By Joe Conason

As Iraq Implodes, Neocons Still Have No Plan Except ‘Blame Obama’

June 13, 2014 6:00 am Category: Memo Pad, Politics 139 Comments A+ / A-
As Iraq Implodes, Neocons Still Have No Plan Except ‘Blame Obama’

Divided between neoconservative ultra-hawks and libertarian isolationists, today’s Republican Party is hardly a steady influence on American foreign policy. But there is one thing that can be reliably expected from every right-wing faction in Washington: Whenever disaster threatens, they eagerly cast blame on Barack Obama – and utter any falsehood that may be used to castigate him.

As the failed state of Iraq strains under attack from a jihadist force  – the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria – all the usual suspects are popping up on the Senate floor to denounce the president. Ignoring more than a decade of miserable history in which most of them played ignominious parts, these politicians now claim that if only the president had listened to them, the current disaster would have been averted somehow.

“Lindsey Graham and John McCain were right,” said the Arizona senator, praising himself and his South Carolina sidekick. “Our failure to leave forces on Iraq is why Sen. Graham and I predicted this would happen.”

Nobody with a functioning memory can take such arguments seriously.

By the time our troops left Iraq at the end of 2011, the war had inflicted such immense damage on our military and our communities that Americans were in no mood for further misadventures. Not since Vietnam had a ruinous policy come so close to breaking America’s armed forces. The fiscal damage was equally serious – trillions of dollars in current and future costs, mostly borrowed from China. The American people wanted out.

Even had we wanted to stay, however, the Iraqis no longer desired our presence – as they had made absolutely clear in their electoral choices and their subsequent negotiations with both the Bush and Obama administrations over keeping U.S. troops in Iraq.  It was Bush who signed the Status of Forces Agreement in December 2008 that set a deadline of January 1, 2012 for the departure of all U.S. forces – unless the Iraqis negotiated and ratified a new deal to maintain our troops there.

No such deal was ever made, however, because the Iraqis wanted our troops out – even the tiny force of roughly 3,000 advisors that Obama hoped to provide. He was left with no choice because the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki refused to grant legal immunity from prosecution to any U.S. troops. Imagine what McCain and Graham would have said had Obama decided to leave American officers and troops vulnerable to arrest and imprisonment by local Iraqi warlords – especially when such an incident inevitably occurred.

So when Republican senators leap up and start barking about Obama’s refusal to leave troops on the ground, they either don’t remember what actually happened or – sadly but more likely – hope to deceive this country’s amnesia-addled voters.

Neither McCain nor any of the other trash-talking statesmen on the Republican side has much useful advice to offer the president. They say we shouldn’t have pulled our troops out, but they sure don’t want to send them back in. Drop some bombs on the jihadist camps, they suggest – knowing very well that won’t do much to clean up this horrific mess.

Still they insist on talking about Iraq, loudly and constantly, as if someone else created the mess and they have the answers. They need to be reminded just as loudly that it is their mess and they still have no idea what to do.

Americans should try to remember how this happened – even if the disgraced figures who promoted the invasion of Iraq will never accept responsibility for squandering trillions of American dollars, thousands of American lives, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives for what could most charitably be called a massive, irreparable blunder.  Never mind the nonsense about the weapons of mass destruction – which nobody has yet found there, by the way. Absolutely none of the predictions about Iraq by the neocons in and around the Bush administration proved accurate. None of their strategies provided real development or security. And all of their grand schemes for regional stability and democracy simply crumbled.

Instead of serving as a sturdy bulwark against extremism, the Shia-dominated government of Iraq immediately allied itself with the neighboring mullah regime in Iran. The curse of sectarian warfare, famously dismissed by William Kristol as a chimera, has exploded into a continuous catastrophic reality that threatens regional security and may create a fresh haven for terrorism.

It is hard not to wonder why anyone still listens to McCain, Kristol, and company — especially on this grave issue. But if they insist on serving up blame, let them step up first to accept their overwhelming share.

 Photo: Medill DC via Flickr

As Iraq Implodes, Neocons Still Have No Plan Except ‘Blame Obama’ Reviewed by on . Divided between neoconservative ultra-hawks and libertarian isolationists, today’s Republican Party is hardly a steady influence on American foreign policy. But Divided between neoconservative ultra-hawks and libertarian isolationists, today’s Republican Party is hardly a steady influence on American foreign policy. But Rating: 0

More by Joe Conason

American Amnesia: Why The GOP Leads On National Security

If the latest polls are accurate, most voters believe that Republican politicians deserve greater trust on matters of national security. At a moment when Americans feel threatened by rising terrorist movements and authoritarian regimes, that finding is politically salient – and proves that amnesia is the most durable affliction of our democracy. Every year around

Read more...

ISIS: Republican Reaction To Obama Speech Reveals Much — About Them

Within minutes after President Obama concluded his strong and sensible address explaining how he intends to destroy ISIS, the so-called Islamic State terrorist organization, Republicans popped up on television like political snipers. He should have kept a “residual force” in Iraq, complained Senator John McCain (R-AZ), and he is to blame for ISIS advances. He

Read more...

WATCH: ‘Last Days In Vietnam’ Trailer Is A Must-See

During the spring of 1975, as Washington policymakers confronted the inevitability of a North Vietnamese victory against the U.S.-backed government of South Vietnam, they made a decision that layered dishonor on the American defeat. They would do nothing to evacuate the South Vietnamese associated with the U.S. war effort, whose lives were in grave peril.

Read more...

Tags

Comments

  • charleo1

    Ever hear a criminal describe his version of his crimes? Or, remember George Bush’s ongoing descriptions of his? Or a Republican actually taking responsibility, and admitting a mistake? Ever? It’s always the other guy’s fault. I thought the 7-11 guy was reaching for a gun. “Don’t wait until a smoking gun becomes a mushroom cloud!” “They’ll welcome us as Liberators, and throw flower pedals in front of our troops, like France!” “Mission Accomplished!” Insurgents? Nah! “Just a few dead enders”…Civil War? Sectarian violence? “You will need to send 500,000 troops to occupy the Country for years.” General Shineki, you’re fired! Joe Wilson, your wife’s career is over. Helen Thomas, your questions will be ignored for the next several years. Okay, we found no WMDs, the sectarian violence is… “Terrible!” “We’ll fight ‘em over there, so we don’t need to fight ‘em over here!” The 2004 Presidential debate gave us the Commander in Chief’s assessment of the war so far. “Iraq is tough, it’s real tough!” And “We’ll stand down, when the Iraqi Army stands up.” John Kerry’s sterling military record got dragged through the mud. And, George Bush continued. I’m ordering 30,000 more troops to Bagdad. But, it will be worth every penny of the now nearly $3 trillion dollars, and over 4,000 dead, and the 30,000 wounded. Because we’re creating a democratic ally in the heart of the Middle East. (Our real intention all along.) And that will set off a democratic revolution throughout the region. “Because freedom is the Right, and hope of people everywhere!” We are leaving Iraq, with all our goals, and aspirations for the Iraqi people realized. Our mandate to liberate Iraq, under the auspices of th UN directives are ending. “We, and our allies are handing a democratic, prosperous, and Al Qaeda free, Iraq back to the hands of the Iraqi people.” Five years later, Iraq is coming apart at the seams? What? Oh, this is all Obama’s fault! We tried, and tried to tell him. Not to say we told you so, but, we told you so! Maybe now America will leave these matters in the hands of competent people, like Republicans, like John Mccain. Hubba-Hubba!

