ISIS closing in on Al Asad air base w/ 300 marines confined.......

[PieIsAwesome]

It would be great if ISIS were massing a few thousand troops outside the base in the open so that they can be obliterated. Too good to be true though, I doubt they are that stupid or that they have the troops to spare.

 

[zinfamous]

Had we had a tougher president, when it came to foreign policy, it would have never come to this. I'm not sure what we can do, it's a messy situation. As a former Marine, I can tell you covert action would be required. This will not be resolved from the air. Spec Ops, Seals, etc.

totally agree. Dubya royally fucked us on this.

 

[zinfamous]

Don't even bother man.

Look at these morons in this thread; they are still blaming Bush and he hasn't been in office for 6 years. These idiots are so far from reality that they won't answer a question honestly or even give an informed opinion. Instead they type up whatever they think put Dear Leader in the best light.

Is it that difficult to accept the undeniable fact that Iraq and Afghanistan are the responsibility of your previous beloved leader? It isn't even debatable, and this isn't about my team versus their team--it's simply history.

 

[rudeguy]

Is it that difficult to accept the undeniable fact that Iraq and Afghanistan are the responsibility of your previous beloved leader? It isn't even debatable, and this isn't about my team versus their team--it's simply history.

Well then.

I guess this is really Britain's fault then? I mean...if they had taken into account the different ethnic and religious groups when they mandated Iraq, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in.

Thanks Britain

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Is it that difficult to accept the undeniable fact that Iraq and Afghanistan are the responsibility of your previous beloved leader? It isn't even debatable, and this isn't about my team versus their team--it's simply history.

And Democrats voted overwhelmingly for both wars...but yeah, it's all Bush's fault. It isn't even debatable, it's simply history.🙄

 

[ElFenix]

And Democrats voted overwhelmingly for both wars...but yeah, it's all Bush's fault. It isn't even debatable, it's simply history.🙄

the authorization to use military force in iraq was 1) punting the question to the president, who was authorized under AUMF to do many things, up to an including ground invasion - ground invasion wasn't the only option (yes, completely weak behavior by a spineless congress); 2) obtained on false pretenses about iraq's WMD capabilities.

i don't know whether bush knew about the second part, but he sure as shit knew about the first part and rushed off for the most extreme measure authorized immediately anyway.

and to answer compuwiz's question, if bush had been a strong leader maybe he'd have known about the second part instead of being led around by the nose by cheney, who, aside from being one of history's biggest assholes, was certainly a strong leader (as big assholes often are).

 

[BurnItDwn]

It appears as though people are mistaking "acting on impulse" for being "strong leader" and "takes time to think things through" as being "weak leader". What the fuck is wrong with you all?

 

[rudeguy]

It appears as though people are mistaking "acting on impulse" for being "strong leader" and "takes time to think things through" as being "weak leader". What the fuck is wrong with you all?

I blame Bush.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

the authorization to use military force in iraq was 1) punting the question to the president, who was authorized under AUMF to do many things, up to an including ground invasion - ground invasion wasn't the only option (yes, completely weak behavior by a spineless congress); 2) obtained on false pretenses about iraq's WMD capabilities.

i don't know whether bush knew about the second part, but he sure as shit knew about the first part and rushed off for the most extreme measure authorized immediately anyway.

and to answer compuwiz's question, if bush had been a strong leader maybe he'd have known about the second part instead of being led around by the nose by cheney, who, aside from being one of history's biggest assholes, was certainly a strong leader (as big assholes often are).

None of this changes the fact that Democrats voted overwhelming for the AUMF and strongly supported both wars initially...at least until their popularity waned. It isn't even debatable, it's simply history.

 

[rudeguy]

None of this changes the fact that Democrats voted overwhelming for the AUMF and strongly supported both wars initially...at least until their popularity waned. It isn't even debatable, it's simply history.

But it was Bush's idea to invade Iraq! He was the warmonger who decided we needed to use force. Before he came into office, everything with Iraq was fine.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

 

[blankslate]

And Democrats voted overwhelmingly for both wars...but yeah, it's all Bush's fault. It isn't even debatable, it's simply history.

