Home » Obama’s tough love towards Iraq: that’ll teach ’em

Comments

Obama’s tough love towards Iraq: that’ll teach ’em — 45 Comments

  1. As to whether Obama believes what he says: I think it is enough for him to know that he said it, therefore it must be right. He really does believe he is the smartest man in the world. He doesn’t have to dig for the truth like most of us, nor does he feel the pain of having to make hard decisions. Someone else is always to blame for not conforming to Obama’s grand ideas.

    Like you, Neo, I can’t stand to read about or hear what he says. I can’t stand to see his phony smiles.

  2. 1. Iran now knows (if it didn’t already) that it is free to build nuke bombs.

    2. ISIL has *our* weapons and we won’t sell them anything or even use our full air power to protect them.

    3. Obama knows there is evil in the world. It is the Republican Party because it won’t give him what he wants.

  3. Yes, Senator Feinstein is a voice for sanity (ie, more war) because she’s a San Francisco liberal as well as a patriotic American.

    And then there’s this:

    “Feinstein supervised the appropriation of billions of dollars a year for specific military construction projects. Two defense contractors whose interests were largely controlled by her husband, financier Richard C. Blum, benefited from decisions made by Feinstein as leader of this powerful subcommittee.

    “Each year, MILCON’s members decide which military construction projects will be funded from a roster proposed by the Department of Defense. Contracts to build these specific projects are subsequently awarded to such major defense contractors as Halliburton, Fluor, Parsons, Louis Berger, URS Corporation, and Perini Corporation. From 1997 through the end of 2005, with Feinstein’s knowledge, Blum was a majority owner of both URS Corp. and Perini Corp.”

  4. Maximalist
    Etymology dictionary

    maximalist “extreme radical in the Russian Socialist Revolutionary Party,” early 20c

    n. a person who rejects compromise and expects a full response to (esp. political) demands.

    Etymology: French maximaliste, from maximal- (probably from English maximal) + -iste -ist; intended as translation of Russian bol’shevik Bolshevik

    : one that believes in or advocates immediate and direct action to secure the whole of a program or set of goals; specifically : a socialist advocating the immediate seizure of power by revolutionary means as opposed to gradual achievement of limited aims (as by the processes of parliamentary democracy)

    2. Sozialist, der die sofortige Machté¼bernahme der revolutioné¤ren Kré¤fte fordert.
    [German translation: Socialist who calls for the immediate takeover of the revolutionary forces.]

    he shows his colors to color blind people who have not taken the time to read about what he has read about (as recomended)

    the terminology he picks denotes his education and interests, and what he read. westerners rarely use that slovak word… (you would be surprised at how many words come from this area)

    Unié³n de Socialrevolucionarios Maximalistas

    Los maximalistas se oponé­an a la implantacié³n del socialismo a través de dos etapas como propugnaba el teé³rico del partido Vé­ctor Chernov y acabé³ aprobando la mayoré­a del congreso.1 Los miembros de esta corriente exigé­an la expropiacié³n de las fé¡bricas en la primera etapa del proceso, que Chernov dejaba para la segunda y definitiva.1 Los maximalistas alegaban que el caré¡cter revolucionario del campesinado hacé­a innecesario el periodo intermedio de gobierno burgués que defendé­an los socialdemé³cratas para favorecer el crecimiento del proletariado urbano, éºnica clase revolucionaria segéºn estos.1 Dado que el proletariado urbano y el campesinado formaban ya la mayoré­a de la poblacié³n, los maximalistas creé­an que el socialismo podé­a implantarse directamente sin una fase intermedia.1 Chernov rebatié³ sus argumentos indicando la debilidad del proletariado urbano en Rusia y defendiendo que el programa de dos fases era mé¡s realista que la exigencia de la implantacié³n directa del socialismo tras la caé­da de la autocracia

    translation

    The maximalists objected to the establishment of socialism through two stages as advocated by the Party theoretician Victor Chernov and finally passed congreso.1 most members of this movement demanded the expropriation of factories in the first stage of the process, Chernov left for the second and definitiva.1 Maximalists claimed that the revolutionary character of the peasantry was unnecessary intermediate period of bourgeois government defending the Social Democrats to support the growth of the urban proletariat, the only revolutionary class sorted estos.1 Since urban proletariat and the peasantry and formed the majority of the population, the maximalists believed that socialism could be directly implanted without intermedia.1 phase Chernov countered their arguments indicating the weakness of the urban proletariat in Russia and arguing that the two-phase program was more realistic than the demand for the direct implementation of socialism after the fall of the autocracy

  5. Obama ever the alinsky ite
    “accuse your opponents of what you yourself do ”

    I suppose we should be grateful he never developed the * cackle* that Hillary chooses to employ when
    adhering to her Alinsky strategies.

