PDA

View Full Version : Obama The 2 faces of our Commander in Chief


Chiefshrink
09-02-2010, 08:14 AM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2 faces of our commander in chief
by Jack Cashill

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 02, 2010
1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

In a February 2009 speech, newly inaugurated President Barack Obama promised the faithful that come Aug. 31, 2010, he would end combat operations for U.S troops in Iraq, just in time for the mid-term elections.

In the interest of accuracy, Obama did not exactly say "just in time for the mid-term elections." I added that. He just thought it.

And sure enough, when Aug. 31, 2010, rolled around, Obama proudly announced in his Oval Office speech, "The American combat mission in Iraq has ended." For a guy who could make the planet heal and the oceans stop rising, this was no biggie.

Unfortunately, this was no closer to the truth than many of the mindless, self-promoting statements he had been making about the war since before it even began.

Obama first went public in his opposition six months before the war started in his bellwether October 2002 speech at an impromptu rally staged by Chicagoans Against the War in Iraq.

In 2008, Obama would tell Rick Warren at his Saddleback forum that he "was firmly convinced [in 2002] that we did not have strong evidence of weapons of mass destruction."

This point would have delighted Chicago's anti-war crowd had he made it, but he did not. In October 2002, Obama conceded that Saddam "butchers his own people" and has "developed chemical and biological weapons and coveted nuclear capacity."

Despite the WMDs, Obama dismissed the impending war as "dumb." He saw it as the result of "a cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz," the only two officials in the defense hierarchy cited, both Jews, who wished "to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats."

Aiding and abetting the neocons, of course, was the inevitable Karl Rove. As Obama told it, Rove was banging the war drum to distract America from, among other things, "a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression."

In reality, the Dow Jones had been fairly flat since July 2002 and would gain more than 10 percent in that very October of Obama's discontent. "Worst" months would be of his own making.

In his 2006 book, "Audacity of Hope," Obama repeated the claim that the "administration's rationales for war were flimsy and ideologically driven."

So imagine how shocked his supporters must have been to learn Tuesday that "no one could doubt President Bush's support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security."

Our progressive friends also heard from Obama that America actually had "coalition partners who made huge sacrifices." In "Audacity" and on the campaign trail, Obama had repeatedly scolded Bush for his "precipitous, unilateral military action."

Obama also noted that America and its partners, including the Iraqis, were fighting "al-Qaida," and that we "took out" – as Obama so primly put it – "much of its leadership."

This had to come as news to the left as well. In "Audacity," Obama assured his fans that war against al-Qaida met his standard for a justifiable war, but that attacking "Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not meet this standard, which is why our invasion was such a strategic blunder," especially in that we acted "unilaterally."

Even more shockingly, Obama's progressive friends learned that those who died did not do so in vain but rather as an expression of "the values that have lived in the hearts of our people for over two centuries." And as a result, they "helped the Iraqi people seek the light of peace."

In "Audacity," Obama called the war "a botched and ill-advised U.S. military incursion into a Muslim country." He lumped this in with other American efforts "that ignore the legitimate aspirations of other peoples, undermine our own credibility, and make for a more dangerous world."

In the course of his Tuesday speech, Obama referred to the "surge" only once and that in reference to Afghanistan. He did not once credit it with the fact that there was still an Iraq to withdraw from.

Nor did he say, "Remember when I said, '20,000 troops aren't going to do anything to increase security – I oppose the surge,' or when Nancy said, 'The surge has failed,' or when Harry said, 'The war is lost'? Well, we were just kidding."

The troops still left in Iraq don't appreciate jokers. They just wish they had a commander in chief they could trust.

A very recent letter from a family friend, a West Point grad, expresses some of their frustration.

"Dear Dad," it begins, as do so many such letters. "I am still extremely disgusted after watching all of the news reports regarding the last combat troops pulling out of Iraq – it's such a crock. It is honestly firsthand proof of a liberal news media attempting to propagate a pro-Obama agenda."