The Bush administration pushed for the wars and got the legislature to shirk their duty and approve of the authorization for military action in the M.E. democrats and republics alike...

Imagine if you will that more Democratic Party members voted no... people would be finding some way to blame them for the foreign policy failure in the M.E. and if Senator Hillary voted no she might have won the Democratic Party nomination in 2008 and been inaugurated in 2009... one would think you'd be happy she voted yes.

If a President from the Democratic Party was in charge and did the same thing with the same results we'd be saying that it was his fault... and it would be since foreign policy is something that mainly under the authority of the Administration.

The Executive Office is in fact pretty much in charge of foreign policy with limitations that can be exerted by the legislature... primarily approval of people he wants for diplomats and the funding of foreign policy activities and wars.

Nonethelss, the fact is that Obama has had six years to win that war... Or to decide that victory wasn't an option and to bring the troops home. He did neither.

And the current issue is can he muster sufficient resources to keep 300 marines safe?

Doesn't smell like victory to me...

Uno

The war could have been won by simply not invading Iraq and focusing on killing or capturing Bin Laden while he was still in Afghanistan...

That would smell like victory to anyone... instead this situation was contributed to by the very fact that Iraq was invaded....



....

 

[zinfamous]

Well then.

I guess this is really Britain's fault then? I mean...if they had taken into account the different ethnic and religious groups when they mandated Iraq, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in.

Thanks Britain

see what happens when you venture down that rabbit hole? 😀

 

[werepossum]

the authorization to use military force in iraq was 1) punting the question to the president, who was authorized under AUMF to do many things, up to an including ground invasion - ground invasion wasn't the only option (yes, completely weak behavior by a spineless congress); 2) obtained on false pretenses about iraq's WMD capabilities.

i don't know whether bush knew about the second part, but he sure as shit knew about the first part and rushed off for the most extreme measure authorized immediately anyway.

and to answer compuwiz's question, if bush had been a strong leader maybe he'd have known about the second part instead of being led around by the nose by cheney, who, aside from being one of history's biggest assholes, was certainly a strong leader (as big assholes often are).

So even when the Democrats are rushing to get on record supporting the wars, they still want the option to be against them if they go south.

Everybody be careful not to step in the, um, leadership.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Had we had a tougher president, when it came to foreign policy, it would have never come to this. I'm not sure what we can do, it's a messy situation. As a former Marine, I can tell you covert action would be required. This will not be resolved from the air. Spec Ops, Seals, etc.

Pretty laughable statement since the "tough" president that came before him spawned the creation of ISIS with his reckless adventure into Iraq. That is not hypothesizing either, that is FACT.

 

[ElFenix]

None of this changes the fact that Democrats voted overwhelming for the AUMF and strongly supported both wars initially...at least until their popularity waned. It isn't even debatable, it's simply history.

i'm not sure how being lied to doesn't change things.

But it was Bush's idea to invade Iraq! He was the warmonger who decided we needed to use force. Before he came into office, everything with Iraq was fine.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

 

[soundforbjt]

But it was Bush's idea to invade Iraq! He was the warmonger who decided we needed to use force. Before he came into office, everything with Iraq was fine.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

Yep, that's one of the EXCUSES Bush used to defend his military action in Iraq.

President George W. Bush often referred to the Act and its findings to argue that the Clinton Administration supported regime change in Iraq and further that it believed that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. The Act was cited as a basis of support in the Congressional Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq in October 2002.[8]

I remember the Right wing talking heads mentioning it constantly back then.

 

[fskimospy]

None of this changes the fact that Democrats voted overwhelming for the AUMF and strongly supported both wars initially...at least until their popularity waned. It isn't even debatable, it's simply history.

You know while we're talking about what's 'simply history' let's go look at...you know...actual history.

