“Iraq was a stable democracy when handed to Barack Obama in 2008.”
This is perhaps the single most stupid thing I have ever read in the Washington Times. And that’s saying something.
This is perhaps the single most stupid thing I have ever read in the Washington Times.
You beat me to it. I agree with your comment completely. If a nation - or a building, or whatever - is "stable", then it should be able to resist pressure. Iraq was an unstable, corrupt mess in 2008. It didn't need much of a push to descend into chaos.
I blame Obama for many, many things. But Iraq is on Bush and his neocon advisers.
This is perhaps the single most stupid thing I have ever read in the Washington Times. And that’s saying something.
Agreed; rhetorical excess statement. However, it was a stable place as long as "the hammer" (US military) had a presence. It was an idiotic move to remove the hammer without a plan. W predicted what would happen, and Obama did it. It is clearly Obama's fault.
You get the world as it was dealt you; it doesn't matter whose fault it is/was. Obama owns it.