Althouse: "Watch Each of the Last Four U.S. Presidents Announce That We're Bombing Iraq."

September 11, 2014

"Watch Each of the Last Four U.S. Presidents Announce That We're Bombing Iraq."

It's deja vu all over again.

91 comments:

Lewis Wetzel said...: It would have been better to have left the ME in the hands of the Turks. Can we revoke Winston Churchill's honorary U.S. citizenship now, please?; 9/11/14, 2:05 PM
Robert Cook said...: If only they'd fight to win!; 9/11/14, 2:08 PM
AustinRoth said...: All I can thunk if is how, as a general rule lately, the country first forgets how truly feckless and poor the Democrats are in the areas of foreign policy and national security, followed by foreign policy and national security disasters, then a Republican administration that tries to rebuild while being eviscerated by the press (Democrats), gets replaces by a Democratic administration, rinse, repeat.; 9/11/14, 2:12 PM
AustinRoth said...: Ugh. Think, not think. Sure wish there was an edit function here.; 9/11/14, 2:13 PM
Anonymous said...: I am liking Rand Paul's recent comments about not intervening to overturn authoritarians in regions full of tribal grievances.

Obama seems to want a lowered profile in US projection of power -- which Rand Paul and 75% of the population agree with -- but he continues to mount the pulpit to weigh in on problems that are not directly relevant to US interests. A real low-profile policy may quietly have positions but without Presidential lip service and "red lines" that turn out to be, umm, feckless. Only by letting those directly affected realize they have to take up the burden of their own defense does our burden start to lighten. Constantly talking as if we are the world's policeman while taking no effective action is the worst of both policy worlds.; 9/11/14, 2:42 PM
gerry said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/11/14, 2:46 PM
Matt said...: Was it just me or did two of those Presidents speak of having UN and Congressional approval and two did not?

If I were running for President, I would point out that we have little choice but to continue involvement in Iraq/Middle East due to our lack of energy independence. Let's give the next President that option by becoming 100% energy independent and a net energy exporter. To do so, we are going to rollback regulation on coal power as well as increase our nuclear energy production.

In the end, our aim will be 100% cheap, American-made energy. Then, and only then, the onus for Middle East regional stability can be shifted to the nations in that region and Europe.

Would the next President then disengage from the Middle East? Maybe not. But the choice would exist.; 9/11/14, 2:57 PM
campy said...: Wow, Obama is so awesome!; 9/11/14, 2:57 PM
George M. Spencer said...: Wasn't that a Ramones song....

"Bomb, Bomb, Bomb...Bomb, Bomb Iraq"; 9/11/14, 2:58 PM
madAsHell said...: He wouldn't be in this situation if he had found a way to sign the Statement of Forces Agreement.

Obama cannot comprehend shaping history, but history is shaping his legacy.; 9/11/14, 3:10 PM
Anonymous said...: McCain

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg; 9/11/14, 3:12 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Saddam Hussein was the world-historical man of the last 40 years. Alone, he altered the course of history. The entire world has changed course because of his decisions.

Without him, there would have been no Iran-Iraq War, no Gulf War, no Al Qaeda, no 9/11, no Iraq invasion, and no ISIS.; 9/11/14, 3:17 PM
David said...: If you click on all four videos, you can hear them all talking at once.; 9/11/14, 3:17 PM
Freder Frederson said...: Without him, there would have been no Iran-Iraq War, no Gulf War, no Al Qaeda, no 9/11, no Iraq invasion, and no ISIS.

What does or did Saddam have to do with Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda had its roots in the resistance to the Soviets in Afghanistan. We, along with the Saudis and other Gulf states are responsible for Al Qaeda.; 9/11/14, 3:22 PM
Brando said...: But surely this time it'll actually work to beat our enemies and stabilize the region!

The fact and reason Obama won't ask Congress for authorization should make every American's blood boil at the sheer awfulness of the president, the congressional Dems and congressional GOP. First, because it's pretty damn clear under the constitution, the War Powers Resolution, and presidential tradition that Congress has to weigh in on presidential use of military force in the absence of an emergency or defense against attacks on our country or our forces. The 2001 authorization clearly doesn't apply here, so a new authorization is required unless we want to accept that Congress should have nothing to do with this which constitutionally is a serious problem.

