world

Iran offers help against militants in Iraq; U.S. orders aircraft carrier into Gulf

43 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2014 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

43 Comments
Login to comment

David Brooks ( R - Windbag) offered his opinion on Iraq. As a Republican, of course, he gibbers: "The president says his doctrine is don’t do stupid stuff. Sometimes withdrawal is the stupidest thing of all.

No, Republican. Withdrawing from Iraq wasn't 'the stupidest thing of all.'

Invading Iraq was.

Mr. Brooks, who strongly supported "Regime Change," wants you to forget that he and his terrible party are the **sholes who caused this. He, and his terrible party, cheered the idiot Bush, made up lies about WMD, redifined the meaning of "immanent threat" wooped up fear to scare the crap out of everyone, and slurred anyone against their stupid stupid war and their disgusting tactics as " traitors."

Don't forget who is to blame. Its the Republicans and the "Independent Conservatives" who vote Republican.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

No, Republican. Withdrawing from Iraq wasn't 'the stupidest thing of all.'

Invading Iraq was.

Amen to this.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Iran has sent about 500 of its elite Revolutionary Guard soldiers to fight alongside Iraqi government security forces in the eastern Diyala province, a senior security official in Baghdad told the channel.

==> Iran has already sent troops in to support Iraq.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@JT: true, but... to be fair they couldn't have done it without a good number of spineless Democrats - Harry Reid, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry. Not to mention Feinstein, Chuck Schumer..

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Doesn't matter who helps who in the Middle East! There will never be peace there until they get rid of Money and Religion!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

gcbel

Nice try.

Note to all: Prepare for a massive revisionist assault on Iraq this week. Don't fall for it. We know who is to blame:

Republicans.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

How do we bring self -government to an Islamic world view that has no concept of free will whatsoever?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

What a 'wonderful' idea to liberate those Iraqi's huh?

WMD, lol.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I just hope the US doesn't mess around with Asia and create the same dog's breakfast they did in the Middle East.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

BertieWoosterJun. 15, 2014 - 08:11AM JST I just hope the US doesn't mess around with Asia and create the same dog's breakfast they did in the Middle East.

Nothing to worry about bertie. Our Asian adversary is an enormous ordered uniformed military taking orders from a one-party dictatorship. Nothing like the middle east.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Maybe Assad could send some troops to help as well, he's been fighting these Sunni jihadists for the past 3 years.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

It looks like now Iran and America is on the same side.not to mention Iran is to protect Iraq, I guess I will never understand Middle East politics.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@JT

No, Republican. Withdrawing from Iraq wasn't 'the stupidest thing of all.'

Without securing the country first? Yes, it was.

Invading Iraq was.

Ok, fine. Take that argument, it was a stupid thing, alright. Now let's come back down to Earth and deal with the here and the now, the present, Obama leaving Iraq in the condition it was without securing the safety of Iraq longterm and longterm for the U.S., did he leave a residual force, NO. Did he he follow up on the SOFA, NO. Were the police and the military properly trained and completed in either countries, NO. That is all on Obama. So then by your book, he is equally as stupid as Bush for starting the war and Obama for NOT finishing it up and tying up all loose ends. Please give credit where credit is due.

Mr. Brooks, who strongly supported "Regime Change," wants you to forget that he and his terrible party are the **sholes who caused this. He, and his terrible party, cheered the idiot Bush, made up lies about WMD, redifined the meaning of "immanent threat" wooped up fear to scare the crap out of everyone, and slurred anyone against their stupid stupid war and their disgusting tactics as " traitors."

Sigh, so we are back to that? Then you would have to blame the French, Russians, Turks, Israelis, Egyptians, Brits, they all lied then. Oh, what is wrong with our world when everyone has to lie? Wouldn't Obama be a traitor for lying to the American people? Obama did say, after all, Al Qaeda is on the run and dismantled. Hmmmm...from the looks of it, they seem to doing quite well.

Don't forget who is to blame. Its the Republicans and the "Independent Conservatives" who vote Republican.

And the country is in the best shape ever with the Dems running things? America is at its peak? Obama's popularity is sky high? Dems are loved all over the country? So then they are losing elections because the Republicans created a farce? They poisoned the Kool aid?

@bertie

I just hope the US doesn't mess around with Asia and create the same dog's breakfast they did in the Middle East.

That just made absolutely NO sense whatsoever.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Under Bush, Iraq was invaded. OK get over it. If Bush new what he sees now back then it would be different.