    • Annemb

      Great post!!!

      Perhaps it’s time we sent every “war-monger” and their entire family into every war they declare or say we need to engage in, with Bush and Cheney leading the way along with McCain.

      BTW, I wonder how McCain would have felt if folks bantered him about upon his return from a POW camp just as he’s bantering Bergdahl? To quote one of our Founders, “Disgusting”!

      • FT66

        To be frank, I would preferred that the Tea Party could had trashed McCain instead of Cantor. McCain doesn’t recognise Bowe Bergdahl was the POW like he was. McCain gained the title for doing nothing . Both Bergdahl and McCain were both captives and tortured. Luckly not killed. They both share the same status. Why does he deny Bergdahl the same title he has been riding on ever since? Is it because Bergdahl didn’t crash any plane as he did?This is beyond me.

        • charleo1

          McCain was calling for the Obama Administration to do more to secure Bergdahl’s release, a few weeks ago on CNN. As was much of the Right, when ask. As Sgt. Bergdahl was the sole POW, their various websites, or twitter accounts, were full of, # Free Sgt. Bergdahl pleas. All taken down, as it actually happened. Without a word of congratulation, at his release. So, hypocrite much? Yes, a lot! One fact here to be considered, is that he was being held in Pakistan, by a third faction, not the Taliban. Which I believe, led Right Wingers, always on the lookout to make Obama look feckless, did not think obtaining Bergdahl’s release was even possible. Well now, they’ve really got a problem. Their goal is to make it entirely through the now 8 years of the Obama Presidency, without have to officially admit, he’s done anything that wasn’t a huge mistake. Ironic after Bush, isn’t it? But that’s clearly their goal. And no matter what, they’re sticking to it. One T.V. pundit said the GOP base, “Wants them to stand up to Obama.” I thought no, they want the GOP to impeach him. And are really super angry at them for not doing so. And with every such phony scandal they whip up to placate them, only makes them angrier, for not doing so. Well, surely this you can impeach him for, they want to know? It really is a symptom of a larger problem within the GOP, we discuss here at length, that causes a lot of the insufferable mendacity.

          • dpaano

            YEah, and they complained about him not closing down Guantanamo, but when he attempts to do so in one way or the other, they denounce him vigorously. They are a bunch of two-faced hypocrites! How they keep getting elected is beyond me! But I guess the GOP doesn’t have a logical thought in their heads or things would be a lot different!

          • charleo1

            Republicans often make statements directly to their base, and this is one of them. Designed to be at once, irritating to the Left. And, entertaining to their loyal spitballers. Who know full well this was a campaign promise, that they with the help of some members of Obama’s own Party, were able to prevent him from fulfilling. They love to present this as the supposed clear evidence that Obama, “lies all the time,” and this is the proof. But, they know, and their base understand, this is actually a ha-ha, thumb in your eye, insider joke. That says, we hate you, Obama you SOB! And we can stop everything you attempt. It’s how the Right Wing talks shit. At least that’s how I
            take it.

        • Dominick Vila

          Sen. McCain criticized Sgt. Bergdhal’s release because the Obama administration managed to negotiate it.

        • Annemb

          Every time I hear McCain speak I think, “sour grapes.”

          You are exactly correct about McCain. McCain is putting politics first before a fellow American and POW. Remember his motto when running for president was “America first.”

          • dpaano

            Why does anyone even listen to this guy any more….he needs to do the same as Bush….slip away into the night and stay quiet. No one needs or wants to hear anything he has to say!

        • Russell Byrd

          Worse, some POW’s have claimed that McCain was actually a collaborator. I doubt he gave the Viet Minh much of value, but he was noted as being very compliant. It always seems the least deserving are the first to throw stones at some other poor tormented soul.

          I definitely have lost all respect for McCain, especially since the evidence that he did a 180 on this issue for pure political gain is so compelling. And to think I work for a guy that disliked McCain for being too “liberal.” Pfft! I guess being truthful and showing common decency are all too often seen as liberal “failings.”

        • Sand_Cat

          Why not both?

      • charleo1

        You know, McCain is kind of a sad case. Because, I can’t tell if it’s purely bitterness over losing his chance to become President, that drives a lot of his comments about Obama. Or it’s dementia brought on perhaps by age, illness, or maybe his treatment as a POW. As we continue to learn more about the long term effects of head trauma. Good days, and bad days. One day he’ll take to the Senate floor, and call the T-Party a bunch of Hobbits. The next day, he drops into Syria, demanding Obama arm the freedom fighters against Assad’s tyranny. With pictures of known Al Qaeda insurgents, right there in the background of pics of him, and the Syrian Rebels. I want to respect, and do respect his truly remarkable stand with his fellow POWs in Hanoi. As his release was arranged many times, yet he stayed, for the sake of his fellow Brothers in arms. Who’s Fathers weren’t Admiral of the Pacific Fleet. That’s the John McCain I want to believe exists, except for the excusable factors. Today, Andrea Mitchell mentioned to McCain the fact Sgt. Bergdahl had returned Stateside earlier today. And wanted to know what McCain, given his experience as a POW, would want to say to Bergdahl? McCain said, “Welcome home.” And added, there should be an investigation. But that, nothing that Sgt. Bergdahl had written, or said in captivity, should be held against him. So, I gather, the Senator is having a fairly good day today.

        • Annemb

          Great post!

      • merr7242

        John McCain is useless. All he does is use Obama as a scapegoat for the failings of his party. He ran in 2008 wanting to BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN. Wow – that was really stupid considering the country was falling apart! His “single most important issue” is to put Obama down because he FAILED to win in 2008. Maybe he’ll run in 2016, lose, and we’ll we done with him.

        • Annemb

          Exactly correct!

        • plc97477

          I hope voters notice what a lot of us have seen and realize that mccain has dementia and oust him soon.

          • Sand_Cat

            They’ll just elect someone worse.

        • Russell Byrd

          Wasn’t “BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN” an old Beach Boys tune? All bad jokes aside, McCain, like many in his party, exhibits some of the stupidest behavior “for purely political reason.” Surely, they could be a little more Machiavellian in their choice of scandals. Of course, I am glad that they are not.

    • ExRadioGuy15

      This is a great post…the mixture of intelligence and sarcasm is perfect :) Kudos

    • dana becker

      I always thought it funny, and not in a funny way, the Republicans determination to spread “our” (really the Republicans) idea of democracy while trying to make sure we had less democracy at home. They say one thing and pass laws doing the opposite. The Republicans own this 100%.