Second, consider why Obama won't ask them--surely, if he does ask them, it's win-win for him. If they say no, and he has adequate justification he can act anyway and let history vindicate him. Or, he can take their disapproval to heart, and say that at least he tried, but he won't do anything unconstitutional (ha!) and blame Congress for fecklessness. But more likely they'd say yes--Congress has never voted down such a request from a president, and military action is very popular right now. Getting their authorization seems a no-brainer, right? However, it turns out he won't go to them because congressional Dems don't want to have to go on the record about this war for fear the left base might sour on it and hurt them this November. And Obama has decided that constitutional requirements mean nothing in the face of midterm elections, which is an interesting take for a constitutional law professor.

Third, not only do the Dems not want to vote on this and Obama is willing to indulge them, the GOP in Congress doesn't want to have to vote either (except for a few who actually read the Constitution, like Rand Paul) because they see this election year going well for them, and don't want to have to go on the record voting for this thing in case Obama screws it up (as is almost assured) and they have to take ownership of the war as well (sort of like Kerry's position a decade ago).

So, we have a president and Congress all pretty clear on saying the hell with giving the legislative branch its constitutional role in warmaking powers, all for narrow political gain. What a lovely precedent this will set when President Jenna Bush decides to nuke South Egypt a few decades from now.; 9/11/14, 3:23 PM
Unknown said...: Perhaps you could explore the pointless and redundant appending of "all over again" to "deja vu" at some point.; 9/11/14, 3:31 PM
Beorn said...: Across the political spectrum:

Dove - Obama
Moderate Dove - Clinton
Moderate Hawk - GHW Bush
Hawk - GW Bush; 9/11/14, 3:31 PM
Alexander said...: Brando, Brando, Brando...

We have to nuke them there so that they don't nuke us here.; 9/11/14, 3:33 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Saddam Hussein was the world-historical man of the last 40 years. Alone, he altered the course of history. The entire world has changed course because of his decisions.

"Without him, there would have been no Iran-Iraq War, no Gulf War, no Al Qaeda, no 9/11, no Iraq invasion, and no ISIS."

This is a ludicrous over-estimation and scape-goating of Saddam Hussein; he was a standard-issue strongman ruler of an oil-state. It was and is our decisions--and actions arising from those decisions--that have wrought what has followed.; 9/11/14, 3:35 PM
Jaq said...: Actually, fighting a war, then withdrawing and declaring victory before it is over has always been good strategy for us. Look at how well North Korea has turned out!

I think Cookie found the old Black and White TV I used to watch. But his doesn't have all the shades of grey.; 9/11/14, 3:42 PM
SeanF said...: Unknown: Perhaps you could explore the pointless and redundant appending of "all over again" to "deja vu" at some point.

It's a Yogi Berra quote. "Pointless and/or redundant" describes almost all of them.; 9/11/14, 3:49 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Guys, look at Al Qaeda's stated reasons for its declaration of war against the US. They didn't like American soldiers in Saudi Arabia, which was a direct result of Saddam Hussein's actions.

The Iran-Iraq war led to massive debt that Iraq could not repay, which led to the invasion of Kuwait in 1991. Both of these decisions were Hussein's and his alone.

If you want to ignore what Al Qaeda said its reasons were, you are denying reality. It was an Arab organization, not an Afghan one.

I realize the narrative is supposed to be that helping the Afghan rebels against the Soviets caused all this, but that's not what Al Qaeda says its reasons were.; 9/11/14, 3:49 PM
MayBee said...: Why did the two guys before GWB bomb Iraq? I thought he caused all the problems.; 9/11/14, 4:20 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: The other day Revenant put much of the blame for this debacle on Bush I, which I thought was unfair at the time. I have now come to agree with him. Four fucking presidents have now gone to war in Iraq, trillions of dollars have been spent, and all we have to show for it is an increasingly radicalized and desperate population. What a monumental clusterfuck. Saddam would have been happy to sell us his oil and Kuwait's as well. If anything, oil prices would have been lower in the intervening years and we would not have had to spend a cent.

The American people have to take a lot of the blame as well. Two American's lose their heads because of their own reckless actions and all the dismal past is suddenly forgotten and we are ready for war again. It is fucking unbelievable. First Rand Paul packs it in and then the president. Not one of these fuckers has the balls to stand up and say, "It's not our fucking problem".; 9/11/14, 4:22 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Read this if you want to know what Al Qaeda believed pre- 9/11 and read this if you want to know what happened after.