Under Obama US troops withdrew from Iraq. It only has become worse since. If Obama knew then what he knows now maybe it would be different.

Which political party is to blame? Does it matter?

JTDanMan- Quite a bit of contempt for Republicans. Seems typical in your party where as Republicans don't display such hate here JT comments. Just saying!

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

General Wesley Clark stated that the US wanted to have seven wars for no apparent reason but to create chaos and generate unjust profits for the bankers. These countries were better off with their ruthless dictators as they were called. Propaganda is generated in the mass media and people swallow like sleeping pills.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The Bush administration signed an agreement in the fall of 2008 to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. When Obama kept this agreement, Republicans claimed that he was taking credit for the Bush plan. He sort of was. It WAS the Bush plan. After all, in the Bush view, the mission was "accomplished" even as it was unraveling.

Now, we read the view, proposed by the same people, that the plan to leave was Obama's. If only we'd stayed longer, they say, things would be good. "Why couldn't Obama stay longer, like Bush would have?" they say. It's nonsense. Bush didn't intend to stay longer.

Shia and Sunni have been fighting for hundreds of years. Sending more U.S. troops to get in the middle of their fighting is going to result in dead U.S. troops, not in bringing about a meaningful peace. In the article, we read, “Any action that we may take to provide assistance to Iraqi security forces has to be joined by a serious and sincere effort by Iraq’s leaders to set aside sectarian differences.” I agree, and it isn't going to happen.

If the goal is just to help Muslims fight Muslims by selling both sides weapons and making a lot of money doing so, then that can be accomplished without sending troops into the middle of things.

If the goal is to control the oil supply, then it would be better to deal with the winner of the conflict, or the leader of a peace agreement completed by the two parties (which I don't see happening), without being part of the conflict.

If the goal is to "help people," there are places in the US and elsewhere where our time and money would be better spent, and ordering "aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush into the Gulf in response to the crisis" is an amusing symbolic joke, but hardly a solution, especially to someone else's problem.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

@BertieWooster

I just hope the US doesn't mess around with Asia and create the same dog's breakfast they did in the Middle East.

Countries in Asia are not lunatic and crazy like the one in the Middle East... Only the Chinese government is a little nutty at the moment. The rest are quite peaceful with a sānitās nature...

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I hope the US and Iran can cooperate in this action. This warming of relations would have far reaching (beneficial) implications.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

AMERICAN thought WAR is like playing a Game on PS4.. while George BUSH was good at playing games, OBAMA seems stuck with Mario..

0 ( +1 / -1 )

bass & MarkG

Don't you realise yet that there is no long-term securing of Iraq? The point being that the US (namely Bush Jnr and his cohorts) convinced herself and her allies to attack Iraq based on misinformation and lies. As for the "Under Bush, Iraq was invaded. OK get over it" remark, I'd say people aren't "over it" and never will be. You might as well say, "4000 US troops died for nothing, get over it." Obama needed to get out of Iraq as quickly as possible (and it still took about 5 years for him to do so thanks to the Republicans).

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@ Serendipitous- Certainly I do not overlook the sacrifices made by the soldiers and the civilians who were effected. If you read all the comments basically they say Bush did it!, Bush did it!, Bush did it! .... and Republicans suck! Republicans suck! Republicans suck!..... I say "so effin what!

Currently we have a crisis. What next is what is important.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Islam has a goal for world conquering (e.g. Caliphate), regardless who's the president of the U.S. of past and future, this problem must be understood and deal with. All events in Muslim world are steps and process before their ultimate sacrifice in the name of Allah. The world is fortunate enough, since the Sunni and Shiite are killing one another. Any U.S. president who ignores this issue would create much problems for the world. It is very lame in talking about Bush after six years of Obama who owns all these crisis from Afghanistan, Libya, Ukraine, M.E. including Iraq. Is he up to the task in handling this issue or just band aiding the obvious cancer? at least slow it down, will you?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

OK get over it.

No honor. No shame.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

A Qatar-based union of Sunni Muslim clerics on Saturday denounced the call, saying developments in Iraq were a “result of oppression and exclusion of people that wanted freedom”.

Irag has two sects of Muslim as Sunni and Shiite as Roman Catholic and Protestant of Christians. Roman and Protestants killed each other in 16th century. However they are living harmony in the modern world.

The problem of religious tension and violence are not only in middle east but also in Asia. Southern Thai have extremist Muslim rebels who killed Buddhist followers . In Bangladesh, Buddhist are being oppressive by majority of Muslims. On the contrast Myanmar or Burma have bullied and slaughtered Rohinga Muslim minority. There were blood sheds of religion and sectarian violence in other part of Asia such as India and Afghanistan.

