Posted on 10/14/2012 4:44:14 AM PDT by Be Careful
Obama's risk-averse course was a welcome change from Bush, but in key theaters more leadership would be a plus. Romney could deliver it.
(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...
Nothing has changed. NOTHING.
Obama's risk-averse course was a welcome change from Bush......and, the op-ed starts with total BS.
Will the MSM never get in touch with the history they are living through?
GW Bush did not start either the Afghan War or the Iraq war.
The Iraq War was the conclusion of Desert Storm start during GHW Bush’s administration.
The Afghan War was started by al Qaeda. The Afghan’s could have avoided the war had they surrendered Osama Ben Laden and his terrorist but chose not to do so.
The other bit of history the press conveniently for Obama chooses to ignore is that no war the US has ever fought has ever been paid for during its execution; they all were paid for on credit (possible exception of the Spanish-American war which lasted all of 11 weeks).
____________________________________
Nonsense.
“an” opening on foreign policy? There are all sorts of friggin’ openings there, and everywhere else.
Dems voted in favor of the Iraqi war. How quickly they forget.
I wish Romney would ask where Obama was at 3:30 p.m. on 9/11. Was he watching events in Lybia unfold?
Are there going to be further House hearings? I think that would be a good line of questioning to follow.
Pull your head out of the sand;
1. the 24th Mech along with the 82nd /101st Air Assault had almost of the Republican Guard’s Armor double flanked between Basra and Nasiriyah right when Powell went whining about the pictures from the road to Basra and GHWB hit the PR panic button. They couldn’t see us but we had them easily within the range. It would have wiped out everything in the zone.
2. The resulting Cease Fire Agreement was broken at every step by Iraq from the day it was signed.
3. Our fighters were flying cap patrols in the northern and southern no fly zones from the day Iraq started to use their helicopters to decimate the Shiites in the south and the Kurds in the north. Those cap patrols went on for all those years before Desert Storm, and our fighters were either painted with AA radar and/or frequently fired upon.
4. Canada was the recipient of the 500 tons of yellow cake that Saddam refused to give up that we removed after the GWB invasion was complete.
5. It only took 18 neglected UN resolutions before EVERYONE got tired of Saddam thumbing his nose at the world telling EVERYONE to come and get it because he was not going to give it up. You know, that goofy little thing called the Cease Fire agreement.
6. There never was a peace treaty of any kind signed, just the cease fire agreement. He kept breaking them until we were tasked to break him.
Explain your point.
We can talk afterwards if you like.
Neo-con? yea, sure. You have now gone from ostrich to cranial rectumitis.
He was very clear. His stated reason was that; 'as long as the ME nations are aligned against and seeking the destruction of Israel then the prospect of a lasting world peace is out of the question (and the prospect of Israel going nuclear against its enemies remains).
The only way to change the direction in the ME is to change the political map by creating democracy. The only nation that can be changed without incurring world condemnation is Iraq due to Saddam's regime and the standing sanctions against it."(para-phrased)
Bush laid out the core neo-con philosophy of "create ME democracies to protect Israel (and in the process advance the prospect of world peace)". He was clear and unambiguous.He might have pulled it off if he had not listened to Rumsfeld throughout 2003-2005. The lack of manpower on the ground before the 'surge' gave the forces working against our success in creating an Iraqi democracy the time and space to grow in strength.
He was very clear. His stated reason was that; 'as long as the ME nations are aligned against and seeking the destruction of Israel then the prospect of a lasting world peace is out of the question (and the prospect of Israel going nuclear against its enemies remains).
The only way to change the direction in the ME is to change the political map by creating democracy. The only nation that can be changed without incurring world condemnation is Iraq due to Saddam's regime and the standing sanctions against it."(para-phrased)
Bush laid out the core neo-con philosophy of "create ME democracies to protect Israel (and in the process advance the prospect of world peace)". He was clear and unambiguous.He might have pulled it off if he had not listened to Rumsfeld throughout 2003-2005. The lack of manpower on the ground before the 'surge' gave the forces working against our success in creating an Iraqi democracy the time and space to grow in strength without our interference.
Anybody who denies the strong neocon influence in Bush 43’s administration can’t be taken seriously. Have a wonderful day.
Surely you protest too much about innocuous BS. Actionable occurrences are facts. I deal with what happened and what those sequences and lack of actions resulted in.
This neo-con crap is a made up liberal label as just another name to jab at anyone on the other side of their persuasion as a means to disarm them while empowering themselves in the make believe world of the DC establishment.
With that said, I am more interested in getting the whole ruling establishment eviscerated from their goals of ruling over us all in a neo-socialist (just kidding) utopia, period. As long as you and the other Paulbots, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, of cling to this idiotic one sided label, you will be the milk carton picture of those terminally afflicted with the said “Cranial Rectumitis” self affliction.
BTW, I couldn’t be having a more wonderful start of my day thanks to you. I just love the smell of burning neo-socialists in the morning.
1. Iran is four years closer to a nuclear bomb.
2. The Moslem Brotherhood, from which Al Qaeda sprang, controls the most populous Arab nation.
3. Qaddafi, who for all his earlier insanities, had abandoned his nuclear ambitions and was cooperating with us against Al Qaeda, is dead; and in his absence Al Qaeda's influence is spreading throughout North Africa.
4. The announcement of our departure date from Afghanistan had the utterly predictable effect on the morale of our foes and the steadfastnest of our allies.
5. He came into office with the war in Iraq won, and promptly forfeited some of our hard earned gains there by failing to negotiate a status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government.
6. He sacrificed missile defence in Eastern Europe, which had already been promised to our allies for a "reset" with Russia that has borne no fruit.
7. Our government watched and/or listened for six hours in real time as our consulate in Benghazi (which is/was American soil) was attacked and our ambassador and others killed and did nothing, either because it did not have the resources in theatre necessary for an effective response or because it chose to remain passive - in either case displaying an incompetence that rival's Carter's.
Politicians had regularly talked about getting involved militarily in Iraq as far back as the 90's.
Everybody knew Iraq was a problem, would continue to be be one, and eventually would have been dealt with. It wasn't a secret.
Thanks!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.