There's a curious ignorance about what our enemies believe and what they do. This ignorance is despite the fact that jihadis have media organizations. They put out press releases, videos, and even a magazine. There should be no reason not to get where they are coming from.

The needs of American domestic politics to distort history in order to fit election campaign narratives corrupts our understanding of what's actually happening.; 9/11/14, 4:22 PM
Skeptical Voter said...: A President who talked less and who acted using some brains would be a relief.; 9/11/14, 4:28 PM
n.n said...: Premature evacuation has consequences.; 9/11/14, 4:38 PM
Matt said...: "The other day Revenant put much of the blame for this debacle on Bush I, which I thought was unfair at the time. I have now come to agree with him."

Gee, what a shocker! I suppose for the purposes of ostensible reasonableness it was necessary to not admit agreement from the start.

The question is 'with what action on the part of Bush I do you disagree?'; 9/11/14, 4:44 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "If only they'd fight to win!"

Typical statement that's made at the point when Presidents make their statements.

Later, you'll be saying we need to stop thinking we can fix everything or too many lives have been lost or whatever and the President will respond to that.

It's a vicious circle. At least recognize you're role in turning the circle.; 9/11/14, 4:57 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "Sure wish there was an edit function here."

Me too. You can rewrite, repost, and then delete the first comment. I have to do that all the time. I never get it right the first time.; 9/11/14, 4:58 PM
Drago said...: Freder the hopeless: "What does or did Saddam have to do with Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda had its roots in the resistance to the Soviets in Afghanistan. We, along with the Saudis and other Gulf states are responsible for Al Qaeda."

Hard to fix this kind of stupid.

If you don't know who Sayyid Qutb was and the history of the Muslim Brotherhood, perhaps you should.

I see cookie is back and pretending no one in the world has free will or any responsibility for their actions except the Americans.

Another day another marxist/leninist critique of the US.; 9/11/14, 5:00 PM
Drago said...: AA: "I never get it right the first time."

I just got the vapors!

Say it ain't so Joe!; 9/11/14, 5:00 PM
Ann Althouse said...: Thanks for the support on the Yogi Berra reference.

But notice how it is literally deja vu all over again. All over again twice. There are 4 iterations. Clinton was deja vu, Bush I. GWB was deja vu all over again. I shoulda said: It's deja vu all over again again.; 9/11/14, 5:01 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "I just got the vapors!"

I am such an impulsive "publish" button hitter, you wouldn't believe.

I find it very hard to proofread before publishing. I just feel lucky, despite all the evidence that there's always an error somewhere.; 9/11/14, 5:02 PM
garage mahal said...: Iraq has a 100 billion annual revenue from oil and has close to a one million man army. A couple dozen jihadis roll into a town with a bullhorn and they run for the hills. American bombs aren't going to fix that.

Should have kept Saddam.; 9/11/14, 5:03 PM
MayBee said...: Should have kept Saddam

With or without the child killing sanctions, no fly zones, and nuclear program in Libya?; 9/11/14, 5:14 PM
MayBee said...: You have to not go yo war with the Saddam we had, not the one you wanted.; 9/11/14, 5:15 PM
Drago said...: MayBee: "Should have kept Saddam

With or without the child killing sanctions, no fly zones, and nuclear program in Libya?"

Maybee, you are asking those questions of some backwoods high school guy in WI?

Why?; 9/11/14, 5:16 PM
traditionalguy said...: Obama may have been forced by ISIL's PR to react with another speech, but his A-10 cutting heart is not in it.; 9/11/14, 5:21 PM
garage mahal said...: With or without the child killing sanctions, no fly zones, and nuclear program in Libya?

Without.; 9/11/14, 5:32 PM
Matt said...: garage,

What should have been the response to the taking of Kuwait? I am gathering that you believe nothing should have been done. No war, no sanctions... Is that correct?

Separately, since we cannot undo the past, what do you think President Obama should do now in response to ISIS?; 9/11/14, 5:35 PM
Anonymous said...: I doubt our second Black President ever read the doctrine esposed by the guy who could have been the first Black President:

1.Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2.Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3.Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4.Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5.Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6.Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7.Is the action supported by the American people?
8.Do we have genuine broad international support?[2]

When we go in, do it with overwheleming force and all our tools.; 9/11/14, 5:37 PM
MayBee said...: Without.

You can't get rid of the nuclear weapons in Libya without getting rid of Saddam. If Saddam stayed, the nukes stayed.