After citing one attack on his friends and comrades after another, this officer concludes, "I would love to hear some liberal media chump try to tell me that my platoon consisting of three Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles and eight up-armored Humvees all with loaded .50-caliber machine guns is not a combat force."

He adds, "Enough of that, it makes me mad just writing about it."

Garcia Bronco
09-02-2010, 08:21 AM
It's a crock to say we have withdrawn from Iraq and the combat mission is over. Just more proof that our leadership is stunningly FOS on this issue.

Otter
09-02-2010, 08:25 AM
What a chump

Chief Henry
09-02-2010, 08:27 AM
What a chump

Because the word "chump" is very similar to the word "chimp". You may be called a racist very soon for your comment.

Taco John
09-02-2010, 09:23 AM
It's terribly sad how many of our soldiers have died and left behind broken families without good cause in Iraq. Obama may be a dope, but Bush is the one with the bloodiest hands here.

BigChiefFan
09-02-2010, 09:35 AM
"mission accomplished" W.

Sorry, but he's withdrawn troops, which is a step in the right direction. I won't pile on Obama for this clusterfuck of a war.

stevieray
09-02-2010, 09:40 AM
"mission accomplished" W.

Sorry, but he's withdrawn troops, which is a step in the right direction. I won't pile on Obama for this cluster**** of a war.
that message wasn't directed at the war, but to the sailors on the ship who had accomplished their part of the mission.

nice deflection.

Jenson71
09-02-2010, 09:48 AM
that message wasn't directed at the war, but to the sailors on the ship who had accomplished their part of the mission.

nice deflection.

Er, Bush gave a "Mission Accomplished" speech a month later. And if not for Rumsfeld's smart intervention, he would have given the same wording in the speech that day.

BigChiefFan
09-02-2010, 09:50 AM
that message wasn't directed at the war, but to the sailors on the ship who had accomplished their part of the mission.

nice deflection.

It's not a deflection. A deflection of what? Obama doing a shitty job? No, I've been quit vocal in my opposing of his job, thus far. The banner of "mission accomplished", for a particular designation of the military, sounds like the deflection.

It's also about how that was PERCEIVED, and since it was a NATIONALLY TELEVISED EVENT, it made Bush look foolish. Sorry, don't mean to kick sand in your eyes, but surely you aren't defending the banner and how poorly the timing of it was. The mission of the Iraq War was hardly accomplished and that's how the banner was perceived.

stevieray
09-02-2010, 09:56 AM
It's not a deflection. A deflection of what? Obama doing a shitty job? No, I've been quit vocal in my opposing of his job, thus far. The banner of "mission accomplished", for a particular designation of the military, sounds like the deflection.

It's also about how that was PERCEIVED, and since it was a NATIONALLY TELEVISED EVENT, it made Bush look foolish. Sorry, don't mean to kick sand in your eyes, but surely you aren't defending the banner and how poorly the timing of it was. The mission of the Iraq War was hardly accomplished and that's how the banner was perceived.Removing Saddam from power was the mission....you think military operations and missions didn't change after that occurred? you think that different units didn't have different missions or objectives before and after he was removed??

Jenson71
09-02-2010, 10:07 AM
Removing Saddam from power was the mission....you think military operations and missions didn't change after that occurred? you think that different units didn't have different missions or objectives before and after he was removed??

Removing Saddam? That's it? Just your average regime change? What happened to the whole liberation of the people, helping to establish freer politics and economics, and strengthening overall position in War on Terror?

Isn't that a more reasonable assessment of the mission in Iraq?

BigChiefFan
09-02-2010, 10:09 AM
Removing Saddam from power was the mission....you think military operations and missions didn't change after that occurred? you think that different units didn't have different missions or objectives before and after he was removed??Of course, there were/are missions before and after, but again, I said how it was perceived. Since when does the President give Nationally Televised Speeches over specific missions, unless it's MEANINGFUL? Read the following article and should help show a little bit of how this was perceived...

