George Washington himself stated that America must avoid all foreign
entanglements unless national security is directly at issue. The current
left-wing administration's failure to follow that counsel is leading to
disaster.Obama has failed to realize that he cannot force democracy
on countries that do not want it. He cannot erase in a moment the eons of
cultural hatred that has precipitated war for the last few millennia. Not being content to just make this mistake, Obama is also failing when
national security is at issue. Instead of going in at full strength to take care
of the problem, he uses half measures and hollow threats. No
reasonable person can deny that left-wing theory of security is, at best, a
mediocre fiasco. The administration must follow Washington's sage advice
before it is too late.
@John Charity SpringObama has ended the wars and is doing limited
strikes. If we had a President McCain, we'd have troops fighting in about
four to five locations: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Russia and potentially the US
border. Romney wouldn't be much better. I bet you were all
behind "W" when he launched the US into Iraq and was one of those that
would say "Freedom isn't free." Now since a president with a
different party label attached is in charge, it's "Freedom isn't
forced." (I agree with you on freedom isn't forced by the way). I just
have to laugh at the 180 flip on the defense issue.One more thing,
the right-wing's record on national defense: 9/11 and 3,000 Americans dead
by not taking a presidential daily briefing seriously. Own it Republicans!
Let's send George Will and his bowtie to the Middle East to see if they can
figure out what to do about the mess that the Cheney Oil Company created. T. S.
Eliot was right: What do you do with the fragments after you've blown up a
civilization? Old men are so ready to send young people to war.
John C S Right now the left wing theory of security seems to be
isolationism and non engagement. Which is ironic since that used to be the
territory of the conservative right back during WW11. Or in other words, if we
leave them alone, they will leave us alone. However, since the U.S. is proudly
championed by Islam as the Great Satan, it is unlikely the U.S. will be left
alone. More 911s to come here if not stopped over there first. What I think
might be happening is too may folks still think of this terrorist stuff as the
same as the cold war with the USSR. It isn't. Russians could be reasoned
with. They did not want to die anymore than we did. Islamic terrorists
however, see death in fighting Satan as a great reward, and one to be looked
forward to. You can't reason with them as we could with the communists.
Politics is one thing. When people believe they are on Gods mission, and that
mission is death and destruction of the infidel, there is no reasoning with
them. This is a much bigger problem than the cold war was.
“These are some of the "folks" — to adopt the locution
Barack Obama frequently uses to express his all-encompassing diffidence . . .
“Oh My! . . . The sneering George Will is doing his sneering
thing again.Lots of people use the term “folks.” GW,
unsurprisingly, used it to excess. Why didn’t George Will sneer at GW?
On 9/11/2001, GW stated his intent to “ . . . hunt down and
to find those folks who committed this act.”Well, GW
couldn’t find those folks, so he went ahead and invaded some other folks
and killed over 100 thousand of them.The rest of Will’s tirade
follows the same pattern. He’s placing the blame for past Republican
malfeasance on the Obama administration.George Will is OUTRAGED that
the Obama administration is not using our military more in the Middle East. And
if Obama was doing more in the Middle East, George Will would be complaining
that we have more important problems at home.Right Wing pundits
must follow a recipe that calls for 80% percent senseless complaining and 20%
percent sneering to create the perfect dish for Republican consumption . . .
100% “Conservative” tripe.
I'm sorry, but right up front when Will says Kerry was nonplussed about
Russia slicing off Crimea from Ukraine, he immediately lost credibility. I am
continually astounded how conservatives rewrite the facts to fit their view of
the world. It is no wonder they have no vision and provide no leadership with
this intellectual dishonesty.
John C S,I think you have hit on a conundrum with your politics.
Very seldom should or does ones views align perfectly with a
political party.You have found one of your miss-alignments however,
I doubt that you could admit it, or even recognize it.You blame the
left for all that is wrong, without realizing that when it comes to foreign
engagement and wars, you align much more closely with the left than the
right.I am quite certain that you could never come to grips with
I think we're only now starting to realize how best to fit into a world
that both doesn't want us to get involved and demands we help. I can see
how it would be in our strategic best interest to divest the need to personally
monitor all the radical dangers in the world today, but that's a hard thing
to teach Americans who have been entirely isolated from any form of trauma, and
people in nations where trauma is their daily experience... we so don't
relate to each other. It's easy to imagine that we're all basicly good
inside when we've never seen the depravity outside of some movie. Likewise
it's hard to convince a desperate people who has only known depravity that
there could be value in the pursuit of something other than killing and
plundering and taking what you want in the moment it happens out of fear your
death will come either way soon enough...
a veteran employee of the US Foreign Service Agency once told me there is
generally only subtle differences between the parties on foreign policies. He,
however, felt the Iraq War was the exception and a democratic president would
not have gone down that path. Wildcat is right the aftermath of that war an the
Bush legacy will haunt us for years to come.
I feel like I'm living in the 1930s.