So....we should have just dropped the sanctions, dropped the no fly zones, and let Saddam be Saddam?

Where do you think this would have us, now?; 9/11/14, 5:45 PM
Hunter said...: I am behind this and any future military action whose goal is to support the Kurds and Yezidis, because they have been good friends to the US. We owe them.

We do not owe anything to the Iraqi or Afghan central governments. Let them get their own houses in order, or (more likely) not.

The distinction is between people who want our help and have goals for themselves that are compatible with what we would like to see, vs. those who are only jockeying for power and want the US military to help them win over other tribes.

The former, wherever they may exist, deserve our help and to be free of the latter sort. The latter deserve nothing, and have already been given much. It is often hard to tell the difference beforehand, but the lines are pretty clear at this moment in time.; 9/11/14, 6:26 PM
n.n said...: Ann Althouse:

It's not that we should or can fix everything; but that when we do decide to intervene, we make a full commitment from conception to success or rational failure. It's the half-hearted skirmishes which leave a trail of blood and treasure without a meaningful return on investment, for ourselves or the people we purport to help.

That said, prosecuting wars should be comprehensive and, hopefully, rare. We do have a choice.; 9/11/14, 6:26 PM
William said...: Remember that crazy guy with the knife who yelled "Kill me now, kill me" at the cops when they arrived. That's Iraq.; 9/11/14, 6:28 PM
garage mahal said...: So....we should have just dropped the sanctions, dropped the no fly zones, and let Saddam be Saddam?

Yes! More than that, I now think we would have been better off doing absolutely nothing in response to 9/11.; 9/11/14, 6:36 PM
Lucien said...: Fortunately air strikes do not count as real war that requires congressional authorization.

With this understanding we can see that the limited Japanese airstrike seeking to degrade and destroy the US fleet at Pearl Harbor was not an act of war. Makes me feel sheepish about what a big deal we made of it at the time.; 9/11/14, 6:37 PM
Michael said...: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last.”

Churchill would be speechless today.; 9/11/14, 6:52 PM
David said...: Cook:

"This is a ludicrous over-estimation and scape-goating of Saddam Hussein; he was a standard-issue strongman ruler of an oil-state. It was and is our decisions--and actions arising from those decisions--that have wrought what has followed."

Thank God. Cook has finally bought into American exceptionalism and triumphalism. Except for what we did, nothing important would have happened.; 9/11/14, 7:04 PM
David said...: "Yes! More than that, I now think we would have been better off doing absolutely nothing in response to 9/11."

New layers of crazy-think are arriving every day.

"Doing nothing" is a response too. It also has consequences, some of them not what you would wish for either.

Do you really think that there are important decisions that can be made without unexpected and unpleasant consequences? Especially where war is involved? Important decisions are also often called consequential decisions. Doing X has consequences. So does not doing X. And consequences are unpredictable and uncontrollable to a greater degree that The Decider (whether it is you or Gorge Bush) usually expects.

If you look at the four speeches Althouse posted, Bush 43 is the only speaker who concedes that things might not turn out exactly as we expect. The only speaker.; 9/11/14, 7:14 PM
David said...: "With this understanding we can see that the limited Japanese airstrike seeking to degrade and destroy the US fleet at Pearl Harbor was not an act of war. Makes me feel sheepish about what a big deal we made of it at the time."

Cook as Hirohito: ""Yes! More than that, I now think we would have been better off doing absolutely nothing in response to that oil embargo."; 9/11/14, 7:16 PM
David said...: Althouse: "I find it very hard to proofread before publishing. I just feel lucky, despite all the evidence that there's always an error somewhere."

You have no idea how much butter that makes me feel.; 9/11/14, 7:19 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: William said...
Remember that crazy guy with the knife who yelled "Kill me now, kill me" at the cops when they arrived. That's Iraq.

The cops weren't obligated to grant his request.; 9/11/14, 7:22 PM
Drago said...: garage: "Yes! More than that, I now think we would have been better off doing absolutely nothing in response to 9/11."

Well, the good news then is that, in reality, you did do nothing.; 9/11/14, 7:53 PM
Unknown said...: Ah yes SeanF, Yogi Berra and John Fogerty.

And interesting pont, Prof A, repeat deja vu, if you will. Odd how so many people think the "all over again" belongs there.

Where is the Department of Redundancy Department when we need them?; 9/11/14, 7:56 PM
Robert Cook said...: "'If only they'd fight to win!'

