Robert Gates Confirms ‘Party of Defeat’ Narrative

defeat_lgTo order David Horowitz and Ben Johnson’s Party of Defeat, click here.

In 2008, authors David Horowitz and Ben Johnson released their book, “Party of Defeat.” It chronicled the Democratic Party’s duplicitous efforts regarding its initial support for the Bush administration’s prosecution of the war in Iraq, followed by their attempts to undermine it — for nothing more than crass political considerations. In a his new book, “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War,” former defense secretary Robert M. Gates, who served in both the Bush and Obama administrations, delivers a devastating confirmation of Horowitz’s and Johnson’s arguments.

In one of the book’s most trenchant passages,  Gates notes a “remarkable” exchange he witnessed between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, in which both the current president and former secretary of state admitted their opposition to Iraq was all about gaining an edge in the 2008 presidential campaign. “Hillary told the president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary,” writes Gates. As for Obama, he also “conceded vaguely that [his] opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying,” he adds.

Dismaying perhaps, but hardly surprising. As Party of Defeat chronicles, in October 2002, a majority of Senate Democrats and 40 percent of House Democrats supported Bush’s congressional resolution on Iraq in the fall of 2002. Many of them spoke passionately about the need to remove Saddam Hussein from power, including former Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Joe Biden (D-DE). “It is clear, however that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons,” Clinton asserted. “Saddam is dangerous. The world would be a better place without him,” said Biden.

Sen. John Kerry who ran against Bush in 2004, was equally supportive at the time. “I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force–if necessary–to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”

At that time, the public was also squarely behind the administration’s intentions. Contingent upon United Nations approval, obtained by the Bush administration when the U.N. Security Council unanimously authorized Resolution 1441 ordering Hussein to comply with the Gulf War truce or face “serious consequences,” a full two-thirds of the American public favored troops invading Iran to remove Hussein from power.

Yet only four months after the invasion began, Democrats did a complete about-face. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) began a media campaign, with funding help from billionaire George Soros and other assorted leftists, claiming Bush lied about the reasons for going to war. The campaign was orchestrated by high-level Democrats in a effort to turn the public against the administration. It led to the endlessly repeated slogan, “Bush lied, people died.”

Yet the campaign itself was based on a subsequently discredited series of lies perpetrated by Amb. Joe Wilson, who falsely claimed that Saddam Hussein had not been seeking to purchase uranium from Niger. Those lies were debunked by a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee on July 9, 2004, but by then the dynamics under which Democrats were operating had changed completely. The change was precipitated in large part by the emergence of radical anti-war leftist Howard Dean as the frontrunner for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, based on a online primary vote in which Dean garnered 44 percent of the total.

Dean’s victory was not lost on eventual frontrunners John Kerry and John Edwards, who quickly abandoned their former support for the Iraq invasion. Other former war supporting Democrats fell into line as well, including Ted Kennedy (D-MA) who declared the war a “fraud,” and former Vice President Al Gore who screamed from a platform that Bush “betrayed us! He betrayed America!”

Thus, even as the war was proceeding and American men and women remained in harm’s way, Democrats hoping that their newfound stance would gain them the White House in 2004, cravenly elevated their political ambitions above keeping the nation united in time of war.

In 2008, Clinton and Obama squared off against each other in their own efforts to burnish their anti-war credentials. Hillary accused Obama of being “inconsistent” on Iraq, while husband Bill called Obama’s characterization of his own Iraq record “the biggest fairytale I’ve ever seen.”

Prior to his election to the Senate in 2004, Obama demonstrated far more consistency in his opposition to the invasion than Hillary Clinton did. But by 2004, his position had become more nuanced. He talked about sending more troops into the country to stabilize it and facilitate withdrawal. In 2006, both he and Clinton voted against a resolution introduced by Kerry, requiring the redeployment of troops out of Iraq, as a means of forcing a political solution on the new government. Clinton had already embraced her own refutation of the war a year earlier, telling her supporters she had been duped by Bush and wouldn’t have authorized the use of force “based on what we now know.” By Dec. 2007, in the midst of presidential campaigning, both senators sponsored a resolution demanding a troop withdrawal and a cutoff of funding. They remained on the campaign trail when it was defeated by 71-24 margin.