  6. Bolsheviks
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolsheviks

    The Bolsheviks, originally also Bolshevists or Bolsheviks derived from bol’shinstvo, “majority”, literally meaning “one of the majority”) were a faction of the Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) which split apart from the Menshevik faction at the Second Party Congress in 1903.

    The Bolsheviks were the majority faction in a crucial vote, hence their name. They ultimately became the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.[6] The Bolsheviks came to power in Russia during the October Revolution phase of the Russian Revolution of 1917, and founded the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic which would later become the chief constituent of the Soviet Union in 1922.

    Mensheviks

    The Mensheviks (sometimes called Menshevists Russian: меньшевик[1][2]) were a faction of the Russian socialist movement that emerged in 1904 after a dispute in the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party between Vladimir Lenin and Julius Martov, leading to the party splitting into two factions, one being the Mensheviks and the other being the Bolsheviks. The dispute originated at the Second Congress of that party, ostensibly over minor issues of party organization. Martov’s supporters, who were in the minority in a crucial vote on the question of party membership, came to be called “Mensheviks”, derived from the Russian word меньшинство (men’shinstvo, “minority”), whereas Lenin’s adherents were known as “Bolsheviks”, from bol’shinstvo (“majority”).

    The Mensheviks were thus opposed to the Bolshevik idea of a Vanguard party and pursuit of socialist revolution in Russia.

    n the context of the theory of Marxist revolutionary struggle, vanguardism is a strategy whereby the most class-conscious and politically advanced sections of the proletariat or working class, described as the revolutionary vanguard, form organizations in order to draw larger sections of the working class towards revolutionary politics and serve as manifestations of proletarian political power against its class enemies.

    think of all those organizations that are different but whose leadership converges… feminism is the largest (but that is the overall word for over 100+ variants like special nets to catch different fish)

    i wonder how close we have to be to the thing that is happening before we want to read as to the histories they are copying, borrowing from, being helped by, etc..

    just curious

  7. If you dont know these histories as the Vanguard do, you cant understand what they are saying when they are talking. they talk in a way in which the average incurious uneducated (or uninformed if you think that less negative) person will think one thing as they will construct that meaning from surface ideas and so on… while to the vanguard the language is dotted with words or synonyms that have deeper meanings.

    this has duping delight to it. like tiqya… the rubes think one thing, those in the know, hear another thing. the victims are unwilling to learn how not to be victims, and so, the superiority complex is reinforced as is the deserving need to take care of what is to them, ignorant stupids

  8. And the NY Times further reported that “…President Obam-Bam followed his stiff admonishment to ISIS with one fistums on his hip and the other wagging a stern finger.”

    Washington Post: “…Having long witnessed Mr. Obama’s red lines, muscle flexing, follow-through and steely resolve elsewhere in the Middle East, ISIS sent an announcement via Facey & Tweety stating,’BWHAAAAAAAAAAHH…(Bronx Arab Cheers) and ‘We ‘Fwaaaaid…We ‘Fwaaaid..!!’..”

    His Infantile Majesty replied to the ISIS defiance by solidly leaving for vacation on Martha’s Vineyard.

  9. Oh yes & the Pres musing about *threats to America*
    just an opportunity to work in a bit of rahm emmanuel’s
    advice.
    “never let a good crises go to waste”

  10. My anchor point for evaluating Obama’s judgement on foreign policy remains his statement as a state senator that described the Saddam problem fairly accurately but then leaped to his jaw-dropping conclusion that if we just maintained the ‘containment’ status quo, Saddam would just quietly fade away on his own since that’s what normally happens to tyrants.