      • Russell Byrd

        Another problem with the Repubs spreading their form of Democracy overseas is, a lot of innocent people usually get killed and a lot of sociopathic capitalists make a lot of money, as often as not. As well, even when this “spread” is relatively benign, the agreement of the people affected is seen as irrelevant.

      • charleo1

        Personally I do not like conceding that there are people who would just rather just not be free. But the evidence is, that large majorities of Muslim populations in the Mid-East, have been conditioned to believe having their religious leaders in charge, or having them have the final say on all matters, is simply the way they understand their God wants them to live. Just as we believe in secularism, as a foundational Right of expression. And a gov. that would require all of it’s citizens to worship the same State sanctioned religion, we see as an intolerable oppression. Many there, see any other gov. as an insult to their God, and a betrayal to the Creator of the Universe, and his Messenger. So, I have to admit, like many Americans, looking at their World through my Western eyes, I assumed they must be living in fear, and repression. And have wished for them the liberty I enjoy. But their idea of liberty, are driven by their faith. This is our lesson to learn. But this should not effect our feelings about those Muslins who come to the West, accepting it’s secularism going in. For them it was also a choice, of not accepting that there is a basic conflict between faithfully following their ideas of religion, and a secular society, where all religions are respected. And we are not occupiers of their respective Countries either.

        • Russell Byrd

          I hope you forgive me for saying so, but we have a large minority of the population right here that thinks their religious leaders, or their disgusting views on ruling others lives with their religion, are much more important than our freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution. At least, those Muslim populations have had no previous experience with our Democratic ideals and freedoms. Contrast that with the number of people in our own nation that are trying to give us a system similar to the one the Muslim nations “enjoy.” Of course, in their view, a Christian dictatorship is so much superior to a Muslim one. Well, maybe, but I do not want either inflicted on me, nor on anyone for that matter.

          • charleo1

            In other words, they ought to know better. I agree.
            A lot of them carry little copies of the Constitution
            around in their pockets, and take it out and wave it
            around, and say stuff like, “We’re a Christian Nation!
            So how come we gotta treat homosexuals, and Muslims, like everybody else?” “They don’t treat
            Christians equal in their Country, now do they?”

        • Russell Byrd

          Excellent analysis as always.

        • dpaano

          As I used to say when Bush declared war on the middle east…..you CANNOT bring Democracy to them. They have been ruled by kings, pharaohs, etc, for millenniums. They don’t even KNOW the meaning of the word Democracy much less want to practice it. You can’t change a leopard’s spots, but apparently the GOP and Bush thought you could and still think that.

          • charleo1

            I would say a couple of things. And premise everything by saying these are only my impressions, by observation, and not much else. The truth is, I haven’t talked with people from the Mid-East. But I don’t see them as a homogeneous group at all. That said, we have been dealing militarily with basically three of the Countries in the region. Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. But, in those Countries as in other Countries throughout the Mid-East. Those the least willing to accept Western style democracy, share the common traits of being some of the poorest Countries on the Planet, and also some of the least educated. And so, are vulnerable to some of the most extreme, and regressive ideology we can imagine. Wrapped up into their religion, that is used, for lack of a better analogy, like one would use a hypodermic needle to inject a sort of inoculation against modernity, secularism, and democratic thought, and institutions into these respective societies. And all have, to differing degrees, been injected with this, anti-West, anti American certainly, and anti-Jewish, and anti democracy, inoculation. And to quote a former American President who was finding this out, after deploying 250,000 troops halfway around the World. “Well, it’s hard.” Yes, indeed Mr. President, “It’s hard.” And harder still for many Americans to appreciate how fortunate we have been to live in such a culture, with such a history. In such a Country, founded by those who by their own experience, were well aware of the consequences to individual freedom, when one religion, or any religious dogma, is allowed to be advanced by a government, in preference over all others. Just as those who know all too well, the control a government may exert, over it’s people by demanding all within the reach of it’s influence will abide by our religion, and by the State’s interpretation, in all cases. But having done so, for so long now, they know no other way.

        • Daniel Jones

          There’s a lot of people in *AMERICA* that don’t want to be free, as long as they can call themselves free and see others even lower down than themselves!

    • Dominick Vila

      Speaker Boehner said yesterday that Iraq was imploding while President Obama was “napping”. As soon as President Obama said that there are other options on the table, besides putting boots on the ground, he automatically became a war monger.
      Let’s not forget that the rhetorical game the GOP plays is designed to divert attention from their record and their lack of vision. Unfortunately, there are many among us that miss that minor point.

      • Annemb

        Boehner better watch his step! He can say just so much before they boot him out of the Speakership. You are exactly correct!!!

  • FT66

    I wish “W” could had listened to his father. He warned him not to go to Iraq BUT Dick Cheney overpowered them. Cheney owns all the mess. He must find the way how to clear it. Why should he let others clean his mess. He started the war, he kicked off Saddam Hussein who kept everyone disciplined, now no one listens to anyone. Mr. Cheney, you broke it, you own it.

    • latebloomingrandma

      He remains in his own little dream world, still thinking that we were the great liberators.

      • oldtack

        Cheney is the gutter rat that bragged about securing 5 deferments during the Vietnam War while he hid out in the halls of Congress as someone’s aide. The person that crapped his pants at the thought of War but was quick and eager to send our children to their deaths to fulfill hid fantasies.
        If we had conducted a Nuremburg Court he would have been among the first to hang.

        • Duckbudder

          Speaking of shitting one’s pants, we haven’t heard much from “The Nuge” lately.

          • plc97477

            Just as well. His ugly face gives me hives.

          • Russell Byrd

            Probably curled up in a drunken stupor somewhere.

    • Hajj

      He got rich from it,

    • http://www.examiner.com/political-rebuttal-in-national/michael-ross Michael Ross

      I’d settle for Dick Cheney even having listened to himself:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EstVJo6URdQ

      That’s right. Cheney called it all in 1994. They knew EXACTLY what would happen in Iraq, but they did it anyway.

      • FT66

        Many thanks for the link. I appreciate it. Are politicians drunk of Power. Cheney was right in1994 about Iraq. What made him change his mind in 2003 when he sent soldiers to die in the hot desert of Iraq? Unbelievable!

        • dana becker

          All the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ who could make.

          • Russell Byrd

            You made me think about that. Really, the fact that Cheney was right or wrong was/is irrelevant. Cheney just saw the unfolding events as a profit opportunity. Right or wrong was meaningless. Death toll . . . irrelevant. Profits . . . oh yes, m-o-r-e please!

      • charleo1

        Dick Cheney having to listen to himself for eternity in Hell,
        seems like a fitting punishment to me. But, maybe that’s
        too close to my own version, to be appropriate?

        • plc97477

          Wouldn’t be enough punishment cus he loves the sound of his own voice.

