| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| Obama isn't napping, he's surrendering | |
| 2014-06-15 | |
From WaPo?
 On the near-disintegration of Iraq under the onslaught of jihadists, Boehner said:Back in January, I urged the president to get engaged with what's going on in Iraq. And this week we've seen big cities in Iraq overrun with terrorists. | |
| Posted by:Squinty |
| #8 basis = bases |
| Posted by: Bubba Graiting8281 2014-06-15 18:47 |
| #7 Where are foreign nationals in this country being housed, etc????? Right in the middle of our military basis and forts within our borders. In other words, he might as well give them our tanks and machine guns to finish us off with. Right????? |
| Posted by: Bubba Graiting8281 2014-06-15 18:47 |
| #6 From an e-mail making it's rounds: Regarding your June 13 editorial 'The Iraq Debacle' one wonders on what grounds WSJ editors consider Iranian intervention in Iraq to be a 'terrible strategic defeat' and for whom? The world is on the verge of watching only the latest chapter in the centuries old bloodletting between the Shia and Sunni sects of Islam, and this chapter will indeed be a vicious one. Picture two large, venomous snakes--the Sunni ISIS and the fanatical Shia mullahs in Teheran--coiling around each other, hissing, each sinking their fangs into the other in some horrific display. Is the Obama Administration really going to insert America's hand into this lethal, writhing combat to save one of the snakes? And if so, which one? Both hate America and are committed to our destruction, thus thrusting our military servicemen and women into this fight must inevitably help one of our enemies grow stronger. Better for the U.S. to let this fight play out, ensuring in the process our Gulf State allies are protected from an outright assault on their territories. If the Persian Gulf oil routes become compromised to the extent Europe and Japan see their own interests threatened, the prudent American response is to ask 'What can we do to help you resolve your problem?' The U.S. has immense resources in this regard and 'leading from behind' deserves far more credit as a policy than it has generally received to date, especially when the alternative is still more American blood and treasure squandered. What a tragedy, a disgrace if big oil interests and our always-hungry military-industrial complex drive our country back into direct combat in support one of our mortal enemies. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2014-06-15 16:36 |
| #5 thank goodness he's on vacation again; imagine the damage he'd do if he were actually on the job.... |
| Posted by: Blinky Turkeyneck7226 2014-06-15 13:55 |
| #4 Mowhawk Valley to the Hudson, turn south. Windsor to Detroit, Cleveland, Columbus. Keep moving and hand out shinny shit to the locals. Don't negotiate, incarcerate. Keep the Super Bowl and the NBA but reduce each league to 10 games, introduce forced Bowling Leagues, require attendance (to everything). Mandatory library visits and Uke Lessons. Don't give an inch. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2014-06-15 12:24 |
| #3 We could use a few Goths, IMA LOOKING AT YOU CANADA |
| Posted by: Shipman 2014-06-15 12:15 |
| #2 For a man who's surrendered the southern border of his own country, what do you expect? File under - Goths, who fundamentally transformed Rome. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2014-06-15 11:46 |
| #1 That's quite the bunch of rabid ankle biters in the comment thread. One wonders why they have comments on editorial columns, especially ones that have view counter to the ideological position of the paper. There are only a few themes: Bush/Cheney's fault, Obama's teh one, and why don't you go die somewhere. Trying to have a discussion would be futile. The WaPo editorial page she refers to has this: In Syria, where for three years Mr. Obama has assiduously avoided meaningful engagement, civil war has given rise to “the most catastrophic humanitarian crisis any of us have seen in a generation,” Mr. Obama’s United Nations ambassador Samantha Power said in February. In Libya, Mr. Obama joined in a bombing campaign to topple dictator Moammar Gaddafi and then declined to provide security assistance to help the nation right itself. It, too, is on the verge of civil war. In Iraq, Mr. Obama chose not to leave a residual force that might have helped keep the nation’s politics on track, even as the White House insisted there was no reason to worry. Denis McDonough, then deputy national security adviser and now White House chief of staff, told reporters in 2011 that Mr. Obama “said what we’re looking for is an Iraq that’s secure, stable and self-reliant, and that’s exactly what we got here. So there’s no question this is a success.” Now Mr. Obama is applying the same recipe to Afghanistan: total withdrawal of U.S. troops by 2016, regardless of conditions. At West Point, the president stressed that “not every problem has a military solution.” That is obviously true. In fact, a goal of U.S. policy should be to help shape events so that military solutions do not have to be considered. The presence of U.S. troops in South Korea, for example, has helped keep the peace for more than a half century. Total withdrawal can instead lead to challenges like that posed by Iraq today, where every option — from staying aloof to more actively helping Iraqi forces — carries risks. The administration needs to accept the reality of the mounting danger in the Middle East and craft a strategy that goes beyond the slogan of “ending war responsibly.” While the comments are less ad hominem, there are still gems like embecii Listen narcissistic sociopath; go suck on the Republican tet and take a nap. and Wars we never gotten involved in in the fist place. |
| Posted by: KBK 2014-06-15 10:41 |