It's painfully obvious that the typical commentator and commenter is more
interested in placing blame on the "other" party than in figuring out
how to fix the problem, and that's unfortunate.What we have
learned is that it's a fool's errand to try to force democracy on a
people incapable of or unwilling to live by the principles of a free society,
and it doesn't matter whether the fool is George W. Bush or Barrack H.
Obama.I see four options going forward:1. Provide
balance to the warring factions so that nobody can win. This is morally
repugnant, as the innocent citizens of Middle Eastern nations will be
slaughtered.2. Ramp up dramatically our military presence and be the
local police power maintaining order. This is not a great idea because we lack
the resources and the will to accomplish this.3. Put in place and
support benevolent dictators that will keep the peace by whatever means
necessary, including some that will require turning a blind eye. Back to the
1950s.4. Do nothing and let the violence play out. Ugh.Any other ideas? Is there any good path going forward?
I just want to REMIND all you Obama defenders that the excuse he and his
administration are using for not seeing what was coming, ISIS and such, is the
same thing that Bush used to justify his war in Iraq that turned out to be
wrong. BAD INTELLIGENCE. You might remember that the justification for going
into Iraq was well supported when it was thought that "good
intelligence" proved WMD. Well, it was wrong. And now Obama claims bad
intel is at the heart of his problems. As Jack Sparrow would say, "funny
little world, isn't it."
" You might remember that the justification for going into Iraq was well
supported when it was thought that "good intelligence" proved WMD.
"Wrong. There was lots of "intelligence". Some was
good and some was bad. The Bush administration cherry picked the intelligence
and fed the American people (and congress) what suited their desires.There was absolutely no clear cut evidence to support WMD. Just ask Hans
Blix. He was the UN inspector on the ground in Iraq who said"There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of
Joe BlowWell, most all intelligence agencies, foreign and domestic,
had the WMD threat as real. And you might remember Sec State Powell at the UN
using satellite photos to show such. Plus, there was the historic evidence of
Iran using chemical weapons on the Kurds. Chemical, by the way, qualify as a
part of WMD. And it was always assumed that when inspectors look at some
facility, it has been sanitized for their inspection. So there was
"seemingly" enough clear cut evidence to justify the invasion. Where
Bush made the mistake was in believing that he could stick around and bring
democracy to an Islamic country. We should have gotten out when it was clear
that WMD were not being manufactured and or were not in abundance in Iraq. But
the most important point to all this is that now we have Obama, under the same
problem of good intel vs. bad intel. What a conundrum huh?
"But the most important point to all this is that now we have Obama, under
the same problem of good intel vs. bad intel. What a conundrum huh?"Well, prudent people would not go to the lengths of an all out war
unless they are sure. War should be an absolute last option.When
Obama gets us into a full out war with questionable intel, then you can make a
reasonable comparison.Bush and Cheney knew that there was
conflicting intel, but chose to feed us only what supported their desire, which
Here is my take on evil in the world and how America should involve itself.First there is no question that evil today is worse than ever. This Army
of terroirists in Iraq chopping the heads off Christian children should leave no
doubt in anyone's mind about the nature of evil .... growing evil ...in the
world. Now put a nuclear weapon in the hands of these evil Islamic crazies and
you have a real world nightmare because they WILL use it. What does
America do? Currently we have chosen to do ....nothing. That's right folks
we do nothing. Let the children die. We drive casually by with our arm out the
window and slow down a bit to observe then just keep on going. That is the Obama
policy. That has NEVER been the American policy ...not ever. We cannnot claim to
be a civilized humanitarian nation if we see evil and we just ignore it. Evil
does not respond to love - only brute overwhelming force as with Hitler and all
the other dictators. America needs to re-build militarily so we can
be a global force for good...not nation building but guarding and protecting.
Hey Pops –“Any other ideas? Is there any good path going
forward?”Well no. GW Bush left us no good alternatives. We
have to play the terrible cards that genius, GW, dealt us.We have
options. We could do a GW and reoccupy Iraq in force . . . But that’s
just stupid. Or we could make low-risk, surgical strikes against the enemy, as
Obama has been doing. And we could arm our friends, the Kurds, as Obama has been
doing . . . Instead of arming Muslim extremists, many of whom hate the US, as GW
and Reagan did.The best alternative is to take the sensible course,
and completely ignore, “Conservative” inclinations, which have done
NOTHING but harm this nation for the last 30 years.Happy2bhere
–“Well, most all intelligence agencies, foreign and
domestic, had the WMD threat as real.”WRONG. Most intelligence
agencies believe no such thing. That’s why we couldn’t come up with
a solid multinational coalition. That’s why France, afterwards much
reviled by the GW Bush administration, refused to join us.Your
latest claim is just one more "Conservative" fantasy.
Hey Happy2behere –“However, since the U.S. is proudly
championed by Islam as the Great Satan, it is unlikely the U.S. will be left
alone”And that anti-US sentiment was reinforced a thousand
fold by GW’s ridiculous actions.Do you think our unprovoked attack
on Iraq and killing over 100,000 Muslims for no legitimate reason actually
earned us friends in the Middle East?Don’t be silly.Many American “Conservatives” are now saying Obama should have
left a substantial American force in Iraq, against the Status of Forces
Agreement signed by GW, and against the wishes of the Iraqis.Sorry
man, but that is equally silly, and it would have been hugely to our
disadvantage.If American “Conservatives” had their way, this
nation would be the bullies of the world, and roundly hated by the world . . .