"Typical statement that's made at the point when Presidents make their statements.

"Later, you'll be saying we need to stop thinking we can fix everything or too many lives have been lost or whatever and the President will respond to that.

"It's a vicious circle. At least recognize you're role in turning the circle."

Of course, I am mocking the standard complaint of those who blame our losing wars to our not being brutal and murderous enough.; 9/11/14, 8:08 PM
Robert Cook said...: Well, there are things we could have done in response to 9/11, but, given what we did do, we'd have been better off doing nothing.; 9/11/14, 8:19 PM
Jay Vogt said...: What does it say about us as a country that of those four, we made the one guy who had a clue as to how to be President of the USA a one-termer.

It's almost impossible review those without thinking "WTF do we have to show for our blood and treasure?" I do.

However, GHWB really had no choice. Sadam was (in all likelihood) ready, willing and able to roll into Saudi Arabia. No love lost for the house of Saud here, but putting that much oil under the control of one really bad and unpredictable guy was simply globally unacceptable.

It's tempting to think that alternatives are between good and not so good. Often, though they are between kinda bad and truly awful.; 9/11/14, 8:42 PM
Big Mike said...: @Cookie, every once in a while you remind me that there are fools and there are damned fools.

Then there's you.; 9/11/14, 8:43 PM
jr565 said...: Robert Cook wrote: This is a ludicrous over-estimation and scape-goating of Saddam Hussein; he was a standard-issue strongman ruler of an oil-state. It was and is our decisions--and actions arising from those decisions--that have wrought what has followed.

and Sadaam's decisions. And the UN's decisions. And Al Qaeda's decisions. And ISIS's decisions. Leave it to the liberal to write the jihadist or the Baathist out of their own stories.; 9/11/14, 9:21 PM
jr565 said...: Garage mahal wrote:
Yes! More than that, I now think we would have been better off doing absolutely nothing in response to 9/11.

Michael Moore is that you?
.; 9/11/14, 9:25 PM
MayBee said...: Garage-I'd be interested in hearing how you think that would have all played out.; 9/11/14, 9:45 PM
madAsHell said...: I'm trying to understand why anyone would respond to garage. He's a not very bright troll.

Need I say more??; 9/11/14, 9:51 PM
richard mcenroe said...: Obama has 60 days of independent military action under law before he HAS to go to Congress and Congress HAS to do its job.; 9/11/14, 10:00 PM
cubanbob said...: Brando said...
But surely this time it'll actually work to beat our enemies and stabilize the region!

The fact and reason Obama won't ask Congress for authorization should make every American's blood boil at the sheer awfulness of the president, the congressional Dems and congressional GOP. First, because it's pretty damn clear under the constitution, the War Powers Resolution, and presidential tradition that Congress has to weigh in on presidential use of military force in the absence of an emergency or defense against attacks on our country or our forces. The 2001 authorization clearly doesn't apply here, so a new authorization is required unless we want to accept that Congress should have nothing to do with this which constitutionally is a serious problem."

@Brando as much as I dislike Obama as a factual matter he doesn't have to go to Congress because Bush did the heavy lifting for him. The acts Congress passed after 9/11 and for the Iraq invasion are still in force and cover all the ground necessary for Obama to act ( fart around in reality but that's another story) so Obama doesn't need to go to Congress for authority when Congress already gave it to him.; 9/11/14, 10:39 PM
Unknown said...: this really makes you think.; 9/11/14, 10:47 PM
traditionalguy said...: Wait. You guys know nothing it seems. The only reason Muslim warriors are mad at us at all is our airstrikes on them. They are a peaceful religion that only expects the world peacefully to bow and scrape before its occult god or have its heads sliced off slowly and peacefully.

So you see Obama is right that such peaceful warriors are ready at any time to receive Obama's offer to surrender us to them so peace and more peace will come in our time.; 9/11/14, 11:00 PM
Achilles said...: Robert Cooke,

You come on here and spout your ignorant bullshit about the wars and consistently display your hatred of us(soldiers). All of you jackasses who think the taliban or Al quaeda or the similar groups with different names would just leave us alone if we left them alone refuse to listen to what they say and what they do. Instead you direct your bile at us.

We notice that you hate us more than the people who rape and beat the women in their lands daily. You hate us more than the people who slow hang their gays. You hate us more than the people trying to kill us.

