirs

        • gee59

          No – that is what they say they want to do. We have no problem with that.

      • EarlyBird

        "How can I put this as nicely as I can, oh yeah, let the muzzy savages kill each other to their little hearts content, fkem! As for our own? We must never let these goofy pols dictate rules of engagement in a war zone."

        The problem, General, is that you do not advocate for simply letting them kill each other. You want the US to be in the sand pit with them, which includes getting our boys killed. Why? Can't we leave them alone? Koran or no Koran, they'd be a lot less rabid about killing Americans and other Westerners if we simply got out of their hair.

        • Drakken

          Too late, even if we left them to their own devices after they are done hacking and blowing up each other they will still blame us for all their problems and still attack us. Resurgent islam on steroids is going to get us involved in a war one way or another and if you let PC addled idiots dictate on how the military fights, it is a doomed endeavor.

  • http://twitter.com/marifas57 @marifas57

    The more immediate concern is the welcome we have given to muslims and islamists who erect their version of their national flag, the Mosque, to signify their victory here over America. We are just plain stupid. And to think O is anything but muslim is also stupid. He's neutralizing our country, leaving open to any who want our resources and land. I guess he was voted in, right?

  • Drakken

    I am going to disagree with this article somewhat, the author seems to be of the mind that the muzzys devolving into their tribal mindset is a bad thing, I think it is a really great thing, the more these savages slaughter each other, the better it is for the western world, just don't let the bleeding heart liberals import the savage refugees. I would like to even up the ante by saying we should let the Russians arm the Kurds to really make it fun.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    The administration squanders the hard-won victory handed down by President Bush

    Unfortunately the sentence above is the belief of most clueless Republicans today. In any event, thanks to the stupidity of President Bush, Iraq and Afghanistan are the two biggest strategic blunders ever in American history and their failures were inevitable because they were both based on absolutely false premises about Islam. In fact, this kind of stupidity expressed above by this writer is one of the reasons I'm no longer a Republican, as the Republican Party, not only when it comes to growing the size and scope of the government, but also when it come to protecting America from the scourge of Islam, is only slightly less incompetent than the Dhimmicrats.

    By the way, I didn't read this article. I stopped immediately once I read that above referenced stupidity. Anyway, I hate to rain on this writer's idiotic parade, but President Bush was one of the most incompetent presidents to ever grace America with his glorious stupidity. Apparently, most Republicans today are unfortunately hopeless, which means the future of the country won't fair very well.

    • LedZeppelin

      I second your opinion and I second your abandonment of the abysmally ignorant Republican party.. Damn fine comment indeed. Glad to see somebody out there in flyover country is thinking.

    • welldoneson

      Obamayo, your sniveling about the Republican party reveals how much the left fear and hate the Repubs. Obama has announced he intends to destroy the Repub; young people are being told that the Repubs are a fringe party representing fewer than ten percent of the electorate. That is where geeks like you are coming from. Shut up. The adults are talking here.

      • LedZeppelin

        The Left owns the Republican Party, Just like they own the Democrat Party. You're about 50 years behind the times.

        Whether you are an adult or not is very open to debate. Not to mention, adult what?

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Exactly like the vast overwhelming majority of Republicans, this writer obviously doesn't have the first clue about the real nature of the threat emanating from Islam. Indeed, because of the stupidity of GWB, the war was called the so-called "War on Terror." However, Muslims aren't terrorists, as terrorism is an abomination in Islam. Muslims, on the other hand, are jihadists instead, as jihad, in stark contrast to terrorism, is holy fighting in the cause of Allah for the establishment of Islam, which is not only the highest pillar in Islam, but also a holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims, and that, by the way, makes the existence of so-called moderate Muslims an absolute impossibility. Remember one of the reasons cited by GWB to justify his so-called "War on Terror" was to stop radical Islam from hijacking so-called moderate Islam, except that is only happening in the minds of GWB and other clueless Republicans, but not in reality.

    In any event, jihad, unlike terrorism, is both violent and non-violent, but astronomically far more non-violent than violent. An example of non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad is mass Muslim immigration to the West for its eventual Islamization. Today it goes completely unopposed because everyone is so completely obsessed with stopping only terrorism, which, again, isn't even an Islamic manifestation. Meanwhile, the Muslim stealth jihadists living in Sweden and posing as immigrants, for instance, have set Sweden on fire.