      • Jerry

        This is the smartest thing I’ve ever heard Dick Cheney say in his public life. Like FT66 says, though, if they knew this then, why change their mind in 2003 and invade Iraq anyway? Follow the money, maybe? Oil companies have made record profits ever since, Halliburton is the single most profitable company from the war, and they figured they would be out of office well before the terrible truth would be known so now they can blame the Obama Administration for the failure of their own actions? I have long said that whoever was to follow George W’s administration would not be a well liked president because of the mess he left. Doing what it would take to improve things quickly would be widely unpopular, and possibly impossible, and if the next administration couldn’t dramatically improve conditions Bush left us with, the next president would not be able to be re-elected. Now, they just try to blame the current president for their own mistakes and hope enough don’t truly remember who put us there well enough to know better. I hope this video is played over and over until it is no longer any doubt who is responsible for this mess and prove how hypocritical Republicans are and how much they are now lying to the country even as they did then.

    • Sand_Cat

      Don’t you go and exonerate that little slime, W.
      Dick Cheney co-owns all the mess with his senior partner.

    • Russell Byrd

      It is an endemic problem with our system. If we had a system of uniform justice for all, and could cut through the idiotic partisanship, AND stop obscenely wealthy felons from mounting super “dream team” defenses, then Cheney would be standing against a wall in sort order. Unfortunately, with the mess we have, we have as much support for shooting our own President who, by and large, is guilty of nothing more than being black.

    • dpaano

      Cheney was thinking “Halliburton” and how much money he could make by starting this “little” war of his.

  • Grannysmovin

    Some of McCain’s past words of wisdom:

    2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people and sickened 17: On 10/18/01 McCain appeared on Late Show with David Letterman. When asked
    how the war in Afghanistan was progressing, McCain volunteered that the
    invasion of Iraq would be the “second phase” of the War on Terror. He
    went on to claim that the anthrax “may have come from Iraq” and “if
    that is the case than some tough decision will have to be made.”

    2/21/03 Fox News Hannity and Colmes, McCain said: A. “We’re going to win this victory. Tragically, we will loose American lives, be it will be brief” B. “You make a good point as to the cost of war, because we don’t know because war is so unpredictable, how much the war will be. That is going to be a heavy burden on the American people.” McCain went on to say: “Iraqis would pay for costs of Occupation and Reconstruction of Iraq. Post-Saddam Hussein Iraq is going to be paid by the Iraqis, they have billions of dollars in income. They have vast oil reserves and I think they will pay for it.”
    C. “”It’s going to send the message throughout the Middle East that democracy can take hold in the Middle East.

    3/13/03 On Chris Matthews show, when asked if the people of
    Iraq will see us as liberators, John McCain’s response “Absolutely.”

    04/23/03 on MSNBC: McCain said: “There’s not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shiahs. So I think they can probably get along.”

    • Allan Richardson

      Personally, I always thought it was suspicious that the anthrax was NOT mailed to people in power, but to the OPPONENTS of people in power, the MEDIA, and the COURTS, as if to WARN them not to mess with the neocons in the White House and Pentagon. FOREIGN terrorists would have mailed it TO BUSH AND CHENEY.

    • Hajj

      One bull crapp after he other unfortunately ignorant people belive him. If Saddam was left alone we would have saved our face. Saddam said during the invasion ” this war is going to be the MOTHER of all wars” he was right 13 years and going.

  • Bob Williams

    In Obama’s defense, he probably doesn’t even know about any of this, as he may not have heard about it on the news. He was apparently preoccupied with the NBA Finals.

    • Mark Forsyth

      Obviously,you are preoccupied with bullshit.Go spew your crap elsewhere.

      • BillP

        Mark this is the sum of his witticism, he can’t offer anything of more substance. Just another typical troll. Say something stupid and disappear.

    • Midway54

      With staff and aides, the NSA, and the Joint Chiefs around him all watching the game, too? Just another post from an easily recognizable dupe of the plutocracy.

    • Hajj

      needs some recreational time like anyother human to keep his mind of issues and then reload

      • dana becker

        Don’t bother. He is not interested and is just a troll. Don’t feed the troll.

    • highpckts

      Oh bully for you! Another zinger for the President oh you of little intelligence!!

    • charleo1

      Defend Bush, Bob. Obama doesn’t need your snotty, sarcasm. Obama’s defense today, was his policy to not invade Iraq in the first place. What have you been preoccupied with?

  • hotflashweave

    If John McCain was able to do, as president, all that he has demanded of this president, we would have military presence in Nigeria, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine , have I missed anything? All this, while the country struggles to provide services to returning veterans. We need a break from perpetual war. There’s work to be done here.

  • Mark Forsyth

    Is there any place in the Mid-East that is safe and peaceful? I do not think it is part of the culture.From the beginning of time,they have had tribal warfare as well as religious wars and have given reason to doubt the benefits of religion.
    Surely there are good and decent people living in the Mid-East,which makes it all the more sad.With the possible exception of humanitarian efforts,it’s time to leave this part of the world alone.

    • Allan Richardson

      If they had been left alone from the time of the Crusades, or at least from the time of European colonialism (starting with Napoleon in Egypt), and allowed to form their political structures for themselves, rather than being forced into national boundaries drawn on a map by Europeans (Iraq isn’t a “country” like France or Germany, it’s a chunk of colonial territory where a puppet government was set up, and the puppet broke its strings), they would settle those feuds themselves.

      Col. T. E. Lawrence got Arab insurgents to help defeat the Ottomans in WWI by promising that they would get the chance to form their own states, but the Treaty of Versailles double-crossed them (along with Col. Lawrence) by carving it up into British and French sections.

      • Mark Forsyth

        All true Allan,but that just opens the door to a lot of unresolvable What Ifs.

  • latebloomingrandma

    Iraqi soldiers are taking off their uniforms and fleeing. The terrorists are using American leftover weapons. I guess that the US cared more about their country than they do. We obviously cannot kill our way out of this. They will never run out of men who will enter terrorist groups. In 2003 when we invaded Iraq, those 12 year old boys are most likely today’s jihadists. All we have done is play whack-a-mole in the middle east. How does the actual game of whack-a-mole end anyway?

    Turns out that Joe Biden’s pooh poohed idea of dividing Iraq into 3 federated sections sounds like a pretty good political solution at this point. . Sunni and Shia have been at each others’s throats since Muhammed died, somewhere around a millenium and half ago.
    This is the definition of FUBAR. Thanks neocons.

  • http://gmail.com FAMULLAR

    a It is a fitting irony that fighters from a breakaway al-Qa’ida faction have taken over Tikrit during their rapid advance in Iraq. The city is the birthplace of Saddam Hussein, and his supposed link to al-Qa’ida was one of the justifications used by the US and Britain to invade.

    b Saddam’s was a brutal regime, but the examples given of his Islamist terrorist connections were as false as the claims made of his weapons of mass destruction in the dodgy dossier produced by Tony Blair’s No 10. It was, as we now know only too well, the attack on Iraq and the huge mistakes made in the occupation that rejuvenated al-Qa’ida into its current hydra-headed form and opened the door to vicious sectarian strife between Sunni and Shia.

    c The jihadists have created what their name suggests – the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria – winning control of Iraq’s Sunni heartland and the bloodiest of the rebels fighting Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

    d One can, with some justification, blame Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his Shia-dominated government’s myopic policies for easing the path of the jihadists. A significant factor in Isis’s success is that it exploited Sunni grievances long ignored by Baghdad.