Obama won't say `Mission Accomplished' in speech
August 30, 2010 - 3:38pm


President Barack Obama walks out of the Oval Office to the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, Monday, Aug. 30, 2010, to make a statement on the economy. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh) WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House says there are two words President Barack Obama will not say Tuesday night in his speech about the end of the U.S. combat role in Iraq: "Mission accomplished."

Seven years ago, President George W. Bush stood on an aircraft carrier to declare an end to major combat operations in Iraq. A banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished" flew nearby. The Bush White House came to deeply regret that sign as the war dragged on and U.S. deaths mounted.

"You won't hear those words coming from us," Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said. Instead, Gibbs said, Obama will talk about what is involved in the U.S. troop drawdown and the changing mission in Iraq.

However, Obama does plan to call Bush on Tuesday before delivering his Oval Office address, Gibbs said, though he wouldn't say what Obama's message to his predecessor would be. Obama also called Bush last year before delivering a speech laying out the Iraq withdrawal timeline.


(Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House says there are two words President Barack Obama will not say Tuesday night in his speech about the end of the U.S. combat role in Iraq: "Mission accomplished."

Seven years ago, President George W. Bush stood on an aircraft carrier to declare an end to major combat operations in Iraq. A banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished" flew nearby. The Bush White House came to deeply regret that sign as the war dragged on and U.S. deaths mounted.

"You won't hear those words coming from us," Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said. Instead, Gibbs said, Obama will talk about what is involved in the U.S. troop drawdown and the changing mission in Iraq.

However, Obama does plan to call Bush on Tuesday before delivering his Oval Office address, Gibbs said, though he wouldn't say what Obama's message to his predecessor would be. Obama also called Bush last year before delivering a speech laying out the Iraq withdrawal timeline.


(Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

Brock
09-02-2010, 10:15 AM
Removing Saddam from power was the mission

Ha ha, no.

stevieray
09-02-2010, 10:16 AM
Of course, there were/are missions before and after,


there is no but...that ship accomplished it's mission.

you can perceive it as you choose..another perception appears that you are selective when giving the benefit of the doubt.

vailpass
09-02-2010, 10:17 AM
How much longer can this clown stay in office?

Chief Henry
09-02-2010, 10:21 AM
there is no but...that ship accomplished it's mission.

you can perceive it as you choose..another perception appears that you are selective when giving the benefit of the doubt.

Stevieray, you'll have to forgive the Olberman heads. Ol Keith reminds them of the "Mission Accomplished" sign nightly. Its one of the reasons he gets his ass kicked in the ratings nightly.

BigChiefFan
09-02-2010, 10:50 AM
I really don't understand why it's so hard to recognize that "your party" is just as fucked up as the "other party."

Why in the Hell won't some of you place some blame on your party leaders, as well?

The Mission Accomplished thing, made Bush look like a fool, no matter how you spin it.

I'm really not into kicking people, but I'm so sick of people being duped into thinking that "their" party's shit doesn't stink.

Boss Tweed is running amok in Tammany Hall.

|Zach|
09-02-2010, 11:18 AM
It's not a deflection. A deflection of what? Obama doing a shitty job? No, I've been quit vocal in my opposing of his job, thus far. The banner of "mission accomplished", for a particular designation of the military, sounds like the deflection.

It's also about how that was PERCEIVED, and since it was a NATIONALLY TELEVISED EVENT, it made Bush look foolish. Sorry, don't mean to kick sand in your eyes, but surely you aren't defending the banner and how poorly the timing of it was. The mission of the Iraq War was hardly accomplished and that's how the banner was perceived.

When I first read this I saw the word salad instead of sand.