Bertie is correct to say that if there are some extreme elements in Asia. If there are more inflammation and division, there will be instability and chaos in Asia like middle east.

Irag under Saddam have fine balance between Majority of Sunni and Shitte as living in harmony. Now it has been killing each other is part of daily lives in Irag. Syrian extremist Muslim rebels were not successful in removing Assad. Now they exploded their frustration with killing civilians in Irag. Irag under Saddam was better than after liberation.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Babylon, Ctesiphon, Baghdad; whatever its name, it was a part of Persia until taken by the Ottoman Empire, so no wonder Persian Iran wants to influence it. Given the circumstances, we should probably let Iran take it.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

For the willfully ignorant, Clinton had his fingerprints all over the mess in Iraq long before GWB jumped into the quagmire. From Dec 1998, Clinton clearly expressed his desire for regime change in Iraq. This is just an excerpt;

" The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -"

http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

For the willfully ignorant, Clinton had his fingerprints all over the mess in Iraq long before GWB jumped into the quagmire.

Ha ha, you crack me up! Suppose he should have been like Reagan and sent Saddam a cake.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

For the easily confused, expressing desire for regime change isn't the same thing as actually ordering the invasion of a country.

@JTDan - not sure what you'd disagree with. Fact is while many Democrats didn't go along with this; most in the House didn't. Democrat leadership did support GWB's rush to invade.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

'How do we bring self -government to an Islamic world view that has no concept of free will whatsoever?'

Only idiots thought ( those who still think it can with a few soldiers to tie up loose ends are beyond reason ) that a country like Iraq could be a stable democracy. I'm convinced the people who sold this toxic rubbish to the public didn't believe it. God supposedly told Bush to remove Saddam, common sense should tell the more sober present leader to stay out.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"If Bush new what he sees now back then it would be different."

Wrong. Bush was told repeatedly by smart and knowledgeable people like the UN arms inspectors who had done 1000s of inspections on the ground and the IAEA officials that Iraq didn't appear to have any WDMs.

Bush ignored them. He could have known "back then" if he chose to, because even I knew back then. Bush, however, chose not to believe the truth, which is why he needed to cherry pick the data to make a case for war.

"Clinton had his fingerprints all over the mess in Iraq"

Having "fingerprints" and launching a unilateral war on a web of lies that gets hundreds of thousands of people killed are two very different things. If Bush left it at "fingerprints" the world was be a much better place, like it was in the peaceful and prosperous 90s.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The Iraqi official said 1,500 basiji forces had crossed the border into the town of Khanaqin, in Diyala province, in central Iraq on Friday, while another 500 had entered the Badra Jassan area in Wasat province overnight. The Guardian confirmed on Friday that Major General Qassem Suleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' elite Quds Force, had arrived in Baghdad to oversee the defence of the capital.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

…" expressing desire for regime change isn't the same thing as actually ordering the invasion of a country."

gcbel, did Clinton or did he not order the attack known as Operation Desert Fox? That would be an act of war, chum.

Lagoona, do you deny Clinton's role?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"did Clinton or did he not order the attack known as Operation Desert Fox? That would be an act of war,"

Ah, a war. How many Americans were killed in this 4-day war aimed at degrading the WMDs? Zero, right? And how many WDMs were found there afterward? Zero? Well, that sounds like a very successful war, indeed. Clinton was a genius, you have to admit.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Another viewpoint on Iraq, Saddam was in control and the deaths were fewer but present. With the ME Arab spring an aged Saddam may have had the same as Syria, Libya, or Egypt. Who know, It may be better or worse than today.

Bottom line here all those wanting to shove the politics down each other throat is WE DO HAVE A CRISIS here that needs resolve!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

" How many Americans were killed in this 4-day war aimed at degrading the WMDs? Zero, right? And how many WDMs were found there afterward? Zero? Well, that sounds like a very successful war, indeed. Clinton was a genius, you have to admit."

How short-sighted can you be?? I said it was "an act of war" not that he initiated a war. Is that too difficult to comprehend? It's true no US lives were lost during those four days, but how many perished in the blowback on 9/11 and in the aftermath in the following years in Iraq. Do you seriously think there's no relation?

Did you not read the speech Clinton made in Dec '98 that I provided the link? He and the other Democrats were also certain of the WMDs in Saddam's possession.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@jeff

Don't you realise yet that there is no long-term securing of Iraq? The point being that the US (namely Bush Jnr and his cohorts) convinced herself and her allies to attack Iraq based on misinformation and lies.

