The Goat Pen

bluetick wrote:Other than keeping GITMO open I don't see much of oprama following in dubya's GWOT bootprints.

Bush took us to war in Afghanistan/Obama is winding our operation down there (albeit slowly)

Bush took us to war in Iraq/Obama ended the military operations there

Bush put bin Laden on the back burner/Obama has him burning in Hell

Bush made nice with Ghaddafi/again with the burning

I thought Oprama was going to close Gitmo. Thanks for reminding everyone how he lied his ass off to get elected. He's done nothing more than continue Bush's policies. And I'm glad he has. But let's not pretend that he somehow deserves more credit than Bush.

We would have eventually ceased military operations in Iraq, no matter who was POTUS. Bush started the policy that led to the eventual capture of Bin Laden and the death of Ghaddafi. It has been one big continuum that started with Bush overcoming both the terrorists and the political opposition of dems and other left-wingers here -- including you, 'tick. It's funny to see you guys waving the pom-poms for Obama now, considering how energetically you criticized Bush when he was in office. At least I'm consistent.

The Osama "back burner" stuff is complete bullshit. It's a shameless attempt to rewrite history for cheap political gain and it dishonors the sacrifice of our military folks, who really deserve the credit. We never stopped looking for Bin Laden and it was only a matter of time before we were going to find him. It just so happens that Obama was POTUS when we took him down. Good for him.

It has been one big continuum that started with Bush overcoming both the terrorists and the political opposition of dems and other left-wingers here -- including you, 'tick.

When the one big continuum arrives at its logical conclusion, and instead of being a model of democracy like W dreamed when he started the Grand Neocon Experiment, Iraq returns to its natural default setting, i.e. becomes another anti-American and anti-democratic fundamentalist thugocracy, that will all be Obama's fault, right?

Poor delusional Hack. Gitmo is still open because the.repubs won't allow it to close. Wake the fuck up.

Professor Tiger wrote:

It has been one big continuum that started with Bush overcoming both the terrorists and the political opposition of dems and other left-wingers here -- including you, 'tick.

When the one big continuum arrives at its logical conclusion, and instead of being a model of democracy like W dreamed when he started the Grand Neocon Experiment, Iraq returns to its natural Arab default setting, i.e. becomes another anti-American and anti-democratic Islamic fundamentalist thugocracy, that will all be Obama's fault, right?

If it turns out that we left Iraq too soon, then one could certainly make that argument. I only hope that Obama is basing the timing on the best counsel from our military experts and not the same political lackeys who told him which lies to spew during the last presidential campaign.

Jungle Rat wrote:Poor delusional Hack. Gitmo is still open because the.repubs won't allow it to close. Wake the fuck up.

lmao

You can't make this shit up, folks.

Poor counter.

If it turns out that we left Iraq too soon, then one could certainly make that argument.

"9 MORE YEARS!!! 9 MORE YEARS!!!"

Perhaps the funniest thing about this is we are leaving Iraq now because of an agreement that the BUSH administration penned with the Iraquis.

Oprama tried to negotiate to keep us there LONGER but the Iraquis stuck with the deadline of the Bush agreement.

Basically after that date US servicemen would be subject to Iraq law so if someone were killed they could be tried for murder.

I agree with not letting them stay there and be subject to those laws.

What I think is funny is people trying to claim a failure of negotiation by this administration and the fallback to the Bush agreement as a victory for this administration.

That's rich. It's almost as good as the democrat claim of cutting taxes when they only increase them by 10% saying they really wanted to increase them 20% but since they only increased them 10% it was a tax cut. A decrease in the amount of increase is a cut to them LMBO.

Does Dubya really want to take credit for Gadhafi? A lot of Conservatives are trying their best to paint it as a huge mistake because an Islamic Republic more evil than any before shall rise from his ashes.

I've seen John Bolton both suggest it was a big mistake to remove Gadhafi because of the above and AT THE SAME TIME blast Obama for dragging his heels and not doing more to help the Brits and French.