Like a Nazi German or an Imperialist Japan.As it stands now, Obama
is the world leader most respected by citizens of the world. GW, as you may
recall, was absolutely reviled.We and the world are much better off
if we don’t follow “Conservative” inclinations.
re:GaryO"Or we could make low-risk, surgical strikes against the
enemy, as Obama has been doing"What Barack is doing solves
nothing. It stops nothing. It is a pin prick at best. There are thousands of
innocent Christian children stranded on top of a mountain waiting to be hunted
down and killed ...and Barack does nothing. Not even a rescue mission for the
kids sake. This is one of the most tragic and disgusting things America has ever
done in its history - to stand by and watch children get their heads chopped off
and do nothing. Even Hilary is slaming Barack for his "do-nothing"
approach. Your socialist leader in the White House is NOT a leader.
He is not even a follower. The man is nothing more than a weak, disengaged,
casual observer. He slows the car down, rolls the window down a bit and looks on
for a minute and then drives on. What a disgrace and a tragedy. Every previous
America president would have at the very least rescued the children and
destroyed the bad guys from the air as much as possible in massive raids ...but
Patriot writes"Here is my take on evil in the world and how
America should involve itself."Your only advice is "to
re-build militarily so we can be a global force for good...not nation building
but guarding and protecting."Pretty generic, wouldn't you
say? You spent your whole post bashing our current level of involvement but
fall woefully short when it comes to suggestions and recommendations on what we
SHOULD do.Par for the GOP course. Bashing with no recommended
course of action.
Hey Patriot –I get that your frustrated with Obama’s
successes compared to Republican Presidents of the last 30 years. But you might
as well get used to it.“What Barack is doing . . . is a pin
prick at best.”I see. So you would have him follow
Reagan’s lead in Lebanon? . . . Where he sent in the Marines to quell
sectarian violence in the Lebanese Civil war and stop the harassment and murder
of Christians in the Middle East.Do you remember the result of that?
How many hundreds of Marines were murdered in their sleep when their barracks
were bombed? Do you recall?And did it stop the harassment and
murder of Christians in the Middle East? . . . Obviously not.Obama’s surgical air strikes did in fact work to a significant extent.
No it didn’t stop all atrocities. And we are NOT going to risk American
lives unnecessarily so some generals can show off our weaponry.Ever
heard of a cost-benefit analysis? Look it up.
Joe Blow and Gary OJoe, no intelligence is ever 100%, and opinions
will always differ. The trouble was that of the dozens of countries who
believed in WMD in Iraq, it all turned out to be very incestuous. One guy, some
Iraqi scientist who made the whole thing up.Which brings me to
GaryThere were indeed a lot of countries that signed off on WMD,
but, as mentioned above, it was too much from one, unreliable source. I might
add that among the people who believe in WMD in Iraq was none other than Senator
Hillary Clinton. And I can't resist another point, as you walked into
another Obama lie. He said on TV during the debate with Romney that he was not
going to leave any military force in Iraq. Now he claims that it is because of
the status of forces agreement not being ratified that he COULD not. If you
don't believe it, check out Fox News, which has been playing it, and
I'm sure is probably the only news outlet that is holding Obama accountable
for his changing story.
"Joe, no intelligence is ever 100%, and opinions will always differ. The
trouble was that of the dozens of countries who believed in WMD in Iraq, it all
turned out to be very incestuous. One guy, some Iraqi scientist who made the
whole thing up."There's a huge difference between
inaccurate intelligence which Influenced a decision to go to war.AndA conscious decision to only find and exaggerate intelligence
to purposely motivate a country to go to war.The latter is what
happened. The bush administration decided even before 9/11 to search and find
evidence that would turn the country towards war with Iraq. Bush put in charge
of the CIA a puppet who would do his bidding. So he found intelligence and
embellished it. This is what deceived our congress to go to war.Had
bush been honest and only relied on the entire big picture of intelligence, war
would have never ever been considered .
Wildcat said "Obama has ended the wars" but Obama didn't end the
wars, he walked away from the wars. Now we are back as hundreds of people die.
And in Obama's words, "Today I authorized two operations in Iraq
— targeted airstrikes to protect our American personnel, and a
humanitarian effort to help save thousands of Iraqi civilians who are trapped on
a mountain without food and water and facing almost certain death." Does
that sound like war is over? The left ridiculed Bush for trying to get out of
Iraq with his a war is over celebration on an aircraft carrier. But when their
own man makes the same mistake they are mum. We can participate, we can walk
away, but the war in the middle east will continue. And as for our involvement
in WWII being shorter? Tell that to our troops stationed in Germany and Japan.
Sure they aren't under fire, but we never ended the occupation there.
Time to reflect on Colin Powell’s cautionary warning about going into
Iraq. You break it, you own it.