As I already outlined, those lies (if you want to call it that) were NOT only U.S. based. A lot of intel from various countries had their fingers in the pie.

As for the "Under Bush, Iraq was invaded. OK get over it" remark, I'd say people aren't "over it" and never will be.

That is the fundamental problem with you libs, you guys have Bush syndrome to the point where it just clouds your judgement to move forward. News Flash, Bush will never be prosecuted, neither will Cheney and Rumsfeld, Obama could have had congress start and inquiry and could have had Holder assigned as special prosecutor and he didn't which means, There wasn't enough evidence to prove that they did anything wrong, otherwise they would be in shackles now. Also if the preceding President starts trumping up charges the previous president you are opening up Pandora's box for abuse, political witch hunt and retaliation from the next party that comes to power. So just relax and move on, they did, most of the country has and the Bush haters need to as well. Because the people are tired of hearing libs complaint about Bush after almost 6 years. It served it's purpose in 2008, but now, all you guys just make fools of yourselves.

You might as well say, "4000 US troops died for nothing, get over it.

You are concerned about 4000 troops and you don't want us and the world to forget about them, but 4 people that died on 9/11 in Benghazi, we should forget about them, right? Also, why do Dems try and take credit for something if it goes their way, but if it doesn't, then they will run away from it like a snail on a salt trail.

So what makes their lives less. Murder is murder right, happened under Obama's watch, right, so he should be brought up on charges then as well as Hilary and Rice.

" Obama needed to get out of Iraq as quickly as possible (and it still took about 5 years for him to do so thanks to the Republicans).

Both him and Maliki are responsible for the outcome of what is happening in Iraq, I know it pains you libs to hear this, but Maliki wanted the troops out and Obama in typical fashion obliged, which was against virtually every general in the Pentagon and on the field. Time and time again, he never even tried to take ANY advice from his generals and other commanders, totally agains their advice. Not securing a SOFA agreement, a police force and a military that are almost incapable and not fully trained, he just ups and leaves them, crating a vacuum, which now Al Qaeda and ISIS are trying to fill. So now as the great Rev. Wright would say, "the chickens are coming home to roost."

Fact is while many Democrats didn't go along with this; most in the House didn't. Democrat leadership did support GWB's rush to invade.

Finally someone that can admit the honest truth!

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Bottom line here all those wanting to shove the politics down each other throat is WE DO HAVE A CRISIS here that needs resolve!

Nice try.

When the Republicans stop lying about how they are responsible for this mess, start praising Obama for his efforts to clean up the mess they created, then, and only then is there a problem that WE have to solve.

In short, when Republicans stop playing politics, man up and own up to culpability in Iraq, stop the pathetic sniping at Obama, stop blubbering about BENGHAZII!!!!!, and politely ask to be included with the adult conversation, then Democrats like myself will condescend to entertain their inclusion.

In short, fix your terrible party. Its broken; and its hurting America.

Until then, forget about it.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"how many perished in the blowback on 9/11 and in the aftermath in the following years in Iraq. Do you seriously think there's no relation?"

No relation. 9/11 was done by wealthy Saudis, Jordanians, etc. and others for religious reasons, who were quite happy to see a secular Saddam get punished, as he had used chemical weapons against their Sunni brethren in the Kurd region.

The "aftermath" you talk about was triggered by Bush's unilateral invasion. Until 2003, there were zero terrorist attacks by Iraqis against Americans.

Clinton's bombing and destruction of Saddam's facilities were a shining success: proven by the fact no serviable WMDs were found after the 2003 invasion. And: zero Americans were killed, AND it only took 4 days. Now, that's how you deal with a crisis. Not by getting bogged down in an unwinnable war.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

JTDanManJun. 16, 2014 - 05:08AM JST

Bottom line here all those wanting to shove the politics down each other throat is WE DO HAVE A CRISIS here that needs resolve!

Nice try.

When the Republicans stop lying about how they are responsible for this mess, start praising Obama for his efforts to clean up the mess they created, then, and only then is there a problem that WE have to solve.

In short, when Republicans stop playing politics, man up and own up to culpability in Iraq, stop the pathetic sniping at Obama, stop blubbering about BENGHAZII!!!!!, and politely ask to be included with the adult conversation, then Democrats like myself will condescend to entertain their inclusion.

In short, fix your terrible party. Its broken; and its hurting America.

