This comports with my opinion on the blame Bush chatter viz Iraq - assumptions are made that have no basis in facts because the facts do not exist. Liberals can say stupid things knowing full well the media will treat those stupid things as stuff that makes sense and many unthinking voters will accept that as the truth - but of course the truth lies somewhere else. Can you argue that things might be better or at least more manageable if Saddam were still around? Yes - you can also legitimately argue things might be roughly the same or worse - it's all conjecture, some of it more informed than others. The only thing we know for sure is that Bush fucked up the occupation, this led to significant problems - those problems had been addressed at long last by the surge - one can argue about the degree to which those problems had been addressed but there is no doubt that they had been addressed - and then Obama walked away from that 'success' we now know not for sound tactical or strategic reasons but rather simply because he wanted to be able to say he got us out of Iraq, ie that he was 'ending wars'. A year after walking away Maliki asked him to come back and Obama said no - six months ago Maliki asked for help viz ISIS and Obama said no. Probably a year or so ago Obama no doubt received a security briefing saying something along the lines that if we didn't get involved in Syria the bad stuff that is happening right now might happen, and Obama did nothing. And so here we are.
Churchill didn't get to ignore Hitler simply because he disagreed with the policy choices of Chamberlain, and no one would have excused him had he tried - even if you believe, wrongly as far as I'm concerned, that the Mideast looks as bad as it does right now mainly because of the 2003 invasion, how on earth does that excuse Obama from the choices he's made that were quite obviously deeply flawed?
And as I've said before, if you're gonna argue that we would be better off with a ruthless tyrant like Saddam still in power then that has implications, implications that liberals completely ignore when making such a claim - as in the 'Cairo speech' and the naive welcoming of the 'Arab Spring' and the soaked in delusion welcoming of the Muslim Brotherhood coming to power in Egypt and sundry other things are all utterly incompatible with what's implied by the notion that if only Saddam were still around practicing his form of Ba'athist fascism everything would be fine.
Churchill didn't get to ignore Hitler simply because he disagreed with the policy choices of Chamberlain, and no one would have excused him had he tried - even if you believe, wrongly as far as I'm concerned, that the Mideast looks as bad as it does right now mainly because of the 2003 invasion, how on earth does that excuse Obama from the choices he's made that were quite obviously deeply flawed?
And as I've said before, if you're gonna argue that we would be better off with a ruthless tyrant like Saddam still in power then that has implications, implications that liberals completely ignore when making such a claim - as in the 'Cairo speech' and the naive welcoming of the 'Arab Spring' and the soaked in delusion welcoming of the Muslim Brotherhood coming to power in Egypt and sundry other things are all utterly incompatible with what's implied by the notion that if only Saddam were still around practicing his form of Ba'athist fascism everything would be fine.