  11. If you really want your blood pressure to rise, read Obama’s comments today about Iraq — before heading off to Martha’s Vineyard — especially this part during the Q & A after them:

    Q: Mr. President, do you have any second thoughts about pulling all ground troops out of Iraq? And does it give you pause as the U.S. – is it doing the same thing in Afghanistan?

    THE PRESIDENT: What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up, as if this was my decision. Under the previous administration, we had turned over the country to a sovereign, democratically elected Iraqi government. In order for us to maintain troops in Iraq, we needed the invitation of the Iraqi government and we needed assurances that our personnel would be immune from prosecution if, for example, they were protecting themselves and ended up getting in a firefight with Iraqis, that they wouldn’t be hauled before an Iraqi judicial system.

    And the Iraqi government, based on its political considerations, in part because Iraqis were tired of a U.S. occupation, declined to provide us those assurances. And on that basis, we left. We had offered to leave additional troops. So when you hear people say, do you regret, Mr. President, not leaving more troops, that presupposes that I would have overridden this sovereign government that we had turned the keys back over to and said, you know what, you’re democratic, you’re sovereign, except if I decide that it’s good for you to keep 10,000 or 15,000 or 25,000 Marines in your country, you don’t have a choice – which would have kind of run contrary to the entire argument we were making about turning over the country back to Iraqis, an argument not just made by me, but made by the previous administration.

    So let’s just be clear: The reason that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because the Iraqis were – a majority of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there, and politically they could not pass the kind of laws that would be required to protect our troops in Iraq.

    Having said all that, if in fact the Iraqi government behaved the way it did over the last five, six years, where it failed to pass legislation that would reincorporate Sunnis and give them a sense of ownership; if it had targeted certain Sunni leaders and jailed them; if it had alienated some of the Sunni tribes that we had brought back in during the so-called Awakening that helped us turn the tide in 2006 – if they had done all those things and we had had troops there, the country wouldn’t be holding together either. The only difference would be we’d have a bunch of troops on the ground that would be vulnerable. And however many troops we had, we would have to now be reinforcing, I’d have to be protecting them, and we’d have a much bigger job. And probably, we would end up having to go up again in terms of the number of grounds troops to make sure that those forces were not vulnerable.

    So that entire analysis is bogus and is wrong. But it gets frequently peddled around here by folks who oftentimes are trying to defend previous policies that they themselves made

    …as if this was my decision…

    We have never had a worse president.

  12. hit enter too soon

    if obama used bolshivik in his comment, everyone would get it, but he used the oldest words… the words that only those steeped or suffered may know, and so, he is also sending out a message to the world as to his actual position.

    without knowing this, there is no way to get what is going on

    think of it as a revolutionary language…
    kind of like parents hiding their discussion in front of children

  13. At first it appeared that Obama was merely punishing the Kurds for being so pro-American but until one remembers he made his first overseas call to a foreign head of state to Mahmoud Abbas.

    Fool or knave, the Obama enigma?

    I posted at another article about a Rabbi just murdered in Miami. A few days ago there was a pro-Hamas demonstration in the diamond district of NYC. It was obviously intended to intimidate the Jews who operate there although this time they were chased off. I wonder what is next?

  14. The weapons are reserved for Californian Democrats, AQ in Syria, and Feinstein’s network. They are NOT for the Kurds to use.

  15. Long ago I too felt a profound “weariness at the overwhelming combination of factual errors, conceptual flaws, deceptive characterizations, and arrogant preenings that appear in nearly every sentence” and words that procedeth out of his mouth. I listen to almost nothing he says.

    “Most of what Obama said to Friedman conveys an attitude towards the geopolitical world that can only be described as delusional and dangerous.” neo

    I judge it to be pathological.

    All that said, when Obama says, “Under the previous administration, we had turned over the country to a sovereign, democratically elected Iraqi government. In order for us to maintain troops in Iraq, we needed the invitation of the Iraqi government and we needed assurances that our personnel would be immune from prosecution if, for example, they were protecting themselves and ended up getting in a firefight with Iraqis, that they wouldn’t be hauled before an Iraqi judicial system.” I find that plausible. However when he says, “as if this was my decision.” it leads me to suspect that he didn’t try very hard, seeing it as a convenient excuse allowing him to do what he wanted to do; cut and run. As always with Obama, everything he says is deceitful, once thoroughly examined and as neo points out, at this stage, what’s the point…

  16. “I’ve indicated … I don’t want … I …”

    Someone needs to tell Obama, btw, that the statute of limitations ran out on blaming Bush at least by the end of his first term.