I don't know if Bush wants to take credit for Ghaddafi's demise, or not. But he set in motion the string of events that led to it. And guys like Bolton (who I like, for the most part) are full of shit when they criticize Obama for stuff that they would have applauded under a GOP POTUS. They're playing politics just as shamelessly as the Obama supporters with their back-burner bullshit. I'm not giving you the GOP party line. I'm giving my own opinion. I also called bullshit when conservative talking heads started calling Afghanistan "Obama's war" shortly after he was elected. I hate stupid shit like that.

And prof, if Iraq overcomes what I think everyone agrees will still be tough times ahead and grows into a prosperous, stabilizing force in the ME, will you then give credit to Bush? I'm guessing not. I know that guys like DSL won't. Hell, I still remember when The Talent and DSL were saying that there was no way the surge would work and that it would only lead to disaster. They don't seem all that eager to admit they were wrong about that.

It's also true that this withdrawal is largely symbolic. We will almost immediately begin sending troops back in a "training" role. And we will continue to have military assets staged in the region to support the Iraqi military, when needed.

If Iraq becomes a stable, friendly and prosperous country in the next decade? Sure, give some credit to Bush.

50 years down the road and maybe after a few govt changes? Uh, no. That's like crediting the British for there having been no civil wars in India for the past 40 years

Send those troops to Mexico.

Dr. Strangelove wrote:If Iraq becomes a stable, friendly and prosperous country in the next decade? Sure, give some credit to Bush.

50 years down the road and maybe after a few govt changes? Uh, no. That's like crediting the British for there having been no civil wars in India for the past 40 years

lol

So 11 years and no deal? Just admit it -- you'll never admit you were wrong and you'll never give Bush any credit, no matter what.

Hacksaw wrote:

Dr. Strangelove wrote:If Iraq becomes a stable, friendly and prosperous country in the next decade? Sure, give some credit to Bush.

50 years down the road and maybe after a few govt changes? Uh, no. That's like crediting the British for there having been no civil wars in India for the past 40 years

lol

So 11 years and no deal? Just admit it -- you'll never admit you were wrong and you'll never give Bush any credit, no matter what.

Do you consider Iraq a success right now? They are hostile to the US and are close to being an Irani client state. They were one of the few Arab states supporting the Syrian regime.

What exactly is your timeframe for success in Iraq being directly attributable to Bush?

And prof, if Iraq overcomes what I think everyone agrees will still be tough times ahead and grows into a prosperous, stabilizing force in the ME, will you then give credit to Bush?

Yes. I will also give Bush credit if the Cubs win the World Series.

Iraq is a lot closer to being a "success" today than it was ever going to be with Saddam still in charge. The ME is more stable now than it was then. Even with the changes that are happening there (and nearby in N. Africa), at least there is a reason to hope that things can get better. Bush started a policy that prompted (or accelerated the natural course of) these changes. And Obama, to his credit, has continued down the same path. Saddam and his henchmen are gone. Bin Laden is gone (along with a lot of other high-profile terrorists). Ghaddafi is gone. Ahmadinejad is still around, but he's worried...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/21/world/mea ... index.html

...and he's got good reason to be.

Ten years ago, if you had predicted all of these events, most people would have said it was an improvement. Of course you are going to try to put the worst possible spin on things. You've been doing that since Bush was elected. We're all used to it.

The ME is more stable now than it was then.

How on earth can you say that? One of the most important countries in the Middle East - Egypt - has gone from an ally of the US and Israel to a Muslim Brotherhood state which is busy burning Christian churches. Iraq is in danger of becoming a client state of Iran, which is still marching steadily towards acquiring nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them. Afghanistan is executing Christians and cutting side deals with the Taliban. Pakistan is harboring Taliban and Al Qaida leaders within their borders (just like they did OBL) and letting their border with Afghanistan look like the Ho Chi Minh trail.

I'm not sure what "more stable than ever" Middle East you're seeing. I see the same old insane asylum, but without the nurse coming around every day with the meds.

I knew as I was typing that that someone would respond as if I had said that the ME is stable. It is clearly more stable now than it was before the fall of Saddam's regime. And it has a better chance now to have a more stable future. It's easy to point to all of the turmoil that's happening now and try to draw negative conclusions about how it will all work out. But we knew how it was all going to work out with Saddam's sons waiting in the wings and it wasn't good.

BTW, Egypt was sooo stable before...lol. Good one.