You can take your self righteous crap and move to one of these places. I am sure they will appreciate your support and your hatred of us. I am sure they will be just as nice to you as we are. They will probably even fight for your right to bitch about them. You are loathsome people.; 9/12/14, 1:47 AM
Revenant said...: The only reason Muslim warriors are mad at us at all is our airstrikes on them.

While I'm sure ISIS hated us to start with, they didn't actually start cutting off American heads until after we started dropping bombs on them.

Why the hell we're sticking ourselves in the middle of a war *between* a bunch of Muslims who hate us is a mystery to me.; 9/12/14, 1:47 AM
Revenant said...: The acts Congress passed after 9/11 and for the Iraq invasion are still in force and cover all the ground necessary for Obama to act

Could you give a specific example of language in those acts that you feel gives Obama this power?; 9/12/14, 1:52 AM
bgates said...: Al Qaeda had its roots in the resistance to the Soviets in Afghanistan. We, along with the Saudis and other Gulf states are responsible for Al Qaeda.

It's America's fault for interfering with the natural order of things, and by "natural order of things" I mean "Soviet invasion of a neighboring state".; 9/12/14, 3:02 AM
Quaestor said...: Al Qaeda had its roots in the resistance to the Soviets in Afghanistan. We, along with the Saudis and other Gulf states are responsible for Al Qaeda.

Right. And Pearl Harbor is the natural and justifiable result of our unrighteous objection to Japanese socioeconomic policy in China. /sarc

This kind of morally vacuous thinking is the very quintessence of depravity.; 9/12/14, 4:23 AM
Quaestor said...: Al Qaeda had its roots in the resistance to the Soviets in Afghanistan. We, along with the Saudis and other Gulf states are responsible for Al Qaeda.

Using the search window I learn that Freder Frederson is the author of that incisive ethical formulation.

The Prosecution rests.; 9/12/14, 4:28 AM
Anonymous said...: So, Robert Cook, those socialist ideas of yours didn't work out in practice because socialist leaders weren't brutal and murderous enough?

And once the revolution happens, the American military under control of a band of thugs, corporations dissolved, most voluntary exchanges gone, liberties, Constitutional protections, laws, civil institutions and religion overthrown, THEN you'll be closer to what, exactly?

Have you realized how radical and crazy a place your ideas lead; how others must plucks truths and insightful art criticism from the enormous shit-pie of your ideology?

Isn't it time to just move on; comrade, and walk a new line?; 9/12/14, 5:29 AM
sdharms said...: A Reasonable Man said: "two F-ing people lose their heads" and we go to war? But sir, THEY WERE PRECIOUS JOURNALISTS!!! and LIBERALS AT THAT.; 9/12/14, 5:46 AM
Robert Cook said...: Achilles,

This time you expend many more words but still say so much that is so wrong. Where have I expressed hatred of soldiers? Soldiers are just victims, pawns of the detestable war planners in Washington and the Pentagon. Soldiers are used to kill and maim and are killed and maimed--and broken, then thrown away--in turn.

Our wars are crimes, wars of conquest and acquisition sold as wars of liberation and self-defense. If you can't see that, you are not just a victim but a dupe. But that's what our dear leaders are counting on.; 9/12/14, 5:48 AM
Jaq said...: The fact that the Soviets took the measure of Jimmy Carter, decided to march into Afghanistan, after undermining their civil government by inveigling a communist opposition into the country, doesn't figure into the lefties, err excuse me, centrists, here's finding that all wars are the product of "detestable war planners in Washington."

Inconvenient that it was Soviet expansionism, very similar to what is going on in Ukraine right now, that was the proximate cause of the descent of Afghanistan into a terror state.

The reason those to the left prefer the young to the old, is that the old remember their crimes.; 9/12/14, 5:55 AM
Jaq said...: Ha ha! Obama has finally lost his halo.; 9/12/14, 6:01 AM
Paco Wové said...: "The needs of American domestic politics to distort history in order to fit election campaign narratives corrupts our understanding of what's actually happening."

Just thought that was worth repeating.; 9/12/14, 6:53 AM
damikesc said...: The acts Congress passed after 9/11 and for the Iraq invasion are still in force and cover all the ground necessary for Obama to act ( fart around in reality but that's another story) so Obama doesn't need to go to Congress for authority when Congress already gave it to him

An Agreement authorizing attacks on Al Qaeda and its supporters covers a group at war with Al Qaeda?