    Worst. President. Ever.

  17. “Obama made clear that he is only going to involve America more deeply in places like the Middle East to the extent that the different communities there agree to an inclusive politics of no victor / no vanquished . . .”

    . . . except as it applies to domestic USA politics, for which the only acceptable modus operandi is to do whatever it takes (and then some) to utterly vanquish and humiliate those that have the temerity to not quite see things His way.

  18. I wrote my comment immediately above *before* I had even finished neo’s piece; my comment was my instant reaction.

    Then I finished neo’s piece, and she covered its essence very nicely there at the end. Oh well, I got to vent just a little.

  19. Ann…”We have never had a worse president.”

    Amen. And, we’ve never had a Bigger Liar as president. Nobody comes close. He, The Immaculated Boy King, refused to let more than 3,000 American troops stay for the SOFA. He inherited a Huge Victory and peaceful country. Far more peaceful than his homicidal adopted city of Chicago. So, all of this current Hell is Bush’s Fault, Your Infantile Majesty???? BULLSHIT. Absolute pathological lying.

  20. Ann,

    Wow, that’s a cynical spin. Obama recouched issues that were on the table for negotiation with the Iraqis as requiring invitation from the Iraqis.

    I’m not well-versed in our SOFA history everywhere else, but to my knowledge they all are periodically renewed with a negotiation process that often involves ironing out points of contention between us and the sovereign host nation.

    Obama is citing to the false narrative. It matters to set the record straight on the Iraq mission, including its irresponsible ending. The contemporary reporting on our premature exit from Iraq needs to be renewed to the public to hold the President accountable (yeah, I know):

    Michael Gordon, NY Times:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/world/middleeast/failed-efforts-of-americas-last-months-in-iraq.html?smid=pl-share&_r=0

    Max Boot, WSJ:
    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203554104577003931424188806

  21. The way Obama operates in foreign affairs reminds me very much of the ideas of students at Berkeley during the Vietnam War. They always assumed the North Vietnamese were “agrarian reformers.” All these simple peasants wanted was for the U.S. to get out and leave them alone. Good people, just with different values than we. If we leave them alone, they will work things out amicably. And so Obama thought about Iraq. It makes a nice picture to these academic dreamers. The U.S. is always the bad guy in their minds.

    Obama believed that he could make nice with the Muslim world and that would take the edge off the Islamist anger. Finish up the awkward wars and get out of the Muslim world. Then the casus belli for Islamists would end. Or at least their desire to attack us would end. A nice, neat dream of the way it ought to be.

    Unfortunately, the Islamists have very different values. And they’re not agrarian reformers. Just as the North Vietnamese weren’t agrarian reformers. As Churchill noted:
    “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”

    All those who want to serve this country in the military or government should memorize that passage. And refer to it whenever anyone tries to tell you that the Islamists are no threat to a modern country. Or that we can make nice with them and they will fade away. When their oil runs out, they will fade away. Until then it’s battle stations. We can never let our guard down and never do what Obama has been doing- weaken our military.

  22. I really do hate this guy when I realize the consequences of his (in) action. You put it very well Neo when you state how he acts like what is needed is to teach Maliki a lesson yes – ‘eat your vegetables!’ And what he appears to be forgetting is that you cannot compromise with these forces, and that just putting them into the government (parliament or whatever they have) would not have done the trick. Their nature is to want more and more… ISIS now ISIL. So now people are dying. Horribly, to put it mildly. Genocide. Of many groups —

    Diane Feinstein, for all her flaws, always did have some common sense. Too bad that is not shared across the board. It seems obvious. But apparently, not.

  23. For those of you with the stomach for it the
    Daily Mail UK has prominently posted picture of
    Iraqis they have crucified for ? not converting or some other transgression……. horrifying, disturbing, such a waste of young lives.

  24. JJ: “And refer to it whenever anyone tries to tell you that the Islamists are no threat to a modern country. Or that we can make nice with them and they will fade away.”

    The remarkable thing is that ISIS is making no effort to hide what they are. There is no Nazi Olympic showcase going on. Nor even Hamas propaganda.