The idea of kicking salad in someone's eye is hilarious to me.

fan4ever
09-02-2010, 11:35 AM
that message wasn't directed at the war, but to the sailors on the ship who had accomplished their part of the mission.

nice deflection.

It seems most people would rather remain ignorant on that point. But I appreciate the attempt to educate them.

patteeu
09-02-2010, 11:40 AM
It's terribly sad how many of our soldiers have died and left behind broken families without good cause in Iraq. Obama may be a dope, but Bush is the one with the bloodiest hands here.

Obama was against the decision to invade Iraq when GWBush made it, how about you?

|Zach|
09-02-2010, 11:40 AM
It seems most people would rather remain ignorant on that point. But I appreciate the attempt to educate them.

I have to go ahead and echo BCF's comments. You have to completely have your head in the sand to not see that as the short sighted blunder it was.

It is the political equivalent of thinking Ryan Simms was a great pick for the Chiefs.

fan4ever
09-02-2010, 11:44 AM
I have to go ahead and echo BCF's comments. You have to completely have your head in the sand to not see that as the short sighted blunder it was.

It is the political equivalent of thinking Ryan Simms was a great pick for the Chiefs.

This is a very simple topic; you didn't/don't get the point of the banner.

Don't feel bad; it's easy to latch onto something the talking heads are making a big deal about.

patteeu
09-02-2010, 11:47 AM
Ha ha, no.

Sure it was. It wasn't the only objective, but it was a primary one. Even before we invaded we reportedly were willing to give Saddam a chance to abdicate and go into exile. And on the eve of the invasion, we tried to decapitate the regime with an airstrike.

Seriously, what are you thinking here?

Jenson71
09-02-2010, 12:55 PM
Sure it was. It wasn't the only objective, but it was a primary one. Even before we invaded we reportedly were willing to give Saddam a chance to abdicate and go into exile. And on the eve of the invasion, we tried to decapitate the regime with an airstrike.

Seriously, what are you thinking here?

stevieray's use of the article "the" indicates it was the only objective/mission.

orange
09-02-2010, 01:09 PM
that message wasn't directed at the war, but to the sailors on the ship who had accomplished their part of the mission.

nice deflection.

Removing Saddam from power was the mission....you think military operations and missions didn't change after that occurred? you think that different units didn't have different missions or objectives before and after he was removed??

there is no but...that ship accomplished it's mission.

you can perceive it as you choose..another perception appears that you are selective when giving the benefit of the doubt.

Wow! 360 degrees in 3 messages!

No mere TOP for you!

http://jumproductions.com/images/Gyroscope_precession.gif

stevieray
09-02-2010, 01:18 PM
Sure it was. It wasn't the only objective, but it was a primary one. Even before we invaded we reportedly were willing to give Saddam a chance to abdicate and go into exile. And on the eve of the invasion, we tried to decapitate the regime with an airstrike.

Seriously, what are you thinking here?
don't bother pat, they have to pick nits. it's all they've got, other than the subject not being their primary motivation for replying.*

*edit: not meant to imply brock, he doesn't fit into that category.

orange
09-02-2010, 01:25 PM
A Note to My Fellow Hawks
It wasn't a bad speech.

BY William Kristol
August 31, 2010 10:15 PM


President Obama opposed the war in Iraq. He still thinks it was a mistake. It's therefore unrealistic for supporters of the war to expect the president to give the speech John McCain would have given, or to expect President Obama to put the war in the context we would put it in. He simply doesn't believe the war in Iraq was a necessary part of a broader effort to fight terror, to change the Middle East, etc. Given that (erroneous) view of his, I thought his speech was on the whole commendable, and even at times impressive.

The speech had, as he said at the top, three parts: "Tonight, I’d like to talk to you about the end of our combat mission in Iraq, the ongoing security challenges we face, and the need to rebuild our nation here at home."