    • dana becker

      Nailed it.

  • http://gmail.com FAMULLAR

    US President Barack Obama’s popularity rating hit a new low with a majority of Americans adjudging him as unpopular as his predecessor George W Bush, a latest opinion poll has said.

    “Obama is now as unpopular as Bush. Fifty-one per cent have an unfavourable view of Bush; 51 per cent feel the same way about Obama,” said the CNN/ORC International poll.

    “Obama’s favourable rating is now at 47 per cent – a new low for him, and virtually identical to Bush’s 46 per cent favourable rating, a significant improvement over his 2009 numbers,” it said.

    “This marks the first time in a CNN poll that a majority of Americans have an unfavourable view of Obama,” said CNN Polling director Keating Holland.

    “And, at 51 per cent, his unfavourable his higher than his favourables for the first time as well,” Holland added.

    As for Bush, his numbers have gradually edged up over the years since he left the White House, and is now on par with Obama, CNN said.

    Both Bush and Obama have much lower favourable ratings than the two men that preceded them in the White House. Sixty-eight per cent of the public has a positive view of former President Bill Clinton and 58 per cent say they have favourable opinion of former President George H W Bush.

    • mah101

      Next up: In the latest polls, a majority of Americans believe that 5 is greater than 15.

  • mah101

    This began on March 20th 2003. It was clear to all who knew anything about the sociopolitics of the region that Iraq was only being held together at that point by Saddam Hussein, and that his removal would set this in motion. Ultimately, Iraq is likely to consist of three states – one Sunni, one Shiite, and a Kurdish state in the north. One will be allied with Syria, one with Iran, and the Kurdish state will cause instability and problems in Turkey.

    We could have thought this through before starting this stupid war, but the neocons saw oil dollars and were blinded by their greed and arrogance. Why they are not in prison, I just don’t understand. But now, they point fingers at President Obama and say “its all his fault” when they broke the damn country. If only W had learned anything from his father.

    • Hajj

      Man I could not say it better. No problems between all sectors during Saddam. Bush created the rift and still going.

    • highpckts

      Bush had to prove to his Father that he is a man among men. He didn’t care about learning anything! He just had to prove to his Father that he isn’t truly a screwup! Didn’t work so well!!

  • sigrid28

    Wherever civilization collapses, the first victims are women and children. In the Middle East, it is the re-emergence of Islamist laws restricting women: at an extreme, permitting a decision to execute a pregnant woman for accepting Christianity. Limiting women from protecting their children when men abandon families, a practice that forces many women into the equivalent of slave labor. Malala, the girl shot for promoting education for girls in Pakistan, and her parents and siblings must live in exile in England. In India, a third young girl who was raped has hung herself, while law enforcement allows more gangs to rape women with impunity. In Nigeria, school girls are kidnapped and sold into slavery, and nothing can be done to stop this. In China, girl babies are aborted.

    I say women who feel abused must join together and leave the parts of the world where they are in danger, along with their children, who are also unsafe. Helping them abandon these cultures would be money better spent than the billions it would take to bomb the heck out if Iraq or Syria–or letting misogynistic Republicans hold another twenty-five hearings on Benghazi, just because they have an axe to grind against Hillary Clinton. The same goes for maintaining children fleeing violence in central America, our current immigration dilemma. Wherever humanitarian abuses abound, it is ALWAYS the case that it is women and children who are left with no recourse. Isn’t it worth trying simply to help women and children to walk away from the violence men insist on perpetuating before mounting the challenge of fighting fire power with fire power?

    • charleo1

      I could not agree more with everything you said, and more! And this is not to cast aspersions upon the women themselves in the U.S. However, they’ve simply got to come to their Sisterhood moment, and help men who absolutely believe in their cause. To do those sort of things, such as accepting those children at the border, who are clearly fleeing war, and famine. By electing politicians who will call Countries, who are perhaps strategic military allies, or trading partners, to account for their human rights abuses. Especially their horrid social norms concerning their treatment of their women. What happened in Mosul Iraq, is a perfect example of a situation where the Sunni population welcomed in an Islamic faction so fundamentalist, they think Al Qaeda is too liberal in their religious beliefs! We see theses atrocities, but I don’t think we can fully appreciate the depth they are ingrained into these societies. One of the Bush Administration’s huge misconceptions, from which many eventual failures flowed. It’s difficult for us to be the least bit pragmatic about this. Because, by our morals, and standards, which, without a doubt, need improvement. Their behavior, on the other hand is to us, beyond comprehension. We looked at the brutality of a Saddam Hussein, thought what a monster! And it was true. But, failed to appreciate it may well take one monster from preventing a worse monster from taking power. It is not one World. And even then, I do not believe at all, that good intentioned, or moral people run the vast majority of it, here, much less over there.

      • sigrid28

        This time I may be quite a bit more radical than you, my progressive friend. I really mean that, from my point of view, the only way to “treat” the connected problems in Iraq and Syria, now, is to protect the women and children fleeing and encourage more to do so. The first step in my plan would be humanitarian aid to refugees, which is already in place. Imagine the horror of the militants on all sides of the conflict in Iraq and Syria–their slave class would be unavailable, just when the ruling militants need slaves most. Of course, children would have to go with the women, as the warrior class would only drop the responsibilities not fulfilled by women down to the level of child laborers. American women could supply funds and perhaps some NGO leadership in treating these refugees, but we do not need to mobilize in ways other than we do already, and the same goes for the men who want to fix problems rather than just perpetuate them. What would be the downside of weakening the ability of warriors to carry out more destruction? Greater sales of microwaves: that’s a good thing. A few more men learn to do their own wash: no downside there. Children out of the way when men come home, so no interference with watching their favorite sports or militants on TV: men are saying, OK by me. Fewer expenses for men, so they can pour all of their resources into buying weapons and ammunition. They can kill and maim each other to their hearts’ content, until one side disappears. Then let them go on the road like Alexander’s armies, and women and children leave wherever they go, where they will wait patiently. After all, women and children can do almost everything civilization needs to survive after the blood rage of these men has been sated. I don’t see any other way to fix it.

      • dpaano

        And the GOP is doing THEIR best to hold women down in this country…..if they’d just keep their hands and minds away from our lady parts, we’d be so much better off! But, they have one-track minds and they are definitely on the wrong track. This isn’t the middle east…..we WILL rise up and fight them.

    • highpckts

      Oh well said but in the men’s eyes losing the children and women are just the cost of doing business!! There’s plenty more where they come from! Just like McCain saying the costs will be high in lives but that is the price of war after all! Asses!

  • ORAXX

    Before being marginalized by the Neo-Cons, Colin Powel told the president that The Pottery Barn, ‘ you break it, you buy it’, rule would apply to the invasion of Iraq. Bush/Cheney broke it and they own this debacle, though no one should hold their breath waiting for either of these two cowards to man up and accept responsibility. The Republicans will place blame everywhere but where it belongs. There was never a possibility invading Iraq would have a happy ending for anyone but Halliburton, and the other big defense contractors who walked away with billions.