    ISIS wants the world to know what they are. Instead, the leftists and isolationists in the West are going into overdrive to rationalize a narrative for ISIS.

  25. (re Ann’s comment)

    There are so many legitimate reasons to despise Obama. But above all I absolutely detest his fanatic refusal to take responsibility for *anything*, *always* pointing the finger of blame at someone else. It is the most abominable and loathsome quality a “leader” can possibly have.

  26. Wellll, Barry, if you just agree with us about everything and stop fighting and criticizing and being so judgey and stuff, why, we’ll be happy to welcome you under the Big Tent.

    /snort

    I put this on another thread, but what the hey. Trey Gowdy! is such a bracing antidote to Ole Mushbrain. Here is is, giving a Harvard professor a “bit of stick”:

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/q3rj7xo

  27. It’s not just Obama. It’s excuses “all the way down” with his supporters.
    Nothing is ever the logical results of leftism:

    Detroit: collapsed as part of the rust belt business migration of manufacturing. Culprits: Globalism and Capitalism.

    $7 trillion in debt in 5.5 years: 90% was BOOOSSHHHH’s fault, because poor Obama was stuck 1) paying for wars he didn’t want and 2) 2008 crash that hurt the economy (also Bush’s fault).

    Collapsing foreign policy: Either because of Republican obstruction in Congress, or not even defended because we shouldn’t be involved overseas.
    (note: this is the same direction as some other isolationists advocate. Nice that we have a real-world example now)

  28. Dick Cheney has—Thank You—responded very bluntly to Obama’s most recent lying blather, blaming President Bush for the present horrendous catastrophe in Iraq. Cheney the Great has pointed out the obvious truth that he and all neocons and most conservatives have been saying for the nearly 6-years of this Shipwreck of Leftism: Obama and his pathetic bunch have been projecting WEAKNESS abroad and they’ve been undercutting, sabotaging and diminishing our armed forces.

    Also, our Friends and Allies DON’T Trust our word, much less our ‘back up’. Iraq was at peace and bringing along a fledgling republic after our Huge & Costly Victory there under Bush/Cheney when the Boy King announced to his legions of Lib-Lefty Punks and a closely interested Radical Islam that he was withdrawing from that success.
    He made the SOFA contingent on 3,000 Maximum American Warriors to be left. In more understandable terms: NOT remotely enough to make a difference and keep freedom progressing. So it was rejected by an Iraq which needed(and deserved)a serious force of 25-35,000.

    My God, what a moral & physical coward Barack Hussein Obama is. What a tepid twit. Author—Luck Us—of the Perpetual Campaign, Perpetual Fund Raisers, Perpetual Travel, Perpetual Golfing and Plush Vacations interspersed ‘twixt all of the aforementioned. No Work. No Leadership. No Balls.*

    *Rather a VTC: Vast Testicular Concavity*

  29. NeoConScum: “Huge & Costly Victory”

    It was expensive, but just FYI, OIF did not cost trillions of dollars as claimed by the false narrators.

    artfldgr, Geoffrey Britain, and I raised this point under another post.

    http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

    The CRS report measured the “cumulative total appropriated [for] … war operations, diplomatic operations, and medical care for Iraq and Afghan war veterans”, covering DOD, State/USAID, and VA Medical costs. The report states all costs for Iraq totaled 805.5 billion dollars through FY2011 and 823.2 billion dollars estimated through FY2012. The report states the DOD-specific total war cost as 757.8 billion through FY2011 and 768.8 billion dollars estimated through FY2012.

    That’s not cheap by any stretch of the imagination, but it’s also not trillions of dollars.

  30. Matt_SE: $7 trillion in debt in 5.5 years: 90% was BOOOSSHHHH’s fault, because poor Obama was stuck 1) paying for wars he didn’t want and 2) 2008 crash that hurt the economy (also Bush’s fault).”

    Eric’s link to the CRS report on the costs of the wars puts a lie to the claim that all our debt is due to war and not something much more perfidious.

    In 2009, the democrat Congress and Obama passed, with no Repub support, the porkulus bill of $795 billion. A one time injection of cash into the economy to stimulate economic activity? Nope! The money was given to democrat supporters and organizations -teacher’s unions, green groups, renewable energy (solar and wind), bailouts of favored corporations (where unions wanted the bailouts), extending unemployment, the HAMP program for homeowners underwater on their mortgages, and many other favored progressive programs.