Until then, forget about it.

Yes-yes-yes. You and I are on the same page. Iraq invasions by two Bushes were all based on lies and deceptions. From the beginning, if everyone was carefully focused on all facts (yes, I said, "everyone was carefully focused on all facts", the mess in the Middle East could have been well avoided. The negligence of two Bush Administrations made me or forced me to write and question on the NYT many times.

I am now more concerned about a spill over effect to other region including Syria, Jordan, Israel, Turkey, Beirut). This is a mess and wild horses are all freed from the barn.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

globalwatcher

This is a mess.

The ability of the US to contain, --- or even better stated -- the degree to which the US contains this mess depends on many factors. One of those factors is what the US does. More specifically, what the President does.

Warranted criticism of the President's actions can only help.

The problem is obvious: Republicans are not offering any warranted criticisms. Republicans, for purely partisan domestic concerns, carp on the so called "withdrawal" of most US troops from Iraq. They put party interest before national interest. It is disgusting.

Let me be clear: the U.S. still has an "embassy" in Baghdad with some 17,000 personnel, and consulates in Basra, Mosul and Kirkuk, each allocated more than 1,000 staff. That is a lot of "support staff." wink wink. Further, between 4,000 to 5,000 defense "contractors" remain. Simply put, the US still has over 20,000 troops by another name in Iraq. That ain't no withdrawal. The

The US 'withdrew" from the country side and the country side only. The whole project comes from the US military: turn over policing duties to the Iraq government; "advise and support" where and when needed. Now is the when, and the northern provinces are the where. Obama is withholding full scale support to pressure the Shia led government into compromise, give up some power to Sunni. It probably will work. We'll see.

Republicans are trying to make hay out of a serious problem. No honor; no shame. Fortunately, they are embarrassing themselves to most Americans, who instinctively recognize -- for better or for worse -- the need to support the President in times of crises. More importantly, they are angering the military brass, whose plan this has been all along. Stupid, but what else can you expect from Republicans.

Bottom line: this is a mess. And the President needs all the support he can get. Republican carping of the President is not helpful. If they offered good advice, that would be helpful. But they don't. They are looking for yet another reason to screech "The Sky is falling." Unfortunately, their bleating is loud enough to impact the debate, and in that way do a great disservice to the country, and its ability to deal with the problem.

--

BITW Bush 41 did the right thing in Iraq. That is the difference between the Republican party of 1990 and today's yahoos. Today's yahoo Republicans put partisanship before patriotism and THAT is serious problem that affects all aspects of US domestic and foreign policy.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

JTDanManJun. 16, 2014 - 08:02AM JST

BITW Bush 41 did the right thing in Iraq

I agree with you on everything except this. Sometime we need to learn to live with a bad dictator. Iraq was contained.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Bush 41 is the elder Bush. Not Scrub.

Iraq was not contained. It invaded Kuwait, and had to be contained. Which is what Bush 41 did.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@JT

Nice try.

Better than what Obama came up with and that is nothing.

When the Republicans stop lying about how they are responsible for this mess, start praising Obama for his efforts to clean up the mess they created, then, and only then is there a problem that WE have to solve.

Praise should go to person that is worthy of it, a person that does something commendable, honorable and there is nothing honorable in running like a little... And what mess did he clean up or did you and the other libs sucking on the Kool-aid once again. In case you didn't realize, ISIS has been gaining strength, chopping off people's heads, mass shootings, so bad that Al Qaeda doesn't want any part of them, Maliki's government is falling apart, we are seeing the disintegration of Iraq before our eyes and you dare say, Obama's got it all under control. If he did, we wouldn't be in this mess right now. By the way, you guys were cheering Obama when he said, he was pulling out ( though the previous admin. Had already set it up) you guys tried to take a bow for it, but now it's going South, you guys wanted to shove the blame again.

In short, when Republicans stop playing politics, man up and own up to culpability in Iraq, stop the pathetic sniping at Obama, stop blubbering about BENGHAZII!!!!!,

Right back at you, stop whining about 4500 dead soldiers and wanting to have Bush and Cheney strung up? It's the past, right? I mean, fair is fair or is it only fair when Libs say so and can call the shots?

and politely ask to be included with the adult conversation, then Democrats like myself will condescend to entertain their inclusion.

Dems don't know what conversation is, but they practically invented the world LIE and once this president decides, there are always two opposing opinions, then maybe he might open up those ears of his and listen to various opinions, but I won't hold my breath, he want even listen to his military Generals. I think the American people are expecting way, way too much with the Sainted anointed one.