    • Sand_Cat

      Colin Powell was as guilty as the rest of them. More so, because he knew better, but carried their lies to Congress and the UN. How Colin Powell came out of this smelling like a rose to some Dems is one of the most appalling aspects of the whole thing.

      • dpaano

        Powell didn’t know that he was being lied to until AFTER his talk at the UN, and from what I understand, he was extremely irate about the situation (per his chief of staff). Unfortunately, he let them lie to him and didn’t check his facts, so he does share some of the blame.

        • Sand_Cat

          He didn’t resign in protest, and when he did resign – allegedly over his distaste for their policies – he made sure that no one found out about that in time for the election.
          Sorry, Powell is just another criminal along with the rest of them, an enabler of all their BS and crimes. He could have avoided promising to give the “adult supervision” to W that helped make the election closer than it should have been.

  • AlfredSonny

    What do Republicans and Arabs have in common? They just whine and do not make progress for all people.

    • mah101

      You are being vastly unfair to Arabs.

    • paulyz

      I believe it is Obama & the Democrats that are Pro-Arab, even releasing the Top 5 Terrorists back to kill other Arabs & Americans.

  • paulyz

    Before we went into Iraq, there were U.N. resolutions passed after Iraq violated them. This led to the vote by Congress including Democrats & Hillary to enforce those resolutions, with many other Countries included.

    I just heard Nancy Pelosi “still” blaming Bush. Now after Obama moved our troops out of Iraq, he is discussing more Military intervention after Al-Quaida has been gaining ground and taking over Iraq again.

    • highpckts

      That’s funny because I just heard the President say no more boots on t he ground!! I bet Fauz NEWS says differently for obvious reasons!

      • paulyz

        Obama will sent a few air strikes to look tough, but it will do nothing to help, only kill innocent people and piss off the Muslims more.

        • highpckts

          I hope he does NOTHING!! We have given enough lives and money to that God forsaken country that has been at war with itself for centuries! Most european wars are all about religion! Why do you think this country has seperation of church and state. So we wouldn’t end up like them,!!

    • rat618

      If Bush, Cheney, Powell, and the other war criminals had told the truth to Congress there would have been no way a vote giving them to OK the invasion would have come about…something you and the NeoCons conveniently omit.

      • paulyz

        Bush had the same information that Hillary & the Democrats did, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. My son was a Seebee in the front lines building bridges for the troops during the march to Bahgdad during the beginning of that war. He told me that they found Millions of gas masks for their troops so the Iraqis DID have chemical weapons. Of course Sadam Hussien used them on his own people. This was our biggest fear during the initial invasion, many American soldiers dying from chemical weapons.

  • a80a

    how soon the G O P forgets that bush #1 went into Iraq and defeated the Iraqi army then came Bush #2 and kicked the hell out of a decimated Iraqi
    army then invaded AFGANISTAN now every thing is Obama fault he should pull out ,he should leave troops on the ground should he or shouldn’t he? the G O P DON’T know what they want except control of the country I think this would be a fatal mistake should this come to past a one party running the country should never happen. who or what can satisfy the G O P ?

  • stcroixcarp

    The war in Iraq was always about keeping Iraqi oil out of the world market. This keeps the price of oil high and gives leverage to develop fracking here at home. The neocons don’t give a rats ass about the people if Iraq and neither do the American people. Obama was right to get American troops out of Iraq. Let the Iraqis kill each other or make peace as they see fit.

  • Eleanore Whitaker

    There’s only one thing wrong with the GOP’s “Damned if Obama Does and Damned if Obama Doesn’t” dance routine. Our President isn’t a football these little red state tyrants can toss at will to a football game with only their team playing.

  • ExRadioGuy15

    charleo1 makes a really good point, especially with the question, “Or a Republican actually taking responsibility, and admitting a mistake?”
    It’s true…the Fascist, greedy, arrogant and incompetent GOP deny making any mistakes. Doing that is part of their Fascist “gaslighting” propaganda campaign. Fascist regimes, like the GOP, did/do/will deny the truth when it goes against their ideology or objectives.
    Let’s take a look at two instances where Fascist regimes, the German Nazis and the Empire of Japan before and during World War II (yes, the Japanese were Fascists), employed that “gaslighting” propaganda campaign. Both regimes regularly lied to their citizens via the media about the reasons for going to war and about how the war was going once it started. In fact, near the end of the war on both fronts, Germans and Japanese not a part of the military or the government reported being surprised to hear that they were losing and about to lose the war. And, the gaslighting propaganda campaign worked so well that the citizens of those two countries still thought they were winning the war, even though though the Allies had been consistently bombing them into submission. The Japanese got the biggest wake-up call when we dropped the A-bombs on them in August 1945. But, that was because of the “Bushido Code”, translated loosely as “Death before Surrender”. Apparently, the GOP have their version of the Bushido Code.

  • Charles Homme

    Nice deflection for abdicating responsibility. Regardless whether you supported the invasion or not pulling troops out in 2011 was a serious mistake and the reason for this current mess. Iraq was stabilizing with a US forces in place.
    For reference, please note we still have large military footprints in Germany, Japan and South Korea.

    • WSClark

      Perhaps you don’t quite have the intelligence to read the article where it stated that your hero, GWB, negotiated an agreement with Iraq that “set a deadline of January 1, 2012 for the departure of all U.S. forces.” Try reading.

      • Charles Homme

        Classy. Care to knock down any more straw men?
        Obama was perfectly capable of negotiating a continued troop presence. But that too is beside the point. We should be putting a strong military force in place now and stop this mess from spiraling out of control.

        • WSClark

          Nonsense – read the article – Iraq refused to allow protections for our troops. Try reading the article. Your Obama Derangement Syndrome is nearing a terminal condition. Enough is enough with Neocon wars of choice. You folks have already killed 4,500 Americans needlessly. I would have thought that the lessons of Vietnam would have been learned by now. We are not the world’s policeman.

          • Lynda Groom

            Perhaps too subtle for some to grasp.

          • Charles Homme

            Obviously for you.

          • Lynda Groom

            Nice assist. I love it when others confirm my point.

          • Charles Homme

            Can you debate without nastiness? This happened on Obamas watch and he had plenty of power to keep troops in Iraq. It was discussed ad nauseum at the time. Try reading something other than hyper partisan Joe Conason. Even Slate and the WaPo blame Obama’s ineffective foreign policy for this mess.. Again this is beside the point and mere deflection for Obama apologists. What should we do now?

          • WSClark

            Did you even bother reading the part where the Iraqis wanted us out? To stay or return without invite would have been a violation of international law and the UN authorization. Is that clear enough? No protections for our troops was forthcoming. Is that part clear yet? There was no way for us to maintain a military presence. The only troops we have in Iraq right now are guarding the Embassies. Our foreign policy should not include involving ourselves in someone else’s civil war. We have lost too many lives and too much treasure already. Enough is enough. President Obama got us out of Iraq as quickly as was prudent considering the agreement that Bush signed. Enough. No more wars of choice. That is the solution.