On the first topic, he portrayed the fact that we sustained the combat mission for over seven years as a "message to the world that the United States of America intends to sustain and strengthen our leadership in this young century." That was good. He credited our men and women in uniform rather than the civilian leadership of the country for the accomplishments of the mission—but that was both understandable and even, in a way, appropriate. He did—probably as much as an anti-Iraq war president could—nod both to the justice and the achievement of the war, saying that our men and women in uniform had "defeated a regime that had terrorized its people," and that, "Together with Iraqis and coalition partners who made huge sacrifices of their own, our troops fought block by block to help Iraq seize the chance for a better future.... Because of our troops and civilians—and because of the resilience of the Iraqi people—Iraq has the opportunity to embrace a new destiny, even though many challenges remain."

The president praised Iraq's elections, and said that the new Iraqi government "will have a strong partner in the United States. Our combat mission is ending, but our commitment to Iraq’s future is not." This was worthwhile. It's true the president unfortunately felt he had to restate that, "Consistent with our agreement with the Iraqi government, all U.S. troops will leave by the end of next year." But the "Consistent..." phrase leaves open the possibility that the Iraqi government will ask us to reach a new agreement. And the president did emphasize "our long-term partnership with Iraq—one based upon mutual interests, and mutual respect.... What America can do, and will do, is provide support for the Iraqi people as both a friend and a partner."

In sum, the president seemed to me to go about as far as an anti-Iraq war president could go in praising the war effort: "We have persevered because of a belief we share with the Iraqi people—a belief that out of the ashes of war, a new beginning could be born in this cradle of civilization. Through this remarkable chapter in the history of the United States and Iraq, we have met our responsibility."

As for the second topic—"the ongoing security challenges we face"—the president's discussion of the fight against al Qaeda seemed to me adequate, given that he was not simply going to renounce the July 2011 transition date. "The pace of our troop reductions will be determined by conditions on the ground, and our support for Afghanistan will endure," was about as good as we were going to get.

The rest of the (brief) discussion of world affairs was pedestrian. The little pep talk about our economy and the commitment to helping veterans were relatively inoffensive.

The close, was, I thought, well done. The president located those who fought in Iraq in the unbroken line of those who, from Lexington to Kandahar, "gave their lives for the values that have lived in the hearts of our people for over two centuries" and who "have fought to see that the lives of our children are better than our own." There was a welcome implicit repudiation of Neville Chamberlain and appeasement, as President Obama praised our troops for having "fought in a faraway place for people they never knew."

And at the end: "Our troops are the steel in our ship of state. And though our nation may be traveling through rough waters, they give us confidence that our course is true, and that beyond the pre-dawn darkness, better days lie ahead." Not a bad tribute to the troops, and not a bad statement of the importance and indispensability of hard power.

And, on the whole, not a bad speech by the president.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/note-my-fellow-hawks

go bowe
09-02-2010, 01:26 PM
Because the word "chump" is very similar to the word "chimp". You may be called a racist very soon for your comment.yep, you're a racist pig, you bovine flatulator (sp?)...

oh wait, it was the other guy...

nm...

BigChiefFan
09-02-2010, 01:35 PM
What's funny is when I said "mission accomplished" I didn't even know that was a hot bed talking point, that Olberman had supposedly brought up. I don't watch his show, he's an ESPN analyst to me. I just threw it out there, because I believed it to be widely accepted as a major faux paux on Bush's part. The article that I submitted even implies that the Bush's DEEPLY REGRETTED the mission accomplished banner.

Why do you think Obama, PURPOSELY, avoided saying it during his speech? These guys(presidents) are coached by the same people.

If the Bush's themselves can admit it was a mistake, why can't some of you? That's the kind of partisan I'm trying to point out, so some will wake up and see they've been snaked, as well.

Jenson71
09-02-2010, 01:37 PM
I just threw it out there, because I believed it to be widely accepted as a major faux paux on Bush's part.