    Anyway, if this writer happens to read my post, he'll undoubtedly dismiss me as an unhinged flake, a racist and a bigot, and then also discount my post.

    • welldoneson

      Obamayo, more sniveling about the Repubs, I see. You obviously believe the nonsense coming from the Dems about the Repubs. Too fun. You're right, though, you are an unhinged flake.

      • LedZeppelin

        Apparently you must be hearing different nonsense from the Dems than I am. And the nonsense I hear coming from the Repubs sounds a lot like the nonsense I hear coming from the Donkeys. Wake up buddy. Your party has SOLD YOU OUT, lock stock and barrel.

    • buddy

      Once again, you're a range bound idiot.

      quote,
      Meanwhile, the Muslim stealth jihadists living in Sweden and posing as immigrants, for instance, have set Sweden on fire.
      unquote

      Sweden is on fire only because the police there have not yet begun to shoot to kill. They seem to be willing to fire on old men with machetes, but not on young punks with a bottle of gasoline.

      But they'll figure it out.

      But you never will.

      Europe's muslim problem is exactly over when the police begin to shoot to kill.

      But your problems will continue as long as you are breathing, you're an idiot.

  • LedZeppelin

    I get the feeling that most Westerners don't really understand what the first 7 decades of the 20th century meant to the Islamic world. I also get the feeling that most Westerners don't really understand the Islamic world wants to UNDO what was done in the first 7 decades of the 20th century.

    • Drakken

      Us western Imperialist keep the muslim savage under the boot, when the liberal/progressives took over they unleashed the muslim world out of a sense of guilt.

      • LedZeppelin

        And, what do you make of the fact that the forces of Western Imperialism were also the Liberal/Progressives, one in the same. One generation of Left idiots contradicting the "wisdom" of the previous generations of Left idiots.

        For the most part.

        • Drakken

          I think you have the two very much confused, the folks back then are completely opposite of the dregs of the liberal/progressives today.

          • LedZeppelin

            And I think you don't know much about Western history, if you think the US government wasn't as riddled with Leftists as Europe was, from about 1900 onward. Opposites? What do you think Woodrow Wilson was? The term is "estranged cousins". McCarthy and a whole lot of other people were absolutely right.

          • Drakken

            I know my history very well thank you very much, too much self hating self loathing guilt that yes it started with Wilson and company and has marched onward since, WW1 which ended the The Kings of Europe put us on the path that we are in today, we are on the path to war and what style of govt Europe ends up with really is a toss up, I am betting my money on a Royal/nationalistic style govt. The bottom line and we can argue the semantics, is islam is on the march and resurgent and will kick off a Balkans type response.

          • LedZeppelin

            As to the future, you could be right. But I'm thinking the Left wants in /Internationalist style of government. Fascism on a global scale, ala The Brave New World. Since the Islamics want a global caliphate, I guess we see globalism of one sort or another coming on the horizon. God help us all.

      • EarlyBird

        "Us western Imperialist keep the muslim savage under the boot, when the liberal/progressives took over they unleashed the muslim world out of a sense of guilt."

        General, make sure they don't spring a drug test on your Joint Chiefs of Staff, or you won't pass.

        The reason we're in this mess to begin with is that the Western Imperialists put and kept that boot upon the Muslim "savage" to begin with. We've now had a tiger by the tail for going on 100 years. Yes, it is quite possible to imagine a fairly healthy, sane Middle East if it had been left alone.

        Even the extreme right wing is figuring this out, finally. What's the reason for it now? Not oil, but to protect Israel. That is all this is about.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    GWB knew or should have known that Whabi Islam eminating out of Saudi Arabia along
    with the 9/11 bombers were the attackers of America with all other Islamists not guilty by
    association but by doctrine. The true nature of the attack of Islam against all others was
    to great for our Government to accept as truth and the resultant efforts leading to Obama
    have been loss to America. Bush should have done something dramatic, like shock and
    awe over Mecca and Median which would have been and understandable message to
    Islamists which would be short of destroying each and every Islamist on the planet, that
    is now possibly what is on the way considering thier unendning appatite for blood and
    the visible degredation of Europe and every occupied place on Earth.
    William

  • Gloria Stewart

    Former President Bush's war in Iraq – once we had searched for WMDs and ousted Saddam Hussein – was an unforgivable waste of lives and money. Bringing democracy to a nation (using the term 'nation' loosely) that is overwhelmingly Muslim was a pipe dream. If President Bush had wanted to bring democracy to Iran he would not have acquiessed to an Iraqi constitution that made Sharia the law of the land. Sharia and classic liberal democracy are mutually exclusive.

    Excuse me, the US has "traded stability"? Please don't use stability and Islam in the same paragraph. Islam is a killing machine, a malignancy in the body politic.

    • buddy

      I love you Gloria, and I cannot say I disagree with a word here.

      The only way I can face the Iraq totality is that they, the Iraqis, were given
      a choice, and they chose poorly.

      And now the world sees it if they choose to see it.

      History moves at its own pace. And those who are enlightened before
      the others are condemned to suffer and watch. Peace.

    • EarlyBird

      Well said, Glo.

      Consider the many ex-colonies which have become independent since the early 1900s, paticularly after WWII, throughout Africa, Latin America and Asia. They all had their wars against the imperial Great Powers, often organized around political ideolgies (like Marxism) to do so, and once those colonies became independent generally returned to their natural states, for better and for worse.

      But they are not still fighting the West for the most part.

      That revolution is finally coming to be in the Arab Middle East. The Great Powers just handed their control over to the US for the most part. The Arabs are using Islam as their organizing force and once they drive the West out, they bloom will go off that level of radicalism and they will go back to their natural state. And I predict they will stop being obsessed with attacking the West.

      • Drakken

        The only one in need of a drug test is you, If you think resurgent islam is going to burn out? Your clearly smoking too much funny stuff. The muslim worlds natural state is war you dolt.

  • anadessma

    The primary reason for the invasion of Iraq, a reason cited again and again and again and again ad nauseam by the United States, Great Britain, and Spain (the most important members of the coalition in 2003) was the failure of Iraq to comply with 17 United Nations resolutions, virtually all of which dealt with a lack of transparency (or plain dishonesty) regarding Saddam’s ultimate disposition of the weapons of mass destruction that, following the defection of his son-in-law in July, 1995, we now (i.e., in 2003) knew existed—the UN inspectors had overlooked the existence of the entire Iraqi bio-weapons program—which, in fact, Iraq now admitted had existed but claimed to have destroyed, yet concerning the destruction of which could produce no paperwork.

    Think about that for just a second from Bush’s perspective! A Stalinist police state that is not merely authoritarian but totalitarian, i.e., holding files in triplicate on every man, women, and camel in the country that nevertheless and somehow has managed to lose track of approximately 10,000—yes, that’s right, 10,000!—one-liter cannisters of anthrax, VHX nerve gas, botulism, and other delicacies—the list had 23 items on it—all exceedingly deadly and all, at one point, in the process of being weaponized. And all of that impossible-to-credit forgetfulness is being proposed to the Bush and Cheney after the September 11th attacks, after the anthrax attacks of the same month! As Richard Perle has stated, the problem confronting the administration was one of "risk management." More of that in a bit.

    Were any of you attacking Bush so recklessly here—without ever mentioning September 11th, by the way, as though it were a minor consideration in 2003—at all conscious during the 1990s, an entire decade of confrontation? If you were, you surely remember the weekly Kabuki dance starring Iraqis and UN Weapons inspectors. The last bunch were the same collection of Sherlock-less Holmeses who, in 1991 after the first Gulf War, confessed astonishment to learn that Iraq, the Israelis having destroyed the Osirak reactor, had over the decade of the 1980s, nevertheless managed to design a fission bomb and to construct a delivery system without any anti-nuclear-proliferation inspectors (then led by Hans Blix, remember him?) noticing one thing amiss! Is any of that familiar to you? Do you think, after September 11th, that that record may have played a part in Bush being reluctant to accept Mr. Blix’s assurances on what day of the week it was?