Can you explain how?

You know ISIS and AQ aren't on the same side, right?

At this point, our best option is to arm up Israel and the Kurds and allow everybody to slaughter each other.; 9/12/14, 7:09 AM
Jaq said...: Yogi Berra's quotes are not all "pointless"

"If I hadn't of believed it, I wouldn't of seen it," is a pretty deep insight into human nature, if you ask me.; 9/12/14, 7:16 AM
Jaq said...: So, was Japan sitting on their island minding their own business when the oil embargo happened?

It if weren't for the Americans, there would have been no "comfort women" or any of the atrocities that make most of East Asia distrust Japan to this day?

Maybe the problem is that we are trying to freeze borders, maybe the UN is the problem.

Maybe we should just look the other way when things like Kuwait and Ukraine happen. It is a serious question. The Treaty of Versailles, the "peace to end all peace" will haunt us for another century at least. Maybe we need to step back and let the national boundaries re-form.; 9/12/14, 7:35 AM
Rusty said...: Freder Frederson said...
Without him, there would have been no Iran-Iraq War, no Gulf War, no Al Qaeda, no 9/11, no Iraq invasion, and no ISIS.

What does or did Saddam have to do with Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda had its roots in the resistance to the Soviets in Afghanistan. We, along with the Saudis and other Gulf states are responsible for Al Qaeda.

Actually. It started in the Phillipines as a reaction to the Phillipine governments actions in the 70s.
We have a permanent anti insurgent force stationed in the Phillipines to help the Phillipine government.
The root cause goes back to 800 or so AD; 9/12/14, 8:06 AM
Rusty said...: Why the hell we're sticking ourselves in the middle of a war *between* a bunch of Muslims who hate us is a mystery to me.

They keep threatening to slaughter us?
Just a guess.; 9/12/14, 8:08 AM
chillblaine said...: Looks like Kerry is having problems selling this military operation to the Arab nations. With the sole exception of the nation of Syria!

Syria's deputy foreign minister told NBC news that they were "ready to talk." I'm sure they are super-excited to share a common enemy with us.; 9/12/14, 8:10 AM
jacksonjay said...: I guess the asshole over at Comedy Central will need to revive his "At Not War" schtick. You know, bombing is not makin war (Libya) mockery. Followed by, hey but it worked great (Libya) praise. Followed by, hey it has fallen apart (Libya) silence.
Is it comedy or is it news?; 9/12/14, 8:28 AM
William said...: The liberal claim is that bombing the terrorists causes the creation of more terrorists than it destroys. Well, maybe but why doesn't this same dynamic work when ISIS engages in indiscriminate slaughter. IED's, suicide bombings, mass executions, public beheadings. Why don't these tactics cause the terrorists to lose ground in the Muslim world?.......Students of history will recognize that the Mongol horde had much less difficulty in their conquest of Afghanistan and Baghdad than we did.; 9/12/14, 9:26 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: William said...
The liberal claim is that bombing the terrorists causes the creation of more terrorists than it destroys.

The Pauls said the same thing or at least did until electoral politics overcame Rand Paul's commonsense.

What are our long term strategic objectives in Iraq? We've been dicking with this country for 24 years. What do we have to show for all this effort and money?

The onus on those who want more intervention to show how we benefit from that intervention. Good luck with that.; 9/12/14, 10:01 AM
Drago said...: ARM: "What are our long term strategic objectives in Iraq? We've been dicking with this country for 24 years. What do we have to show for all this effort and money?
The onus on those who want more intervention to show how we benefit from that intervention."

I almost hate to say it but these are reasonable questions to ask.

Of course, we would be less than comprehensive if we did not ask those who advocate for non-intervention to spend a bit of time thinking about possible negative ramifications of non-intervention as well as whether or not non-intervention will mean a greater danger arising in the near future that would require intervention.

Of course, all we can truly discuss at this point are the known knowns and the known unknowns.; 9/12/14, 10:15 AM
Drago said...: William: "Students of history will recognize that the Mongol horde had much less difficulty in their conquest of Afghanistan and Baghdad than we did."

Well, of course.

The Mongols practiced total warfare. Any real opposition was wiped out to the man, woman and child.

The word got around.

Similar to what the KGB did in the 70's/80's in the Middle East when terrorists made the mistake of attacking/kidnapping Russian assets.; 9/12/14, 10:17 AM