It is.

patteeu
09-02-2010, 02:44 PM
What's funny is when I said "mission accomplished" I didn't even know that was a hot bed talking point, that Olberman had supposedly brought up. I don't watch his show, he's an ESPN analyst to me. I just threw it out there, because I believed it to be widely accepted as a major faux paux on Bush's part. The article that I submitted even implies that the Bush's DEEPLY REGRETTED the mission accomplished banner.

Why do you think Obama, PURPOSELY, avoided saying it during his speech? These guys(presidents) are coached by the same people.

If the Bush's themselves can admit it was a mistake, why can't some of you? That's the kind of partisan I'm trying to point out, so some will wake up and see they've been snaked, as well.

1. Even if it was a completely justifiable statement that was spun into a major faux paux by political opponents and an antagonistic media, it could be seen as a mistake because it provided the opportunity.

2. The statement was, in fact, blown out of all proportion by political opponents and an antagonistic media.

3. At the time it was made, the Bush administration didn't anticipate the difficulties that were ahead, but then neither did most of the people who now criticize the statement with the full benefit of hindsight. There were a lot of smart people outside of the administration that didn't anticipate the severity of the insurgency that exploded when the Al-Askari Mosque was blown up. That flashpoint occurred almost 3 YEARS after the mission accomplished speech, btw, so it's not like the major insurgency violence occurred in the immediate aftermath of Bush's speech.

4. The real faux paux would have been made if the President had simply brought the troops home as if the mission had really been accomplished instead of sticking it out, adjusting his approach and recognizing that much more work had to be done. We can only hope that our current CiC has the same tenacity.

BucEyedPea
09-02-2010, 02:51 PM
3. At the time it was made, the Bush administration didn't anticipate the difficulties that were ahead, but then neither did most of the people who now criticize the statement with the full benefit of hindsight.

Not Scowcroft! He warned all about it beforehand. He was ignored. It was on his website and I believe in the WSJ. There were plenty of others that warned it would be a long time commitment.

Amnorix
09-02-2010, 02:56 PM
How much longer can this clown stay in office?

Pursuant to the Constitution, a little over six years, assuming he wins reelection. His chances don't appear good, but then Bush's chances didn't seem too hot at this point in his first term either and in politicis two months can be a lifetime, much less two years.

patteeu
09-02-2010, 03:39 PM
Not Scowcroft! He warned all about it beforehand. He was ignored. It was on his website and I believe in the WSJ. There were plenty of others that warned it would be a long time commitment.


First of all, I know that there were a minority of voices out there saying the opposite of the consensus. That's always the case. So pointing out specific examples of people expecting the worst case scenario at any given moment doesn't really mean much. It would be interesting to see what Scowcroft was saying in May 2003 though. My guess is that he was laying kind of low at that time since his pre-war predictions of a long term conflict were looking less likely at that moment in time.

The Bush administration always said it would be a long time commitment. What they didn't say was that it would be a long time combat operation.

BucEyedPea
09-02-2010, 03:44 PM
It's always the few that do the heavy lifting and who are the true leaders.

Amnorix
09-02-2010, 03:57 PM
1. Even if it was a completely justifiable statement that was spun into a major faux paux by political opponents and an antagonistic media, it could be seen as a mistake because it provided the opportunity.

2. The statement was, in fact, blown out of all proportion by political opponents and an antagonistic media.

ROFL. As compared to, say, the 8% unemployment ESTIMATE, right?

3. At the time it was made, the Bush administration didn't anticipate the difficulties that were ahead, but then neither did most of the people who now criticize the statement with the full benefit of hindsight. There were a lot of smart people outside of the administration that didn't anticipate the severity of the insurgency that exploded when the Al-Askari Mosque was blown up. That flashpoint occurred almost 3 YEARS after the mission accomplished speech, btw, so it's not like the major insurgency violence occurred in the immediate aftermath of Bush's speech.