          • Charles Homme

            So was Afghanistan the good war? Or are you going to say Obama supporters are responsible for thousands of US service people’s deaths?

          • WSClark

            Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and had Bush not acted on the authorization to use force, the UN Inspectors would have been able to finish the job of determining that Saddam in fact did not have WMD. The War against Iraq was totally unnecessary and you know it.

            Afghanistan actually was connected to al Qaeda and invasion was justified. Bush failed to complete that mission, leaving a mess for his successor. You know that, too.

            Your relentless desire to blame President Obama for anything and everything is nauseating. You know that President Obama inherited a massive catastrophe from Bush with both wars, yet you childishly try to lay the blame on our president.

            Taking out Saddam and leaving a nation in perpetual civil war has destabilized the entire region and has given rise to the growing influence of Iran. You know this, too.

            Your take on the current situation in the Middle East is typical of the Right – accept no responsibility for the actions of George W Bush and lay the blame on President Obama, and that is disgusting.

          • Charles Homme

            So Afghanistan was the right war? You’re not being very clear. If so, how’s that going? When that collapses in an al qaeda frenzy because we withdrew all of our troops will you blame Obama?
            It’s ironic reading comments about always blaming Obama. The problem is Obama never takes responsibility and his sycophants always blame Bush.

          • WSClark

            Iraq has never been stable since 2003 and you know it. President Obama at least has tried to stabilize Afghanistan before pulling our troops out. Your hatred for our president is disgusting and childish. This conversation is over.

          • Charles Homme

            You have not been paying attention or your partisan blinders have shielded you from reality. Yes Iraq was stable and Obama blew Afghanistan out his arse. Are really that much of a partisan?
            And your hatred of president Bush is disgusting and childish. Dr two can play that game.

          • plc97477

            I think reading is a problem for his kind. We need to shake our heads sadly and wish our schools would do a better job of teaching the fundamentals.

    • oldtack

      You omit one mitigating fact. Malaki rebuffed our offer to keep troops there as advisors. He was insistent that he wanted ALL foreign troops out of Iraq. Later, when insurgents were gaining momentum he again refused our offer of assistance. Germany, Japan and Korea wanted our presence. In retrospect France did not want foreign presence and we have none in that country.

      • Charles Homme

        Malaki was controlled repeatedly by the us. We put no effort into forging an agreement to keep a troop presence. It was was a disgraceful abdication of responsibility by the us.
        This isn’t some mere after the fact sniping. It was discussed intensely by many people at the time. It seems people like Romney are turning out to be right. Unlike Obama and Biden declaring the troop removal as a great foreign policy triumph.

        • apogee2perogee

          Malaki was likely aligned with Iran and Iran wanted the soldiers out. Perhaps they knew this was inevitable, but they have their way now. They are becoming openly aligned with Iraq and don’t be surprised if Iraq becomes part of Iran in the future. The sects will not unite at this point, it seems much more likely the middle east will redivide on sectarian lines.

    • Duckbudder

      Learn to read Chuck.

  • FT66

    Can anyone help me to understand how MCcain was captured. Was he trying to run away like Bowe Bergdahl, or it was because he crashed the plane. I have been eager all the time to be enlighted on this.

    • oldtack

      From one of McCain’s fellow Cadets at Pensacola. “if McCain hadn’t been the son of an Admiral he would never have made it through training” “If he had known anything at all about combat he would have never allowed himself to get in a position to be shot down”. He was a prisoner for five years but then again -so were many othes. He was tortured? so were many others. the difference? The others came home and resumed their lives and never talked about it. McCain ? McCain came back wearing his experience like a bloody symbol on his chest and he has milked the Public and the Political world ever since. He suffered no more than did many of our brave men in Vietnam and suffered far less than did the 58,000 or so that gave the ultimate sacrifice there. Honor those deserving of honor and send McCain packing back to his millions of dollars.

  • http://www.examiner.com/political-rebuttal-in-national/michael-ross Michael Ross

    Is anyone even remotely surprised? Today’s G.O.P. deliberately manufactures disasters for the sole purpose of blaming them on Obama.

    Osama bin Laden is dead. Or did McCain, Graham etc. completely forget that 9/11 was the whole reason we had troops in Afghanistan — Earth’s anus — to begin with?

    • charleo1

      The post by,”FAMUULAR,” is not factual. As Bush’s favorably ratings broke modern day records over, you guessed it, Iraq. In the low 30s. Exactly the size of a base that would have supported him, if he came out and admitted he was actually a woman, and the First Lady was actually George Clooney, in drag.

  • rzinny1

    Republicans always blame Obama for everything, it is called
    election year rhetoric. But there is plenty of blame to spread around. President Bush who got us into it. The oil companies with their wheeling and
    dealings for oil. If the Arab nations banded together
    to fight these terrorist groups as much as they fought the Israelis, there
    would be no problem. And remember ever
    since the crusades there has been this holy war by a fraction of the Muslim
    world against the infidel. And there is no
    compromise , it a fight to the finish. Deal with it!!!

  • howa4x

    McCain made ludicrous statements before we got into Iraq, like we would only need a small force, and the Sunni and Shia would get along. He predicted victory easily. So did the rest of the Neo-cons. Iraq was a disaster from the beginning. Toppling Saddam easy, but the decision by Paul Bremer to over rule the military who wanted the army to be purged of revolutionary guards, and act as a police force. Instead the army was disbanded and sent home with their guns before we could get our military sent for a police action.
    The real reason we were there is for oil leases and new documents reveled that. So McCain and Graham are telling outright lies about our involvement and so is Cheney, Rice , Wolfowitz , Rumsfeld and the rest of them. It was only about oil and not nation building which was the cover.
    McCain and Graham are so out of touch that they want our involvement again. These two clowns are also yelling about Iran’s nuclear capability. Consider that Iran is the biggest backer of the Maliki government let them provide troops to save their client. In reality if we want to hurt Iran we should back the Sunni insurgency, and our allies who are the Saudi’s and oil rich gulf states. In the Neo con world where everything is up side down that is unthinkable.
    The American people are tired of sending troops because the two factions of Islam can’t get along. Why should we intervene at all. This is a regional problem and should be settled by states that have a vest interest and not us

  • fionavictoria

    Why blame Obama for George W. Bush’s fiasco in invading and then managing the Iraq war?

    • Charles Homme

      You’re kidding, right?

  • cablejunkie

    the sunday morning talk lineup this week is a shitfest

  • lapdogs

    With John McCain making all kinds of complaints about President Obama’s decision to pull our troops out of Iraq, perhaps the public and the news media needs a refresher course of John McCain’s own words, before and at the beginning of the Iraq War.

    Plus, remember that Iraq wanted our troops out of their country!!

    The news media needs to play these McCain quotes over and over again, every time he opens his mouth about Iraq. Hopefully, national newspapers will also pick-up the quotes and print them.