That vote came almost a year after Bush initiated the hugely successful “surge,” deploying an additional 20,000 troops to crush the terrorist insurgency. The despicable Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) continued to poison the well of public opinion, declaring the war “lost” four months later, while the then-Democratically-controlled House voted 215-199 for a scheduled troop withdrawal from Iraq the following year.

Again, that was the same surge opposed by both Clinton and Obama for self-admitted political reasons.

Once Obama was elected, it was only a matter of time before withdrawal would become a reality. According to the New York Times, Obama decided to retain Gates to give his national security team “a respected professional and veteran of decades at the center of American foreign policy,” as well as a “bipartisan aura.” Yet that inner circle quickly became disenchanted with Gates, who describes his ongoing battles with the president’s security advisors, including Joe Biden. Gates describes the Vice President as a “man of integrity,” but that he “has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.” He also opposed Biden’s counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan. “Whac-A-Mole hits on Taliban leaders weren’t a long term strategy,” he explains.

Gates was highly suspicious of the president’s effort to maintain tight control on national security operations, to the point where he considered resigning during a meeting in 2011. “I never confronted Obama directly over what I (as well as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-CIA Director Leon Panetta and others) saw as his determination that the White House tightly control every aspect of national security policy and even operations,” Gates insists. “His White House was by far the most centralized and controlling in national security of any I had seen since Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger ruled the roost” in the 1970s. He  also illuminated Obama’s determination to “take credit for every good thing that happened while giving none to the career folks in the trenches who had actually done the work,” which “offended Secretary Clinton as much as it did me,” he reveals.

With regard to Iraq, Gates writes that he was hopeful he could “stabilize the country so that when U.S. forces departed, the war wouldn’t be viewed as a strategic defeat for the U.S. or a failure with global consequences… Fortunately, I believe my minimalist goals were achieved in Iraq.”

It was a temporary achievement that has been completely undone by President Obama. His disdain for re-negotiating a reasonable Status of Forces Agreement, including his August 2011 decision to commit only 3,000 to 5,000 troops to a post-war Iraq–in spite of being advised that 10,000-20,000 troops were necessary–killed the deal, and paved the way for the current chaos in that nation. Al Qaeda has re-emerged in several Iraqi cities, including Fallujah, where 1,300 Americans payed the ultimate price to drive the terrorists out. Moreover 8,000 Iraqis were killed in 2013, marking the bloodiest era since the worst years of the war.

Gates offers an indirect explanation regarding the roots of that debacle. Noting that Obama was a “president determined to change course—and equally determined from day one to win re-election,” he reveals that domestic political considerations “would therefore be a factor, though I believe never a decisive one, in virtually every major national security problem we tackled,” he explains. “The White House staff–including Chiefs of Staff Rahm Emanuel and then Bill Daley as well as such core political advisers as Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs–would have a role in national security decision making that I had not previously experienced (but which, I’m sure, had precedents).”

Bob Woodward, who reviewed the memoir, notes that Gates further reveals the president as someone who “doesn’t want to fight in Afghanistan or Iraq, but he won’t pay the political price for pulling out, so he leaves American troops stuck in a quagmire with straitjacket rules of engagement and no victorious objectives to work for.”

Gates’ most scathing description of Obama focuses on his questionable leadership ability, and his lack of commitment to the war in Afghanistan. That would be the same war in Afghanistan Obama and his fellow Democrats characterized as the “good war” for nearly a decade, if only to make the comparison between it and the “bad war” in Iraq. According to the former Defense Secretary, Obama no longer embraces his own contentions. “For him, it’s all about getting out,” writes Gates. He further reveals that by 2010, he reached the conclusion that Obama “doesn’t believe in his own strategy, and doesn’t consider the war to be his,” even going so far as to say that the president was “outright convinced it would fail.”

Gates attempts to mitigate some of the criticism he levels at both Obama and Clinton, calling the president “a man of personal integrity” and insisting that “Obama was right in each of these decisions” regarding his primary Afghan policies. He describes Clinton as “smart, idealistic but pragmatic, tough-minded, indefatigable, funny, a very valuable colleague, and a superb representative of the United States all over the world.” (One suspects that families of the four Americans killed in Benghazi, even as Clinton wondered what difference would it make to learn the details of why that atrocity occurred, might disagree).

Gates levels some well-deserved criticism at Congress as well, describing most of the legislative branch as ” uncivil, incompetent at fulfilling their basic constitutional responsibilities (such as timely appropriations), micromanagerial, parochial, hypocritical, egotistical, thin-skinned and prone to put self (and re-election) before country.” He was equally incised by the “bureaucratic inertia of the Pentagon” that made getting anything “consequential” done “damnably difficult—even in the midst of two wars.”

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer called Gates’ revelation about Obama’s lack of faith in prosecuting the Afghan war and his own troop surge into that theater “shocking.” “Obama doesn’t believe in the surge or in the war, or in his own actions,” he noted. “He doesn’t believe in [General] Petraeus, he hates [Afghan President] Karzai, he thinks the war isn’t his. How can a commander-in-chief do that?” he wondered. Krauthammer further contended that Gates’ confirmation of Obama’s outlook is “an indictment of the president that rises above everything else he’s done in his presidency.”

It is far more than that. It is the culmination, painstakingly assembled by David Horowitz and Ben Johnson, of the American left’s effort to divide the nation for political gain, even if it puts America’s national security interests at risk in the process. Moreover, they received ample help from the same media that assiduously detailed every mistake, horror and draped coffin during the Bush administration, even as coverage of Iraq and Afghanistan virtually evaporated when Obama was elected. In the process, both entities have thoroughly alienated the American public against war. Thus, it remains very possible our nation will allow Islamofascism, as well as other national security threats, to proceed virtually unchecked, because a majority of Americans now believe no foreign entanglements whatsoever are worth pursuing.

“The war with Islamofascism cannot be won if its religious roots are denied or its global reach is ignored,” concluded Horowitz and Johnson six years ago:

“It cannot be won if Americans deny themselves the means necessary to fight the war–whether these involve strategies to strike first, or to spy on our enemies before they attack us, or to deny terrorist the rights of American citizens–thereby turning the Constitution into a suicide pact. It cannot be won if we allow a disloyal and hostile Left to dictate the parameters of our political debate. It can only be won if Americans put their differences aside to come together as a people, and unite as a nation, and mobilize the powers of our extraordinary civilization to confront the enemy who has attacked us.”

The current state of Iraq, and the willingness of a majority of Americans who once understood the need to forcefully confront Islamofascism–but are now seemingly resigned to allowing defeat to be snatched from the jaws of victory–epitomizes a nation divided by leftist fecklessness. It is understandable that Americans are quite weary of the war against Islamic terror. Unfortunately, they are far from weary of pursuing war against us. That is the bottom line, all the leftist political machinations in the world notwithstanding.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • onecornpone

    Gates belief that he could stabilize the country demonstrates that the pasty-faced bureaucrat class (read his bio), with their enormous egos are true believers in their own indispensability. Our government is riddled with them, from the local level all the way to the top.

    Disgustingly, he justifies continuing in his position, claiming success, although modified.

    Quite interesting that Gates believes that Obama is determined that the White House control every aspect of national security and even operations, but the evening that the monumental CF in Libya occurred the Control-Freak-in-Chief was incommunicado?

    • y3524m

      go back to sleep. your cute cut and paste of two ‘selected’ minor points, the article does not make.

      do you understand the premise of the article or do you need it spoon fed to you?