Failure to anticipate the difficulties was one of the unfortunately many key failings of Bush's foreign policy wrt Iraq. Frankly, any bozo with a sense of Iraq's history could've/should've been able to foresee that a country with zero democratic institutions, no history of leadership by anyone except foreign powers or dictators, and with two intensely religious rival factions with the minority faction having been abusively in power for 40 years probably wouldn't convert to a democratic form of government quickly or easily.

I heard a recent interview with an Iraqi who was saying that it's becoming increasingly the opinion around the country that perhpas Iraq needs a strong single leader, "just not a Saddam". Good luck with that...

4. The real faux paux would have been made if the President had simply brought the troops home as if the mission had really been accomplished instead of sticking it out, adjusting his approach and recognizing that much more work had to be done. We can only hope that our current CiC has the same tenacity.

The real faux pas was:

1. invading in teh first place.

2. the screw up regarding WMD (which I attribute part of the blame to each of the administration and the intelligence community)

3. failing to understand the post-victory force structure that would be needed to ensure a secure environemnt to transition to a post-Saddam governmental structure.

4. failing to understand the demographics of Iraq, or its history, and the challenges that toppling the existing government would create.

5. failing to appreciate the difficulties in altering the Iraqi political landscape.

6. failing to appreciate the benefits that toppling the existing government would provide to Iran and other strategic players in the region that had different goals than ours.

I could go on and on...

vailpass
09-02-2010, 04:22 PM
Pursuant to the Constitution, a little over six years, assuming he wins reelection. His chances don't appear good, but then Bush's chances didn't seem too hot at this point in his first term either and in politicis two months can be a lifetime, much less two years.

I'm wondering if the guy is even going to make it through is first term.

AndChiefs
09-02-2010, 04:32 PM
How much longer can this clown stay in office?

One more term...than term limits will make him step down.



;)

patteeu
09-02-2010, 05:19 PM
ROFL. As compared to, say, the 8% unemployment ESTIMATE, right?

Yes, excellent example. Much more overblown than that.

Failure to anticipate the difficulties was one of the unfortunately many key failings of Bush's foreign policy wrt Iraq. Frankly, any bozo with a sense of Iraq's history could've/should've been able to foresee that a country with zero democratic institutions, no history of leadership by anyone except foreign powers or dictators, and with two intensely religious rival factions with the minority faction having been abusively in power for 40 years probably wouldn't convert to a democratic form of government quickly or easily.

I'd love to see the warnings to this effect that you were sounding back in May 2003. The truth is that the sectarian violence that did occur, wasn't inevitable and, if we'd have had the prescience to anticipate how it would develop or unlimited resources in order to be safe rather than sorry we could have prevented it. Mistakes were made, but they were far from the "sub-bozo" level of mistakes that you make them out to be.

I heard a recent interview with an Iraqi who was saying that it's becoming increasingly the opinion around the country that perhpas Iraq needs a strong single leader, "just not a Saddam". Good luck with that...

That's interesting, BucEyedAmnorix. I read a recent statement from an Iraqi saying that it's too early for the US to leave and that with continued US help the Iraqi democracy will succeed.



The real faux pas was:

1. invading in teh first place. Debatable policy choice but not a faux paux.

2. the screw up regarding WMD (which I attribute part of the blame to each of the administration and the intelligence community) Agreed, and I'd also add that it was a faux paux to so heavily rely on the WMD issue in making the public case for the invasion.

3. failing to understand the post-victory force structure that would be needed to ensure a secure environemnt to transition to a post-Saddam governmental structure.

4. failing to understand the demographics of Iraq, or its history, and the challenges that toppling the existing government would create.

5. failing to appreciate the difficulties in altering the Iraqi political landscape. 3, 4, and 5 all seem the same to me. Mistakes were made here, but it's as much a faux paux to look at this in hindsight and wag your finger as it was to fail to anticipate it. The important part is that the Bush administration persevered and modified their approach until they found success while naysayers would have surrendered and achieved nothing but failure.