    [cont]

  • anadessma

    The decision to frame the aims of the war for reasons other than uncertainty as to the whereabouts of an enormous WMD cache was a secondary, mostly after-the-fact decision. I say “mostly” because well before the invasion, Bush and men like Paul Wolfowitz were coming to view the problems in the Middle East as at bottom political and not military, so something like democracy promotion was always in the cards. But it was always secondary. George Bush made that clear a hundred times: “I will not trust Saddam Hussein,” he said over and over again in one form or another. It was the overriding concern of Dick Cheney as well. They were in office when the attacks occurred, and they were resolved not to take any chances at all, not even if it were “one chance in a hundred,” as the vice-president told the NSC.

    I repeat: No one (a) knew where the weapons that had preoccupied the US and the the UN for more than a decade were; (b) absent proof, believed the Iraqis claim to have destroyed them, and that included the United Nations that had passed those 17 resolutions, as well as crippling sanctions, precisely because they did not believe the Iraqis; (c) understood the relationship between the Iraqis and terrorists, such as bin Laden.

    That last “unknown” is particularly salient. Neither Bush nor Cheney nor Rumsfeld ever accused Iraq of having had a hand in the attacks of 9/11, and it’s contemptible to behave now as if they had. At the same time they were not, given the lack of any intelligence assets inside Iraq, for which we have the democrats to thank, going to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt as did Democrats like Sen. Carl Levin who, while admitting into evidence the CIA reports of “19 contacts” between the Iraqi Mukhabarat and Al Qaeda terrorists in the 10 years prior to September 11, 2001, somehow could still insist that “there was no operational connection.” How did he or even could he know that? It’s not as if minutes of the contacts were kept.

    Again, risk management. In the 1960s Gerber Foods launched an advertising campaign—”Babies are our business! Our only business!”—designed to prevent the defection of the parents of newborns to Beechnut Baby Foods by implying that Beechnut was a johnny-come-lately to the baby-food business (which was false), were in fact purveyors of chewing gum. The Gerber campaign worked fabulously well. I draw your attention to this bit of Americana as an analogy to Al Qaeda, which could have had a similar slogan: “Killing Americans and their allies is our business. Our only business!” So when Al Qaeda met with Iraqi intelligence, what might a reasonable and responsible person suppose must have been on the agenda? Especially after Iraq’s humiliating defeat in 1991. Levin’s assertion was fatuous.

    George Bush’s dilemma was that he did not know what happened to those weapons, yet was required to act as if he did. That’s what it meant to be president rather than in the second grade. In fact, even after the Duelfer Report we still don’t know what became of them, and it is shameful, not to mention arrogant, to act as if what we know (or think we know) 10 years on could have had any influence on Bush in 2003. The September, 2001, attacks killed 3000 and cost the economy over half-a-trillion dollars. What might the bill have been the bill for a successful weaponized anthrax attack on a Manhattan skyscraper? After all, post-9/11, such an attack had to be taken seriously. Five deaths from anthrax immediately after 9/11 practically paralyzed the East Coast for three weeks. If you or I or any number of mediocrities guessed wrong with regard to such contingencies, it would be like our guessing wrong in an imaginary game of Russian Roulette. Nothing of consequence would have followed our mistake on the subject of WMDs, so naturally we can now afford to posture inanely. But, just as importantly, nothing follows of any consequence if we were right. But if George Bush, who was the only truly responsible party, guessed wrong . . . .

    The odds of winning in a real Russian Roulette are 5:1, which are not bad odds. Yet very few people play the game because they cannot afford to cover the bet if they lose. No one can. That was the situation Bush was in in 2003. Being sure now macht gar nichts, as the Germans say.

    • EarlyBird

      No. In 2003 Saddam was a tiny regional threat. His country, which was falling apart, was going to become a larger regional threat once it imploded. And the US would have had to "do something" at that time.

      But it was not a direct threat to the US, and we are no more safe and secure today after that disaster than we were before.

      Bush is not a bad man, and he did not invade out of bad intent. His advisors saw it as a base from which to project power and remake the Middle East, a project which became urgent post-9/11. But it was an epic failure and we need to acknowledge that.

      • anadessma

        Please see my reply to Jim C below. You may have to wait a bit since for some reason it is being held for "moderation." Can't say why.

    • Jim_C

      An eloquent rationalization.

      Iraq's status as an "imminent threat to the United States" was always a gin-up. Always. It was when Clinton was president, and it was when Bush was president. It wasn't that Saddam wasn't a "wildcard"–obviously, he was. But a threat to us? This isn't something we can only see in hindsight; this is something many recognized. If they didn't–if there were really substantive (non-rhetorical) consensus about the danger Saddam posed, then the lead-up to the Iraq War would not have been so contentious and bitter. Most people (to the right of Chomsky, anyway) had no trouble going after the Taliban in Afghanistan, remember. You, me, and everyone here–none of us thought, "Wow, we should really get Saddam out of the picture" when we saw the towers go down.

      Yet that is precisely what Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld did think. And what we do know now–with the benefit of hindsight–is that they didn't really have any special intel we didn't have. We know that the intel they did have, they cherrypicked. And what we also know is that Iraq was on the table before the 9/11 attacks. So these guys used our outrage to justify their Iraq agenda.

      Now I agree, it sounds good on paper–Iraq as the first domino to fall in democracy's uplifting sweep. Mr. Bush thought big and decisively–and I think that reflects well on him. But why do I get the feeling that if he could do it over again, he never would? Probably because the architects of this action were marginalized or resigned in his second term as Mr. Bush brought in people with a more traditional bent.

      You can call this historical blunder well-intentioned, if you like.

      • anadessma

        Neither Bush nor Cheney nor Rumsfeld ever described Iraq as an "imminent threat to the United States," so if that is the basis of your conclusion that the Second Gulf War was a "gin-up," you are fencing without an opponent. The question was one of "risk management," something that George Bush made eminently clear again and again:"I will not rely on Saddam's good will," and several other like expressions, for example, "Hope is not an option." What hope? It was never the "hope" that Iraq would attack the US overtly but through some sort of covert operation. Your speculation as to what Bush and Cheney thought "precisely(!)" is spun out of nothing at all that I can see other than you wish that it were so.

        As to the Intel, the question is not whether they knew something we didn't—they made virtually all intelligence public in the NIE of October 2007, and it was largely on the basis of that that the House and Senate voted overwhelmingly the next month to authorize military force if the president so decided.

        What you claim may very well have been true for Bill Clinton, a very devious man, but not George Bush. He told us why in his opinion, after September 11, 2001, trusting Saddam not to collude with terrorists was simply not an option. The man had tried to assassinate George W.W. Bush, which some , including me, might have thought a self-evidently suicidal plot coming only a year after the First Gulf War ended (all he earned instead from a feckless Bill Clinton was a $200 million dollar cruise missile assault on an empty building). As I tried to get across via my Russian Roulette analogy, even the US could have found it impossible to "cover the bet" in the event of a massive anthrax attack on a heavily populated area, not simply because of the attack itself but because of the effects across the nation in the aftermath. Bush said he was unwilling to take that chance. I cannot see why it's so difficult to believe that he meant what he said.

        In my opinion there really was only one Gulf War, and the rules of warfare tend to support my belief. the "First" Gulf War ended with an "armistice," not a peace treaty. An armistice meant that hostilities can be renewed without notice if and when Iraq reneged on its agreements, which it did within a year and several times afterwards. And what was the material basis of Iraq's failure to comply? That's right, failure to account for weapons systems it had already admitted having. September 11, 2001, only italicized the potentially catastrophic danger to the US posed by that failure, for which, I must emphasize, no reasonable explanation was ever forthcoming (even down to the present day), which is why even the UN sanctioned Iraq again and again, ever more harshly each time. Under the terms of the armistice, Iraq had not the option to decline to cooperate fully without massive retaliation. The fact that such retaliation didn't come sooner than March 21, 2003, has a very great deal to do with the fact that March 21, 2003, came afterSeptember 11, 2001.

        What you seem to be saying is that you would have taken the chance. It appears that you would have been right, too, but that's not because of anything you knew at the time. It's more the sort of knowledge that a man professes to have when he gets up one day and says "Today I'm going to win the lottery!" he buys a scratch ticket and—guess what?—he wins $50! Did he really "know" anything. Of course not. His (and, similarly, your) actual knowledge played no role and moreover had no real consequences one way or the other. If you didn't "know" what had become of those 10,000 cannisters, each of which had a serial number so that there whereabouts could be tracked, you didn't know anything to speak of.

  • gfmucci

    Hey Boys and Girls. You can't have it both ways: Bashing Obama for getting us out while complaining we are in a place we shouldn't be. I'm no Obama fan, but I'm not for unnecessary whining, either.

    • 11bravo

      Yes you can have it both ways, people do all the time.

      It is a cliche'

  • Aterg

    "Remember he tried to kill my father" "Mission accomplished" Yes the puppet master Cheyney and his Puppet did start a war, that was not neccesary, and will "paid by Iraq oil" It helped to destabilize the Miidle East, and the Arab Spring became a deep Winter for the region and terrorism just spread like the small pox. Even Bush senior warned abot this war, bush and Cheney are war criminals, and should be tried in the Haag ' s international court, if their innocence should ever be proven . Yes theit " Mission was accomplished" .
    ,

    • reader

      This is a kind of idiocy you'd expect in a code pink rally. Unfortunately, this is also what "university professors" spew to brainless graduates of a broken K12 system. That's how a professional liar aka community organizer gets to be elected twice in a row.

  • logdon

    Iraq.

    No WMD. No AQ. No MB.

    OK a sabre rattling nut case but that nutcase hated Saudi Wahabbis, hated Iran, hated Hezbollah, and hated Turkey.

    He tied up all of that lot in either real or verbal combat and as such deflected their aggression towards the west.

    We meddle in the deep and unfathomable waters of the insanity which is Islam.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      No WMD ?

      Tell that to the Kurds of Halabja Iraq.

      • logdon

        You mean the ones Bush 1 abandoned?

        And define 'mass'.

        • reader

          WMD stands for the Weapons of Mass Destruction, dumbass. That includes chemical and nuclear weapons – in any quantities, there is a reason that these weapons are considered banned by civilized countries in any quantities. The US troops did discover some chemical weapons in Iraq; it is likely that the bulk of it was destroyed, hidden and moved to Syria on the brink of the US invasion: http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?…

          • logdon

            I'm fully aware of that, Einstein. I asked you to define mass. You are obviously out of your depth on this one.

          • reader

            It depends on what the meaning of is is. I am no Einstein, but I actually am – next to you.

  • Andrew Sanders

    The West supports Terrorists to destabilize regimes they don’t like (religious extremists in the Middle East, mercenary Death Squads in Latin America), and then use any “blowback” to get their populace to “demand” that they tighten the chains of creeping martial law in their home-countries. This is a “win-win” scenario for the Totalitarian-seeking Mass-Murdering Globalist Elites.

    It is almost comical – with the Council on Foreign Relations staffing the key State Dept offices for 90+ years, and people still pretending there is a “Left-Right” difference in foreign policy. Obama’s orders, as with Bush’s orders, come from Wall Street – not some fake-ideology they wave in public to create the illusion of choice.

  • 11bravo

    Drill here, drill now, and arm isreal to the teeth!!!

    Who cares about muslims anyway? The whole place is a hell-hole anyway.

  • Richard Alms

    The only SH-WMD use was while Reagan was Supporting him. Remember the Rumsfeld picture and the present of Cowboy-Boots from Reagan? THAT was when SH was using chemical weapons – but the obedient Corporate Media tried to claim, at the time, that those “Evil Iranians” had done it. So, it was the USA which supported the WMD-Saddam (with Germany and others providing the precursor-chemicals), and lied about it.

    And lets not forget how the rift with Iraq was started: Kuwait (“our” Totalitarian “ally”) slant-drilled Iraqi oil and SH asked permission of the US officials to invade; Gillespie told him, “We have no defense treaty with Kuwait.” In other words, it was a set-up. Later, when SH offered to leave Kuwait in exchange for a face-saving deal regarding a Palestinian homeland, the prospect of his withdrawl was termed the, “Nightmare” outcome by Bush I’s staff; they needed that war (which they had pre-arranged, after all) to get their military bases in place (Read Brzezenski, Kissinger, et al for more on this “global chess piece”).

    Providing faked satellite photos (of non-existent Iraqi troops) to their Wahhabi allies in Saudi Arabia, or having a girl coached by Bush I’s War-Selling PR-Firm (Hill and K) lie to Congress (a lie repeated by Bush I, himself, at a press-conference) about babies and incubators, was not too much to accomplish the goal.

    What we are dealing with, here, Democrypt and Rethuglican, are people who follow the belief-system of Machiavelli. Religious people might call them “demons” – and while that is not my world-view, it is hard to find a better term to describe them.