      • davarino

        Clearly you dont understand the point of the article. The point of the article applies to what cornpone is saying, that Obama and company are willing to morph their policies into whatever suits their needs, not the countries.

        • y3524m

          seeing as you so foolishly feel the need to stand up for someone else’s narrative, as if to suggest you ‘know’ what they were thinking when they wrote what they did, let me just point out a crystal clear fact for you.

          THE ARTICLE, entitled, “Robert Gates Confirms ‘Party of Defeat’ Narrative” speaks SPECIFICALLY to the damage and destruction done by the left to the survival and credibility of the Republic purely for political gains.

          where the hell in the article did it speak to the focus being the shit cornpone discusses?

          stability of the country wasn’t referring to the Republic in the article, it was referring specifically to the stability of Iraq, fool. on the night of benghazi, exactly!!! Gates answered her stupid question, he was nowhere to be found and the situation was listless because the control freak as Gates stated was indeed nowhere to give his AND only his authorization because he is a control freak.

          what is achieved by straying beyond the IMPORTANT points of the article?

          she and you should be thankful that Gates took the time to reveal just exactly what the left does not want you to know and what the caliphate Resident of The White House & his lap dog billary are up to.

          stay focused on the bigger picture and forget about msnbing every point only to our detriment. The bigger picture is the message and the fight is for the Republic, not bull shit talking points. Be thankful Gates wrote the book.

      • onecornpone

        Oh DEAR! Oh DEAR! What to do now?!?

        Skippy, you may show up on these comment boards to demonstrate your prowess at being ‘led’ to a point, or feel compelled to demonstrate that you read the article and ‘got’ it.

        Some of us are not bound by such desperate need to conform.

        It IS called individualism Skippy. Obviously you can’t grasp it.

        • y3524m

          lol…yes dear dear. the soothsayer you are…what prowess? you should be pleased with your narrative.

          too bad that someone rebutted your commentary. oh well, must be nice to live in the ivory towers of Babylon and go unfettered into that good night.

          btw, is it your belief that receiving criticism for your incorrect statements is akin to conformation? if so, you should renew your union card.

          • onecornpone

            Darlin, if you wish to have your “rebuttal” taken seriously, you might consider avoiding disparaging remarks in your initial replies. The snark is unnecessary between those truly interested in political discourse.

            Example; cute cut and paste, ‘selected’ minor points, do you need it spoon fed to you are designed to induce ridicule.

            Perhaps now you ‘get’ the metaphor of the avatar?!?
            If not, we can draw this out ad infinitum………

          • y3524m


  • HenDanK

    Soros lied (not to mention Ambassador Joe Wilson), people died. My heart breaks for all those lives lost due to leftism.

    • slhancock

      Well said! This whole thing is a travesty. We had a visitor the other day, someone who still works in the military and the things he told us are unbelievable. In fact, so much of it has been going on since the Clinton admin that it is now ENTRENCHED in the military and should someone decide to overturn some recent EOs, it would take another 2-3 decades to quell it. We worked with the military community overseas for 3 decades, ourselves and did not realize the depravity was so bad.

  • kasandra

    There is nothing new about Obama’s premising his war policy on domestic political considerations. I distinctly recall that shortly after his December 2009 speech at West Point, in which he simultaneously announced the Afghan surge and his withdrawal plans he, was quoted as saying that he needed to include the latter prong to shore up his support with his far left base. Wish I could remember where he was thus quoted but I’m sure some enterprising soul can confirm this.

    • WW4

      I love how this is portrayed as some kind of hypocrisy. Obama, elected twice with clear majorities, was seen as the anti-war candidate. His election, and re-election, reflect the fact that a majority of Americans came to see the Iraq War as a big mistake. Now think about that: do you think if Americans were keen to prosecute that war we’d have twice elected a democrat? In fact the war(s) were barely an issue in the 2012 elections. And “domestic political considerations” would I hope be a high priority for any elected official.

      • kasandra

        Maybe you should read before you spew. My comment, to which you responded by talking about Iraq, concerned Afghanistan and Obama’s setting of his Afghanistan policy with an eye on how it would effect him politically. Even though in 2008 he ran on the basis that this was the “good war” we needed to fight, he premised his Afghanistan surge coupled with a promised pull out soon thereafter on his need to keep his left-wing base in line for the 2010 congressional elections, not on the strategic or military requirements of his objectives in Afghanistan (whatever they may be). Nor did I say that he is a hypocrite (although, now that you mention it, he is). My comment was directed towards showing that Sec. Gates’ revelation that Obama views his Afghanistan policy mostly with an eye to its domestic political effects on him was shown revealed in 2009 and is nothing new and goes back at least as far as 2009. So why are you talking about Iraq, and hypocrisy and the 2012 elections and all the other junk in your post?

  • Army Mom

    I wonder what Robert Gates thinks/says about Colin Powell? Powell was the one who presented the evidence that Iraq had WMDs. Powell has since done a “to the rear, march” and is a political traitor.

  • Clare Spark

    The Party of Defeat dislikes generic “puritanism”, viewed as Hebraic. See “The Frontiersman/Settler as all-purpose scapegoat.” The same academics invented identity politics.

  • Wolfthatknowsall

    Extraordinarily-good article, Mr. Ahlert. May we all remember this when Hillary “announces” for the White House …

  • onecornpone

    The “book” demonstrates precisely what I articulated.

    …bigger picture…

    Okay Skippy, lets do that.

    WHAT is Gates political history? At the time of his SecDef appointment by GWB I noticed that particular aspect of his bio seemed fairly well ignored, shrouded. Are you following me, Sweetheart?

    Now, consider Gate’s fawning praise of Hillary, adeptly juxtaposing her stance against the buffoonish CIC at every turn. See where I’m going, Mr Big Pic man?

    Can Gates be the next Powell?

    What’s in it for him? Who knows!

    Ms. Kankles may desire a ‘neutral’ or bipartisan party VP running mate, after the Dem hierarchy left her alone at the altar in ’08 as payment for supporting Bill.

    Is THAT Big Picture enough for you Skippy, and will YOU still be thankful that Gates wrote the book when he is campaigning for Hillary in 2015/16?

    • WW4

      “…Gate’s presumption that he alone was qualified to manage the ‘war’ in Iraq…”

      Was that not his job? “Pasty bureaucrat” or not–is that supposed to be something new or unique? Consider: Mr. Gates’s predecessor is certainly not going to look too great in the history books, either.

      Is any of this “shocking”–really–to anyone? Were we supposed to think Obama didn’t want to find the exit after his campaigns promised us he’d do that?

      • onecornpone

        Was that not his job?

        No, if Gates had possessed more integrity than ego, or ambition, he would have resigned after he became aware that politics trumped winning and/or troop safety. It became only an attrition game.

        Since Gates was appointed by a (R), his staying in, allowed the impression of bipartisan DoD leadership or cooperation within the political parties.

        Did you never contemplate why the most virulently hyper-partisan regime in decades held Gates over – through the entire first term? Did you never wonder why Gates stayed in, when O’s ever-evolving ROE caused more and more dangerous situations for U.S. troops?

        Gates writing this self serving little tell-all borders on unethical and is at least tacky, squared!

        I never said anything about this book was “shocking”. Take up that argument with those who think it is replete with earthshaking revelations that may matter to anyone, ever. His snarky little inside stories could have made a difference, IF he had spoken up in mid-summer, 2012.

        I see it as perhaps being a pathetic campaign of a regretful career bureaucrat attempting to salvage his career/reputation… without any concern for those who suffered under the policies he oversaw.

        Were we supposed to think Obama didn’t want to find the exit after his campaigns promised us he’d do that?

        Ask Robert Gates that question. I offered no argument on any such proposition.

        For me, the question is WHY did Gates stay in so long and what gave him the impression this book would be well received by ANYONE?

        Perhaps we’re supposed to view him as a martyr?

        • y3524m

          “No, if Gates had possessed more integrity than ego, or ambition, he would have resigned after he became aware that politics trumped winning and/or troop safety. It became only an attrition game.”

          that statement and that alone should point out clearly that you are demented. damn the torpedoes, abandon ship? if it isn’t all perfect, dump the cause? What utopian world did you crawl out from under some rock?

          What politician, leader of anything does not possess the character traits of “ego, or ambition”? Since when has anyone been so foolhardy and naive enough to expect integrity from ANY Politician.

          You simply spin webs felling good about yourself but you are exceptionally Naive and fos.

        • WW4

          No, and I don’t think he’s looking to be portrayed as a martyr. And yes, self-serving is always the purpose of any memoir. So if you don’t think anything he says is shocking, then how would it have affected any outcomes whatsoever?

          U.S. foreign policy has always been about as bipartisan as our political system gets. The players are essentially the same. Gates was chosen for political reasons, sure. But what cabinet position isn’t? His appointment by Obama simply made sense from a practical point of view. Candidates may have this or that stance, but it is always mitigated once in office when they learn they can’t just swing the ship 180 degrees.

          Had McCain or Romney been elected, by the way, they both would have been looking for the exit. And I believe Bush replaced Rumsfeld with Gates precisely because he realized they had made a big mistake; most “insider” accounts from his presidency point to that. The marginalization of Dick Cheney in Bush’s second term is more evidence that Bush realized he’d been listening to the wrong people.

    • y3524m

      first off, since you insist on referring to me as skippy in your leftist ways of either belittling those you disagree with or acting in the condescending manner which you are quite skilled at, I have no choice but to refer to you as the uptight, obnoxious, over-sensitive bitch queen that you present yourself to be.

      secondly, you still don’t get it that the article has as much to do with your personal opinion (CONJECTURE) as global warming does to wombats.

      your baseless diatribe and innuendo have nothing of facts as they relate TO THE ARTICLE FOR WHICH THE DISCUSSION AND THE MERITS therein should lay. now you have Gates vying to be the next Powel? Did you over medicate?

      your distorted hangup for Gates aside, not to mention your personal rendition of what the author clearly failed in elucidating upon deaf ears and blind eyes, i recommend that you take a Valium and a comprehensive reading course…who knows, you may come out less a bitch and a scintilla more educated oh over-sensitive little bitchy queen.

      • onecornpone

        YAWN… Ho Hum…

        … belittling those you disagree with or acting in the condescending manner which you are quite skilled at.

        I quote you again… cute cut and paste, selected minor points, do you need it spoonfed to you…

        YOU made the FIRST move Skippy, otherwise I would have never noticed you, nor would I have spoken to you.

        Perhaps next time you drag in drunk on your @$$, you’ll turn on the light, so as to be able to avoid stumbling over the sleeping rattlers.

        Answer my question you coward, “Will you still be thankful that Gates wrote the book when he is campaigning for Hillary in 2015/16?”

        • y3524m


    • WW4

      “Miz Kankles may desire a ‘neutral’ or bipartisan party VP running mate, after the Dem hierarchy left her alone at the altar. We all knew it was her turn.”

      I can’t see it being a realistic expectation, but it’s an interesting theory.

      Naturally Hillary is going to come out looking good compared to the freshman senator from Chicago. There aren’t a lot of people in Washington who don’t think she’s capable of leadership, and it’s not because they “fear” her, but because it’s likely true. Republicans lost 2008 in part because they simply assumed she would be their opponent, and they had a backlog of Clinton Conspiracy Industry to throw at her. I think she’s accepted that it worked out well for her, because Clinton fatigue was still a factor in 2008; won’t be in 2016.

  • MacMac1000

    “Party Of Defeat” When I read that, I thought of Republicans, not Democrats. Of course every detail in this article is correct about the Democrats being that party of defeat when it comes to defending this country from foreign threats. Just who is it that is defending this country from internal threats? It sure isn’t Republicans. That stopped when the GOP turned on Joe McCarthy to side with Democrats. They have been colluding and compromising ever since. Need proof? Bob Dole. John McCain. Great candidates, right? And GHWB sure gave his term as prez away rather easily and without much of a fight. Ronald Reagan was able to deal a real punch to the Soviets, but Democrats? Fact is, there just isn’t any will to do real battle with the commiecrat Left. NONE.
    — — Party Of Defeat?

  • Lanna

    Stunning book by Robert Gates. The fact that the President didn’t believe in what the military mission he was committing troops too, and our good men died for this cause, makes me totally irate. It WAS all about getting out to please Obama’s base politically…not about lives….Period!

    • WW4

      Nothing stunning, other than his choice assessment of Joe Biden, if only for its candor. But the President was always about the exit strategy. Did you not remember his two campaigns?

      Thing is, when you get your soldiers out, they get to come home and live. They get to stop wondering if that lady or that kid is strapped with a bomb, if the next viaduct they cross is wired to blow, and if there’s any snipers in street clothes looking to target practice our glorified police force as it “maintains stability.” And they don’t have to wonder about the absurdity of how what they’re doing under fire is supposed to have any bearing on your and my safety.

      • Drakken

        Your defeatist approach and openly siding with these traitors within is duly noted! I blame both parties for the idiotic approach of insane rules of engagement. Go big or go home and if your not willing to kill a lot of people to win don’t bother.

        • WW4

          Actually I agree: go big or go home. Did we go big? Were we ever going to go big? No? Yeah, that’s what I thought. Therefore…

          • Drakken

            Your friend and hero Obummer has effed it up worse than Bush and that is saying something. Everybody was afraid of Bush, everybody laughs at Obummer.

          • WW4

            I would say he’s effed it up THE SAME. Actually less, since he didn’t decide that the military could be used to to turn Iraq into a democracy.

        • Templar

          Your veiled threats and posturing qualify you for a quick ousting from all the sites you post on.

  • gawxxx

    the american left will not be happy until the war is brought to these shores and massive amount of death is visited upon this nation .

  • celador2

    Clinton and Obama should face criminal charges for reckless misconduct Destabilizing the ME as they have with Arab Springs and Libya they opened the door for jihad and access to WMDs that Bush had contained with Gadhafi. They made the world a jihad haven.
    Impeach him and include her in the cross fire trickle down Judiciary com hearings. it does make a difference.

    • justquitnow

      Yes Clinton and Obama….they should face charges for destabilizing the Middle East….derp

    • WW4

      When attempting critical thought, it’s a good idea to apply the same standards to your side as you do to your opponents.

  • Nhóm Đào Tạo

    in some FUBAR s__thole. And they don’t have to wonder about the
    absurdity of how what they’re doing under fire is supposed to have any
    bearing on your and my safety.

    ve may bay
    ve may bay gia re
    ve may bay
    ve may bay gia re

  • Nhóm Đào Tạo

    secondly, you still don’t get it that the article has as much to do with your personal opinion

    ve may bay
    ve may bay gia re
    ve may bay
    ve may bay gia re

  • justquitnow

    You guys will be rewriting Bush for the rest of your lives. Good luck with this bizarro world.

  • truong web

    I’d like to thank Robert Gates very much. His stunning book is real life that the President didn’t believe in what the military mission he was committing troops. And Gates belief that he could stabilize the country demonstrates.

    ve may bay
    ve jetstar
    ve may bay gia re
    vé máy bay Vietjet

  • truong web

    I love how this is portrayed as some kind of hypocrisy too. the President Obama, elected
    twice with clear majorities, was seen as the anti-war candidate

    ve may bay
    ve may bay gia re
    ve jetstar
    ve may bay vietjet