6. failing to appreciate the benefits that toppling the existing government would provide to Iran and other strategic players in the region that had different goals than ours. The bigger failure here was the failure to anticipate the lack of will within our own population and the fact that our traditional allies wouldn't fall in line once the invasion successfully toppled the regime. The benefits to Iran wouldn't have been possible if a more reliable commitment to the mission from our people and our allies had existed.

I could go on and on...

Amnorix
09-02-2010, 07:37 PM
I'd love to see the warnings to this effect that you were sounding back in May 2003. The truth is that the sectarian violence that did occur, wasn't inevitable and, if we'd have had the prescience to anticipate how it would develop or unlimited resources in order to be safe rather than sorry we could have prevented it. Mistakes were made, but they were far from the "sub-bozo" level of mistakes that you make them out to be.

I would like to see it too, but my simple search for any post of mine using the word "Iraq" failed to pull up anything before 2005. Maybe posts prior to that aren't availabe? I have no idea.

I was talking about this stuff five years ago however.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2734982&postcount=9

That's interesting, BucEyedAmnorix. I read a recent statement from an Iraqi saying that it's too early for the US to leave and that with continued US help the Iraqi democracy will succeed.

LOL at the BEP reference.

Of course, there's no answer (except time will tell) to the issue of whether Iraq will ever be able to form a stable democratic government on their own.

Taco John
09-03-2010, 12:56 AM
Obama was against the decision to invade Iraq when GWBush made it, how about you?

I got taken in by the lies that were broadcast at that time.

patteeu
09-03-2010, 10:33 AM
I would like to see it too, but my simple search for any post of mine using the word "Iraq" failed to pull up anything before 2005. Maybe posts prior to that aren't availabe? I have no idea.

I was talking about this stuff five years ago however.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2734982&postcount=9

Of course, October 2005 was 2 1/2 years removed from the mission accomplished speech. By that time, a low level insurgency had long since materialized and democrats seeking domestic political advantage had been hammering the "Iraq was a mistake" meme for the better part of two years. But I'll take you at your word and accept that you were one of the very few who expressed this sentiment even as the mission appeared to have gone quite well that sunny day in May 2003.

LOL at the BEP reference.

Of course, there's no answer (except time will tell) to the issue of whether Iraq will ever be able to form a stable democratic government on their own.

Agreed. :toast:

patteeu
09-03-2010, 10:37 AM
I got taken in by the lies that were broadcast at that time.

First you were taken in by the Iraq lies broadcast by the Bush administration and then you were taken in by Obama's charm or his smile or some other obviously insufficient attribute. With a track record like that, how can you be certain you're not being duped again? :Poke:

Amnorix
09-03-2010, 12:53 PM
Of course, October 2005 was 2 1/2 years removed from the mission accomplished speech. By that time, a low level insurgency had long since materialized and democrats seeking domestic political advantage had been hammering the "Iraq was a mistake" meme for the better part of two years. But I'll take you at your word and accept that you were one of the very few who expressed this sentiment even as the mission appeared to have gone quite well that sunny day in May 2003.



I was always very concerned about going into Iraq. I accepted teh WMD concept so I was weakly supportive, but it seemed to me to be a potential quagmire.

I was more supportive of Aghanistan, but also concerned about that being a quagmire.

Basically, I thought both situations were highly fraught with risk, but that we really had no choice but to go into Afghanistan and get those who had perpetrated the 9/11 attack. Iraq seemed far more "optional" ot me, and given the risk I didn't really understand why it was worth incurring that risk.

If there's a way to find posts prior to 2005, I'm glad to try to dig around. I joined this board in May 2003 in part because I was interested in discussing these topics.

Calcountry
09-03-2010, 01:31 PM
Just face it, Hussein is in WAY over his head.

Chief Henry
09-03-2010, 02:03 PM
Just face it, Hussein is in WAY over his head.

this