In short, fix your terrible party. Its broken; and its hurting America.

Funny, given the fact that the Senate is about to turn Red and the House will pick up additional seats of Republicans. The fact of the matter is, Dems are in the exact same position that the Republicans were in 2006, exactly. The president is a lame duck, pure and simple and soon to hopefully be neutralized.

The problem is obvious: Republicans are not offering any warranted criticisms. Republicans, for purely partisan domestic concerns, carp on the so called "withdrawal" of most US troops from Iraq. They put party interest before national interest. It is disgusting.

Libs and Dems are the last people to talk about being partisan. You guys practically invented the word. That IS disgusting!

Let me be clear: the U.S. still has an "embassy" in Baghdad with some 17,000 personnel, and consulates in Basra, Mosul and Kirkuk, each allocated more than 1,000 staff. That is a lot of "support staff." wink wink. Further, between 4,000 to 5,000 defense "contractors" remain. Simply put, the US still has over 20,000 troops by another name in Iraq. That ain't no withdrawal. The

And you think Obama is going to allow these troops to engage in a conflict with the enemy? He won't even give Maliki air support, what makes you think Obama will mobilize these troops for combat. Given his abysmal record, I would say slim to none!

Obama is withholding full scale support to pressure the Shia led government into compromise, give up some power to Sunni. It probably will work. We'll see.

No, it won't. Maliki like his American counterpart is stubborn as Hell and he will never concede, the same way Obama never concedes to to anyone, except Michelle when she puts her foot down.

Republicans are trying to make hay out of a serious problem. No honor; no shame. Fortunately, they are embarrassing themselves to most Americans, who instinctively recognize -- for better or for worse -- the need to support the President in times of crises. More importantly, they are angering the military brass, whose plan this has been all along. Stupid, but what else can you expect from Republicans.

Make hay? You mean calling this moronic President out on his so called great (Lol) foreigner policy. I agree we need the support of the president, but we also need a true leader and Barack Hussein Obama has not been that man. Also, I have never seen the Dems, most liberals and most liberal networks saying anything good about our troops. Since when do you guys care about our military. Definitely not the Obama network msnbc. FOX and to a lesser extent CNN, but that's about it. How can he get support from the people. Latest Wall St. journal polls showing Obama's popularity is slipping as well as public opinion that he is unfit to lead the country. I tend to agree.

Bottom line: this is a mess. And the President needs all the support he can get. Republican carping of the President is not helpful. If they offered good advice, that would be helpful. But they don't. They are looking for yet another reason to screech "The Sky is falling." Unfortunately, their bleating is loud enough to impact the debate, and in that way do a great disservice to the country, and its ability to deal with the problem.

If the president wants support, he should listen to others, that is what a good communicator does. He is a great orator, but a very terrible listener. If the Dems can put their prideful partisan bickering aside and get together with this do nothing congress, we might yet, achieve something.

@jeff

Clinton's bombing and destruction of Saddam's facilities were a shining success: proven by the fact no serviable WMDs were found after the 2003 invasion. And: zero Americans were killed, AND it only took 4 days. Now, that's how you deal with a crisis. Not by getting bogged down in an unwinnable war.

I'm surprised that you want to compare and use that kind of analogy. That's like comparing Star Wars to Lord of the Rings, both exciting and had action, but LOTR was an epic of a movie that would put SW to shame. You can't even compare the two. Come on, man!

@global

Yes-yes-yes. You and I are on the same page. Iraq invasions by two Bushes were all based on lies and deceptions.

From the international community and also, add Obama to that list, yes, even the Sainted anointed one is to blame for this mess. So essentially, we are kind of in agreement as well.

->From the beginning, if everyone was carefully focused on all facts (yes, I said, "everyone was carefully focused on all facts", the mess in the Middle East could have been well avoided. The negligence of two Bush Administrations made me or forced me to write and question on the NYT many times.

You are half right, but don't forget to add, had Obama followed his generals advice, followed through with his own "Red Line" promise he made with Syria and insisted on pushing for a SOFA agreement, properly training the police and military this conundrum could have also possibly have been avoided.

I am now more concerned about a spill over effect to other region including Syria, Jordan, Israel, Turkey, Beirut). This is a mess and wild horses are all freed from the barn.

Then you really truly must be boiling over about Obama, me too!

I agree with you on everything except this. Sometime we need to learn to live with a bad dictator. Iraq was contained.

I Vehemently disagree!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites