The Maturation Of Our President

[Oldstyle]

And to say that the invasion was poorly planned is laughable. It was planned exceedingly well and carried out flawlessly by our military. Or have you forgotten the dire predictions of how many thousands of our troops that some were estimating would be killed if we did in fact invade Iraq?

Clearly not enough troops committed, the occupation was a disaster.....a complete fuck up. The poorly planned invasion and occupation of Iraq led us to where we are today. In fact I would say the Bush Administration was criminally negligent. They showed the whole world that the United States is no longer capable of conducting two major campaigns at once, effectively ending a strategic policy that had been in place since the Second World War. The incompetency of the Bush Administration diminished our global position.

Again...how was the invasion poorly planned? You confuse invasion and occupation. The invasion of Iraq will go down in military history as one of the better planned and executed operations ever!

 

[Oldstyle]

And I'm amused by your contention that what we really needed were more troops for the occupation...yet liberals now balk at putting any boots on the ground period?

 

[Oldstyle]

So you criticize Bush for not putting enough troops into Iraq but also blame him for the situation that unfolded after Barack Obama pulled all of our troops OUT of Iraq? Really?

 

[Discombobulated]

And to say that the invasion was poorly planned is laughable. It was planned exceedingly well and carried out flawlessly by our military. Or have you forgotten the dire predictions of how many thousands of our troops that some were estimating would be killed if we did in fact invade Iraq?

Clearly not enough troops committed, the occupation was a disaster.....a complete fuck up. The poorly planned invasion and occupation of Iraq led us to where we are today. In fact I would say the Bush Administration was criminally negligent. They showed the whole world that the United States is no longer capable of conducting two major campaigns at once, effectively ending a strategic policy that had been in place since the Second World War. The incompetency of the Bush Administration diminished our global position.

Again...how was the invasion poorly planned? You confuse invasion and occupation. The invasion of Iraq will go down in military history as one of the better planned and executed operations ever!

We can judge the level of success by how well the objectives of the mission were accomplished. What was the objective? Was it to simply to destroy the enemy? Or were we supposed to secure some real estate too? Were we supposed to create a stable security situation in the aftermath of war, or just let people run wild and see what happens? How do you separate the invasion from the occupation?

 

[Discombobulated]

So you criticize Bush for not putting enough troops into Iraq but also blame him for the situation that unfolded after Barack Obama pulled all of our troops OUT of Iraq? Really?

How many years do you think it will be before Iraq turns into the Utopian dream of democracy we've all heard about? If this is going to end like Vietnam anyway how many more Americans do you think should be sacrificed in the mean time?

 

[Oldstyle]

And to say that the invasion was poorly planned is laughable. It was planned exceedingly well and carried out flawlessly by our military. Or have you forgotten the dire predictions of how many thousands of our troops that some were estimating would be killed if we did in fact invade Iraq?

Clearly not enough troops committed, the occupation was a disaster.....a complete fuck up. The poorly planned invasion and occupation of Iraq led us to where we are today. In fact I would say the Bush Administration was criminally negligent. They showed the whole world that the United States is no longer capable of conducting two major campaigns at once, effectively ending a strategic policy that had been in place since the Second World War. The incompetency of the Bush Administration diminished our global position.

Again...how was the invasion poorly planned? You confuse invasion and occupation. The invasion of Iraq will go down in military history as one of the better planned and executed operations ever!

We can judge the level of success by how well the objectives of the mission were accomplished. What was the objective? Was it to simply to destroy the enemy? Or were we supposed to secure some real estate too? Were we supposed to create a stable security situation in the aftermath of war, or just let people run wild and see what happens? How do you separate the invasion from the occupation?

Is it our military's job to accomplish a stable political situation or does the bulk of that responsibility fall upon our State Department and whoever is President to make the correct calls going forward? The biggest problem in Iraq following the invasion was what to do with the Sunni - Shiite problem. The Bush State Department worked hard at forcing the Iraqis to adopt a government structure in which all of the various factions were represented. That didn't happen under the Obama Administration! They allowed Maliki to increase power to "his" faction to the point where the other side wouldn't fight for him. That, my friend, isn't George W. Bush's failing...that's Barack Obama's failing.

 

[Oldstyle]

So you criticize Bush for not putting enough troops into Iraq but also blame him for the situation that unfolded after Barack Obama pulled all of our troops OUT of Iraq? Really?

How many years do you think it will be before Iraq turns into the Utopian dream of democracy we've all heard about? If this is going to end like Vietnam anyway how many more Americans do you think should be sacrificed in the mean time?

Instead of turning our backs and walking away from the situation in Iraq so that Barry could claim the mantle of being the President that "stops wars"...we should have used our influence to force Maliki to BE democratic just as we eventually forced him to resign!

Now the question is how many lives will be sacrificed because we didn't DO that and now ISIS has moved into the power vacuum that Obama created in Iraq?

 

[Discombobulated]

And to say that the invasion was poorly planned is laughable. It was planned exceedingly well and carried out flawlessly by our military. Or have you forgotten the dire predictions of how many thousands of our troops that some were estimating would be killed if we did in fact invade Iraq?

Clearly not enough troops committed, the occupation was a disaster.....a complete fuck up. The poorly planned invasion and occupation of Iraq led us to where we are today. In fact I would say the Bush Administration was criminally negligent. They showed the whole world that the United States is no longer capable of conducting two major campaigns at once, effectively ending a strategic policy that had been in place since the Second World War. The incompetency of the Bush Administration diminished our global position.

Again...how was the invasion poorly planned? You confuse invasion and occupation. The invasion of Iraq will go down in military history as one of the better planned and executed operations ever!

We can judge the level of success by how well the objectives of the mission were accomplished. What was the objective? Was it to simply to destroy the enemy? Or were we supposed to secure some real estate too? Were we supposed to create a stable security situation in the aftermath of war, or just let people run wild and see what happens? How do you separate the invasion from the occupation?

Is it our military's job to accomplish a stable political situation or does the bulk of that responsibility fall upon our State Department and whoever is President to make the correct calls going forward? The biggest problem in Iraq following the invasion was what to do with the Sunni - Shiite problem. The Bush State Department worked hard at forcing the Iraqis to adopt a government structure in which all of the various factions were represented. That didn't happen under the Obama Administration! They allowed Maliki to increase power to "his" faction to the point where the other side wouldn't fight for him. That, my friend, isn't George W. Bush's failing...that's Barack Obama's failing.

You skipped the part right after the invasion, you know, the one where you create a stable security situation in the immediate aftermath of major military action. You skipped that part.

 

[Discombobulated]

So you criticize Bush for not putting enough troops into Iraq but also blame him for the situation that unfolded after Barack Obama pulled all of our troops OUT of Iraq? Really?

How many years do you think it will be before Iraq turns into the Utopian dream of democracy we've all heard about? If this is going to end like Vietnam anyway how many more Americans do you think should be sacrificed in the mean time?

Instead of turning our backs and walking away from the situation in Iraq so that Barry could claim the mantle of being the President that "stops wars"...we should have used our influence to force Maliki to BE democratic just as we eventually forced him to resign!

Now the question is how many lives will be sacrificed because we didn't DO that and now ISIS has moved into the power vacuum that Obama created in Iraq?

Use our influence? Since the Iraqi government aligned itself more closely with Iran than with the US what influence would that be? Military power is our only leverage there.

 

[Oldstyle]

And to say that the invasion was poorly planned is laughable. It was planned exceedingly well and carried out flawlessly by our military. Or have you forgotten the dire predictions of how many thousands of our troops that some were estimating would be killed if we did in fact invade Iraq?

Clearly not enough troops committed, the occupation was a disaster.....a complete fuck up. The poorly planned invasion and occupation of Iraq led us to where we are today. In fact I would say the Bush Administration was criminally negligent. They showed the whole world that the United States is no longer capable of conducting two major campaigns at once, effectively ending a strategic policy that had been in place since the Second World War. The incompetency of the Bush Administration diminished our global position.

Again...how was the invasion poorly planned? You confuse invasion and occupation. The invasion of Iraq will go down in military history as one of the better planned and executed operations ever!

We can judge the level of success by how well the objectives of the mission were accomplished. What was the objective? Was it to simply to destroy the enemy? Or were we supposed to secure some real estate too? Were we supposed to create a stable security situation in the aftermath of war, or just let people run wild and see what happens? How do you separate the invasion from the occupation?

Is it our military's job to accomplish a stable political situation or does the bulk of that responsibility fall upon our State Department and whoever is President to make the correct calls going forward? The biggest problem in Iraq following the invasion was what to do with the Sunni - Shiite problem. The Bush State Department worked hard at forcing the Iraqis to adopt a government structure in which all of the various factions were represented. That didn't happen under the Obama Administration! They allowed Maliki to increase power to "his" faction to the point where the other side wouldn't fight for him. That, my friend, isn't George W. Bush's failing...that's Barack Obama's failing.

You skipped the part right after the invasion, you know, the one where you create a stable security situation in the immediate aftermath of major military action. You skipped that part.

How do you immediately create a "stable security situation" when you need to completely replace the people that have BEEN the security apparatus in Iraq...the Baathists? It was a daunting task and one that was handled well considering the enormity of it.

What hasn't been handled well is our Iraq policy since Barack Obama took office! He wasn't engaged in Iraq because let's face it...all he really wanted to do was pull out of Iraq. Barry didn't care enough about Iraq to do the heavy lifting to force Maliki to do the right thing.

 

[Oldstyle]

So you criticize Bush for not putting enough troops into Iraq but also blame him for the situation that unfolded after Barack Obama pulled all of our troops OUT of Iraq? Really?

How many years do you think it will be before Iraq turns into the Utopian dream of democracy we've all heard about? If this is going to end like Vietnam anyway how many more Americans do you think should be sacrificed in the mean time?

Instead of turning our backs and walking away from the situation in Iraq so that Barry could claim the mantle of being the President that "stops wars"...we should have used our influence to force Maliki to BE democratic just as we eventually forced him to resign!

Now the question is how many lives will be sacrificed because we didn't DO that and now ISIS has moved into the power vacuum that Obama created in Iraq?

Use our influence? Since the Iraqi government aligned itself more closely with Iran than with the US what influence would that be? Military power is our only leverage there.

So the billions we've given them in aid doesn't count as leverage? How naive are you?

 

[Discombobulated]

Clearly not enough troops committed, the occupation was a disaster.....a complete fuck up. The poorly planned invasion and occupation of Iraq led us to where we are today. In fact I would say the Bush Administration was criminally negligent. They showed the whole world that the United States is no longer capable of conducting two major campaigns at once, effectively ending a strategic policy that had been in place since the Second World War. The incompetency of the Bush Administration diminished our global position.

Again...how was the invasion poorly planned? You confuse invasion and occupation. The invasion of Iraq will go down in military history as one of the better planned and executed operations ever!

We can judge the level of success by how well the objectives of the mission were accomplished. What was the objective? Was it to simply to destroy the enemy? Or were we supposed to secure some real estate too? Were we supposed to create a stable security situation in the aftermath of war, or just let people run wild and see what happens? How do you separate the invasion from the occupation?

Is it our military's job to accomplish a stable political situation or does the bulk of that responsibility fall upon our State Department and whoever is President to make the correct calls going forward? The biggest problem in Iraq following the invasion was what to do with the Sunni - Shiite problem. The Bush State Department worked hard at forcing the Iraqis to adopt a government structure in which all of the various factions were represented. That didn't happen under the Obama Administration! They allowed Maliki to increase power to "his" faction to the point where the other side wouldn't fight for him. That, my friend, isn't George W. Bush's failing...that's Barack Obama's failing.

You skipped the part right after the invasion, you know, the one where you create a stable security situation in the immediate aftermath of major military action. You skipped that part.

How do you immediately create a "stable security situation" when you need to completely replace the people that have BEEN the security apparatus in Iraq...the Baathists? It was a daunting task and one that was handled well considering the enormity of it.

What hasn't been handled well is our Iraq policy since Barack Obama took office! He wasn't engaged in Iraq because let's face it...all he really wanted to do was pull out of Iraq. Barry didn't care enough about Iraq to do the heavy lifting to force Maliki to do the right thing.

Disbanding the Iraq Army was a huge mistake. The second major blunder of the Bush Administration.
President Obama has not shown good leadership, the perception is certainly bad anyway. Although I'm not sure what his regular detractors (McCain and Graham) would have done instead. With the rapidly evolving situation knowing where best to concentrate your forces in a decisive way becomes problematical. We're busy putting out fires all over the place as it is. We could just as easily wind up fighting in Yemen too......doesn't that sound like fun?

 

[Discombobulated]

So you criticize Bush for not putting enough troops into Iraq but also blame him for the situation that unfolded after Barack Obama pulled all of our troops OUT of Iraq? Really?

How many years do you think it will be before Iraq turns into the Utopian dream of democracy we've all heard about? If this is going to end like Vietnam anyway how many more Americans do you think should be sacrificed in the mean time?

Instead of turning our backs and walking away from the situation in Iraq so that Barry could claim the mantle of being the President that "stops wars"...we should have used our influence to force Maliki to BE democratic just as we eventually forced him to resign!

Now the question is how many lives will be sacrificed because we didn't DO that and now ISIS has moved into the power vacuum that Obama created in Iraq?

Use our influence? Since the Iraqi government aligned itself more closely with Iran than with the US what influence would that be? Military power is our only leverage there.

So the billions we've given them in aid doesn't count as leverage? How naive are you?

Money down a rat hole.

 

[Oldstyle]

Again...how was the invasion poorly planned? You confuse invasion and occupation. The invasion of Iraq will go down in military history as one of the better planned and executed operations ever!

We can judge the level of success by how well the objectives of the mission were accomplished. What was the objective? Was it to simply to destroy the enemy? Or were we supposed to secure some real estate too? Were we supposed to create a stable security situation in the aftermath of war, or just let people run wild and see what happens? How do you separate the invasion from the occupation?

Is it our military's job to accomplish a stable political situation or does the bulk of that responsibility fall upon our State Department and whoever is President to make the correct calls going forward? The biggest problem in Iraq following the invasion was what to do with the Sunni - Shiite problem. The Bush State Department worked hard at forcing the Iraqis to adopt a government structure in which all of the various factions were represented. That didn't happen under the Obama Administration! They allowed Maliki to increase power to "his" faction to the point where the other side wouldn't fight for him. That, my friend, isn't George W. Bush's failing...that's Barack Obama's failing.

You skipped the part right after the invasion, you know, the one where you create a stable security situation in the immediate aftermath of major military action. You skipped that part.

How do you immediately create a "stable security situation" when you need to completely replace the people that have BEEN the security apparatus in Iraq...the Baathists? It was a daunting task and one that was handled well considering the enormity of it.

What hasn't been handled well is our Iraq policy since Barack Obama took office! He wasn't engaged in Iraq because let's face it...all he really wanted to do was pull out of Iraq. Barry didn't care enough about Iraq to do the heavy lifting to force Maliki to do the right thing.

Disbanding the Iraq Army was a huge mistake. The second major blunder of the Bush Administration.
President Obama has not shown good leadership, the perception is certainly bad anyway. Although I'm not sure what his regular detractors (McCain and Graham) would have done instead. With the rapidly evolving situation knowing where best to concentrate your forces in a decisive way becomes problematical. We're busy putting out fires all over the place as it is. We could just as easily wind up fighting in Yemen too......doesn't that sound like fun?

I agree, barring anyone who was in the Baath Party from holding a leadership role in the Iraq Army, Police or government WAS a huge mistake! It's the kind of thing you do when you let politics hold sway over common sense and it made the reconstruction of Iraq much harder. That however doesn't change the fact that Barack Obama's Administration did little to put pressure on Maliki when he started excluding both the Kurds and the Sunnis from positions of power in Iraq. Yes, the decision to ban Baathists made things harder for us in Iraq...but the disinterest that Obama displayed towards how Maliki was conducting himself is what led to the present crisis. If Maliki had been inclusive ISIS wouldn't have so easily garnered the support of Sunni tribes in Northwest Iraq.

 

[Oldstyle]

So you criticize Bush for not putting enough troops into Iraq but also blame him for the situation that unfolded after Barack Obama pulled all of our troops OUT of Iraq? Really?

How many years do you think it will be before Iraq turns into the Utopian dream of democracy we've all heard about? If this is going to end like Vietnam anyway how many more Americans do you think should be sacrificed in the mean time?

Instead of turning our backs and walking away from the situation in Iraq so that Barry could claim the mantle of being the President that "stops wars"...we should have used our influence to force Maliki to BE democratic just as we eventually forced him to resign!

Now the question is how many lives will be sacrificed because we didn't DO that and now ISIS has moved into the power vacuum that Obama created in Iraq?

Use our influence? Since the Iraqi government aligned itself more closely with Iran than with the US what influence would that be? Military power is our only leverage there.

So the billions we've given them in aid doesn't count as leverage? How naive are you?

Money down a rat hole.

If you're going to spend billions don't you think it prudent to make it work for you? Otherwise...it IS money down a rat hole!

 

[Discombobulated]

We can judge the level of success by how well the objectives of the mission were accomplished. What was the objective? Was it to simply to destroy the enemy? Or were we supposed to secure some real estate too? Were we supposed to create a stable security situation in the aftermath of war, or just let people run wild and see what happens? How do you separate the invasion from the occupation?

Is it our military's job to accomplish a stable political situation or does the bulk of that responsibility fall upon our State Department and whoever is President to make the correct calls going forward? The biggest problem in Iraq following the invasion was what to do with the Sunni - Shiite problem. The Bush State Department worked hard at forcing the Iraqis to adopt a government structure in which all of the various factions were represented. That didn't happen under the Obama Administration! They allowed Maliki to increase power to "his" faction to the point where the other side wouldn't fight for him. That, my friend, isn't George W. Bush's failing...that's Barack Obama's failing.

You skipped the part right after the invasion, you know, the one where you create a stable security situation in the immediate aftermath of major military action. You skipped that part.

How do you immediately create a "stable security situation" when you need to completely replace the people that have BEEN the security apparatus in Iraq...the Baathists? It was a daunting task and one that was handled well considering the enormity of it.

What hasn't been handled well is our Iraq policy since Barack Obama took office! He wasn't engaged in Iraq because let's face it...all he really wanted to do was pull out of Iraq. Barry didn't care enough about Iraq to do the heavy lifting to force Maliki to do the right thing.

Disbanding the Iraq Army was a huge mistake. The second major blunder of the Bush Administration.
President Obama has not shown good leadership, the perception is certainly bad anyway. Although I'm not sure what his regular detractors (McCain and Graham) would have done instead. With the rapidly evolving situation knowing where best to concentrate your forces in a decisive way becomes problematical. We're busy putting out fires all over the place as it is. We could just as easily wind up fighting in Yemen too......doesn't that sound like fun?

I agree, barring anyone who was in the Baath Party from holding a leadership role in the Iraq Army, Police or government WAS a huge mistake! It's the kind of thing you do when you let politics hold sway over common sense and it made the reconstruction of Iraq much harder. That however doesn't change the fact that Barack Obama's Administration did little to put pressure on Maliki when he started excluding both the Kurds and the Sunnis from positions of power in Iraq. Yes, the decision to ban Baathists made things harder for us in Iraq...but the disinterest that Obama displayed towards how Maliki was conducting himself is what led to the present crisis. If Maliki had been inclusive ISIS wouldn't have so easily garnered the support of Sunni tribes in Northwest Iraq.

I'm sure there's an argument to be made that earlier intervention might have brought about a different result. Having said that we also need to recognize that there are dynamics at play here over which our nation has little control.

 

[Oldstyle]

Is it our military's job to accomplish a stable political situation or does the bulk of that responsibility fall upon our State Department and whoever is President to make the correct calls going forward? The biggest problem in Iraq following the invasion was what to do with the Sunni - Shiite problem. The Bush State Department worked hard at forcing the Iraqis to adopt a government structure in which all of the various factions were represented. That didn't happen under the Obama Administration! They allowed Maliki to increase power to "his" faction to the point where the other side wouldn't fight for him. That, my friend, isn't George W. Bush's failing...that's Barack Obama's failing.

You skipped the part right after the invasion, you know, the one where you create a stable security situation in the immediate aftermath of major military action. You skipped that part.

How do you immediately create a "stable security situation" when you need to completely replace the people that have BEEN the security apparatus in Iraq...the Baathists? It was a daunting task and one that was handled well considering the enormity of it.

What hasn't been handled well is our Iraq policy since Barack Obama took office! He wasn't engaged in Iraq because let's face it...all he really wanted to do was pull out of Iraq. Barry didn't care enough about Iraq to do the heavy lifting to force Maliki to do the right thing.

Disbanding the Iraq Army was a huge mistake. The second major blunder of the Bush Administration.
President Obama has not shown good leadership, the perception is certainly bad anyway. Although I'm not sure what his regular detractors (McCain and Graham) would have done instead. With the rapidly evolving situation knowing where best to concentrate your forces in a decisive way becomes problematical. We're busy putting out fires all over the place as it is. We could just as easily wind up fighting in Yemen too......doesn't that sound like fun?

I agree, barring anyone who was in the Baath Party from holding a leadership role in the Iraq Army, Police or government WAS a huge mistake! It's the kind of thing you do when you let politics hold sway over common sense and it made the reconstruction of Iraq much harder. That however doesn't change the fact that Barack Obama's Administration did little to put pressure on Maliki when he started excluding both the Kurds and the Sunnis from positions of power in Iraq. Yes, the decision to ban Baathists made things harder for us in Iraq...but the disinterest that Obama displayed towards how Maliki was conducting himself is what led to the present crisis. If Maliki had been inclusive ISIS wouldn't have so easily garnered the support of Sunni tribes in Northwest Iraq.

I'm sure there's an argument to be made that earlier intervention might have brought about a different result. Having said that we also need to recognize that there are dynamics at play here over which our nation has little control.

I'm not talking about "intervention", Dis...I'm criticizing the Obama Administration for not leaving a residual force of US soldiers in Iraq when it was something that was being called for by Obama's own military advisers.

 

[HenryBHough]

The more I consider the ladylike behavior of Our Kenyan President the more it emerges that the threat title should have read:

The Menstruation Of Our President

A title his liberal acolytes wave lapped right up!

 

[boedicca]

I find it quite horrifying that we have a management trainee as President.

 

[Oldstyle]

I find it quite horrifying that we have a management trainee as President.

Most "training programs" last a matter of months...we're in year six of the Obama management training program! What does that say about Trainee Obama's potential?