    With the current situation in Iraq, pay particular attention to what McCain said on April 23, 2003.

    http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/wait-mccain-was-wrong-on-iraq-yup-279981123648

  • rat618

    And of course if you point specifically to all the BS thrown about by the NeoCons about the cakewalk in Iraq or that it was a mistake the first thing out of their mouths is “Well the Dems voted to go to Iraq too” conveniently forgetting they lied to the opponents of war with Iraq to get what they wanted.

  • ivory69690@yahoo.com

    “Lindsey Graham and John McCain were right,” said the Arizona senator, praising himself and his South Carolina sidekick. “Our failure to leave forces on Iraq is why Sen. Graham and I predicted this would happen.”/// and you clowns was good with IRAQ saying that thy would not defend any of the USA troops that might still be there ? IRAQ are the ones that said that thy would not protect and USA’S troops that would be left behind .. maybe “Lindsey Graham and John McCain should hurry over there and help them on their own . that would be the America thing to do . go there and save them “Lindsey Graham and John McCain thy need you there its the right thing to do . we will cheer you on from here . we know you can do it . so go get them and save them only as you know how to do .show us how

  • ivory69690@yahoo.com

    By the time our troops left Iraq at the end of 2011, the war had inflicted such immense damage on our military and our communities that Americans were in no mood for further misadventures. Not since Vietnam had a ruinous policy come so close to breaking America’s armed forces. The fiscal damage was equally serious – trillions of dollars in current and future costs, mostly borrowed from China. The American people wanted out.///// so Lindsey Graham and John McCain do you feel its right for the USA to borrow this kind of money from China to use on another country that the DIRTY BUSH started a war of B/S info and intelligence . and why is it what thew USA has to borrow all the money for the world ? ( money that we will never get back ) see China knows what thy are doing with stupid people like Lindsey Graham and John McCain thy know thy can keep leaning the USA money and make money on these wars for thy just set back pay nothing for these wars from their pockets and makes a ton off lending money

  • ivory69690@yahoo.com

    Even had we wanted to stay, however, the Iraqis no longer desired our presence – as they had made absolutely clear in their electoral choices and their subsequent negotiations with both the Bush and Obama administrations over keeping U.S. troops in Iraq. It was Bush who signed the Status of Forces Agreement in December 2008 that set a deadline of January 1, 2012 for the departure of all U.S. forces – unless the Iraqis negotiated and ratified a new deal to maintain our troops there.///// so Lindsey Graham and John McCain what about this ? you want usa troops to stay where thy are not wanted ? heck whos is to say the USA troops that wasnt wanted there wouldnt be killed by the very IRAQ troops them selfs ? because thy didnt want us there

  • ivory69690@yahoo.com

    No such deal was ever made, however, because the Iraqis wanted our troops out – even the tiny force of roughly 3,000 advisors that Obama hoped to provide. He was left with no choice because the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki refused to grant legal immunity from prosecution to any U.S. troops. Imagine what McCain and Graham would have said had Obama decided to leave American officers and troops vulnerable to arrest and imprisonment by local Iraqi warlords – especially when such an incident inevitably occurred. come on “Lindsey Graham and John McCain time to pull your heads out of each others butt and stop talking crap,

  • ivory69690@yahoo.com

    So when Republican senators leap up and start barking about Obama’s refusal to leave troops on the ground, they either don’t remember what actually happened or – sadly but more likely – hope to deceive this country’s amnesia-addled voters./// go GOP gang of idiots

  • ivory69690@yahoo.com

    Still they insist on talking about Iraq, loudly and constantly, as if someone else created the mess and they have the answers. They need to be reminded just as loudly that it is their mess and they still have no idea what to do.//// what else is new for the GOP gang of idiots ?

  • ivory69690@yahoo.com

    Americans should try to remember how this happened – even if the disgraced figures who promoted the invasion of Iraq will never accept responsibility for squandering trillions of American dollars, thousands of American lives, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives for what could most charitably be called a massive, irreparable blunder. Never mind the nonsense about the weapons of mass destruction – which nobody has yet found there, by the way. Absolutely none of the predictions about Iraq by the neocons in and around the Bush administration proved accurate. None of their strategies provided real development or security. And all of their grand schemes for regional stability and democracy simply crumbled./// AND THANK YOU DIRTY BUSH

  • ivory69690@yahoo.com

    It is hard not to wonder why anyone still listens to McCain, Kristol, and company — especially on this grave issue. But if they insist on serving up blame, let them step up first to accept their overwhelming share.

  • ivory69690@yahoo.com

    It is hard not to wonder why anyone still listens to McCain, Kristol, and company — especially on this grave issue. But if they insist on serving up blame, let them step up first to accept their overwhelming share.//// WHAT PART OF THIS DONT THY SEE ????????/

  • plc97477

    Mccain and graham want to fight in Irag hand them each a rifle and ship them off.

  • Will

    The loudest, most prevalent statement I would love to make to McCain, Graham, Cheney and the rest of these sickening neocons…” Here is your parachute, here is your M-16, we ran out of camouflage so here our your bright orange “jump suits”, watch your heads getting into that transport plane and we will contact the heads of the countries you would like to invade and tell them that all of you are heading over there to kick their butts all by yourselves. I am so tired and sickened by these war mongering bastards. (Please excuse my language).

    Sickening S.O.B’s what they have done to this country, our military and our standing in the world.

  • i can haz freedom fries?
  • Kelly Cowan

    John McCain’s Foreign Policy – Distortion, Disinformation, & Senior Moments.

    http://youtu.be/6VGIfzsO5iY

  • dpaano

    It seems the Republic party seems to have a serious case of dementia, senior or otherwise.

  • Barabbus

    So, there once was a time when the “people of Iraq” were able to collectively voice their opinion of who they wanted in their country and who they didn’t? Yes. That was their status under Bush. As Conason states repeatedly in this article, “The People” of Iraq spoke. “The people of Iraq” told us they no longer wanted us there. And that decision by “The People of Iraq” had the credibility of an election to back them up.
    Now, it doesn’t matter who the “People of Iraq” want to leave their country does it? Because thanks to Obama, and dupes like Conason, the “People of Iraq” are going to have to live under the thumb of Al Qaeda. But all Conason wants to discuss is what a McCain said yesterday.
    Hey genius? I think you’d better stop obsessing over what McCain or anybody else said yesterday, and start figuring out what the hell Obama is gong to do today.

  • dpaano

    Well said…..these idiots always seem to forget that it was THEIR president that started this entire war in the Middle East, and it’s just escalated beyond repair. Now, they have no one to blame but themselves, but they, instead, decide to blame our president, who had nothing to do with the whole situation and is now trying his best to get it taken care of as peacefully as possible without putting our men and women in further danger!

  • StubbornlyRational

    Joe, all you could say was “blame Bush” for 8 years. When Bush left office, Iraq was on a surprisingly solid footing. Obama mucked it up. Man up, Joe, and admit your hollow suit Obama hasn’t the brains to run a foreign policy.

scroll to top