Here's the vote totals for the Iraq AUMF in 2002 by chamber and party:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#Passage_of_the_full_resolution

House:
Republicans: 215 Yea 6 Nay. (97% in favor)
Democrats: 82 Yea 126 Nay. (39% in favor)

Senate:
Republicans: 48 Yea 1 Nay (98% in favor)
Democrats: 29 Yea 21 Nay (58% in favor)

Grand Total:
Republicans: 263/270 or 97%.
Democrats: 111/258 or 43%.

So one party approved it with only 3% dissenting and the other party rejected it with 57% dissenting. I'm not sure how you got Democrats' "overwhelming" support out of something that 57% of them voted against. Were you perhaps confusing it with the post-9/11 AUMF?

The Democrats aren't blameless in this issue but let's not kid ourselves here. The blame is overwhelmingly on Republicans in terms of the decision to invade Iraq. Absent a Republican administration and primarily Republican votes in both chambers it would not have passed.

That's simply history.

 

[fskimospy]

So even when the Democrats are rushing to get on record supporting the wars, they still want the option to be against them if they go south.

Everybody be careful not to step in the, um, leadership.

Except of course Congressional Democrats didn't support the invasion of Iraq.

 

[rudeguy]

i'm not sure how being lied to doesn't change things.

😀

Did I do it right?

 

[blankslate]

So even when the Democrats are rushing to get on record supporting the wars, they still want the option to be against them if they go south.

Everybody be careful not to step in the, um, leadership.

Pretty much the SOP for politicians... have a way out... unfortunately (or forturnately depending on your p.o.v.) that's also why recent democratic presidential candidates who voted for the authorization lost the nomination or the general election.


...

 

[fskimospy]

Pretty much the SOP for politicians... have a way out... unfortunately (or forturnately depending on your p.o.v.) that's also why recent democratic presidential candidates who voted for the authorization lost the nomination or the general election.


...

That's the thing though. Most democrats didn't vote for it. (Although higher profile ones tended to). I'm not sure how this idea that democrats were all for invading Iraq came from. A substantial majority of elected Democrats voted against it and polling showed before the war a substantial majority of Democrats nationwide opposed it. Now it's true that after the invasion started support shot up, but that always happens with the whole "rally around the flag" business.

This is a case of revisionist history where conservatives are trying to find someone to share a shit sandwich with.

 

[werepossum]

Except of course Congressional Democrats didn't support the invasion of Iraq.

HOUSE Democrats didn't; most of them are in districts where they can only be threatened from the left. SENATE Democrats did, since not that many states are 50.1% bat shit crazy.

Pretty much the SOP for politicians... have a way out... unfortunately (or forturnately depending on your p.o.v.) that's also why recent democratic presidential candidates who voted for the authorization lost the nomination or the general election.

...

Yep. That's why I support Obama asking for a new AUMF. War is far too serious to allow politicians to have it both ways.

 

[fskimospy]

HOUSE Democrats didn't; most of them are in districts where they can only be threatened from the left. SENATE Democrats did, since not that many states are 50.1% bat shit crazy.

Or in this case "bat shit completely right". Haha.

Your dubious depiction aside, on what planet is 43% overall support and 58% support in the chamber that overall approved "overwhelming support"? You've got 98% of congressional republicans and the republican president for something and you have 43% of democrats for it.

Sometimes you just have to own your mistakes.

 

[Matt1970]

Bush asked for an extension of US troops in Iraq. Iraq denied that request. Bush agreed. Obama abided by that agreement.

That was the right thing for both Bush and Obama to do. You can't declare a country sovereign and then immediately turn on it and re-occupy it when it does something you don't like. That would have made their government fall apart immediately.

That's what I thought. Partisans are giving credit and blame where none is due.

 

[werepossum]

Or in this case "bat shit completely right". Haha.

Your dubious depiction aside, on what planet is 43% overall support and 58% support in the chamber that overall approved "overwhelming support"? You've got 98% of congressional republicans and the republican president for something and you have 43% of democrats for it.

Sometimes you just have to own your mistakes.

I just did, dude. I acknowledged that House Democrats did not vote for it.