    Then they failed to submit a budget for the next four years. Instead they relied on continuing resolutions, which maintained the new level of spending – the pre 2009 budget plus $795 billion plus whatever new spending they could shoehorn in. That amounts to $4 trillion + of deficit spending right there. During Obama’s six years welfare spending, SS disability spending, and outlays on the ACA have zoomed spending levels up to account for another $1.5 trillion.
    For the last two years, Obama and Congress have been cutting Defense expenditures to the bone while all social spending has increased.

    We must never let anyone claim that our $7 trillion in deficit spending over the last six years is due solely to war spending.

  31. Eric & J.J…. Well and accurately stated. ‘Fraid I should be a tad more careful when using the descriptive, “Huge & Costly Victory”, Eric. I don’t mean $$-Cost, though, as you and J.J. say, it wasn’t cheap $$-wise. I mean the long “slog” until the Surge brought large success and an end(mostly) to the killing. Blood, material, patience, determination and steadfastness. All that to be casually thrown away deliberately by Obama. Our Warriors loved and honored President Bush and still do. No such cherished and earned honor do they have for The Infantile Majesty. Nada. Zip.

    Obama has sickeningly dishonored all that was done there by our Warriors and C-in-C.

  32. NeoConScum,

    I wasn’t really correcting you. I wanted to drop off the numbers because as JJ and others have pointed out, there’s been a lot of talk that OIF cost trillions and caused the national debt.

    It’s a brazen lie. But as we know, the narrative contest of the activist game is not accountable to the truth.

    JJ, see this, too:
    http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22926.pdf

  33. Obama supporters (and Obama himself) blame Bush for deficits and debt.
    One brutal takedown of this occurred in WaPo:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-that-90-percent-of-the-current-deficit-is-due-to-bush-policies/2012/09/26/e9bfbcd0-077e-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_blog.html

    The money shot:
    2009:

    Economic/technical differences: $570 billion (46 percent)

    Bush policies: $330 billion (27 percent)

    Obama policies: $325 billion (27 percent)

    2010:

    Economic/technical: $815 billion (51 percent)

    Bush: $225 billion (14 percent)

    Obama: $565 billion (35 percent)

    2011:

    Economic/technical: $720 billion (46 percent)

    Bush: $160 billion (10 percent)

    Obama: $685 billion (44 percent)

    “Economic/technical” is the shortfall of revenue from projections due to the economy sucking.
    The rest is self-explanatory.

  34. Good link, Eric. It shows that, in relation to our GDP, Iraq and Afghanistan are cheaper than the WWIi and the two Cold War wars – Korea and Vietnam. Our military is smaller but much more lethal.

    As an example: In Vietnam we used mostly “dumb bombs.” We did well if 30% of our bombs hit the intended targets. With today’s “smart bombs” they seldom miss. Much more efficient and lethal.
    That’s why we can spend a smaller percentage of our GDP on defense. Unfortunately, we have the wrong kind of airplanes for the close air support that is needed against ISIS. The A-10s are the type of aircraft that is most effective for that. The Air Force is phasing them out, and though the Marines would like to have them, DOD has not agreed to transfer them. So we’re stuck with mostly Navy and Air Force FA-18s as close air support vehicles. They need Forward Air Contollers (FACs) to identify and illuminate targets. Whereas the A-10s can go low and slow enough to ID targets of opportunity and can conduct lethal strafing, which is very effective against infantry.

  35. What caused the national debt to sky rocket was 2006’s election of Democrats to Congress. Bush’s Congressional deficits were decreasing from 2002 to 2005.

  36. So basically the Democrats got about 500 billion to distribute to their allies and cronyies, and then unleashed a prepared propaganda campaign blaming Bush II for the very problems the Democrats knew they caused. It’s standard SOP for them.

  37. It probably has something to do with Democrats like Feinstein ,needing the F18 build contracts and kicking out the A10 competition.

    Generally that’s how it goes in the behind the scenes.

  38. Matt_SE,

    One of the things I find most disturbing about the current regime that goes beyond the cynical pale is the unashamedly dishonest extent to which they’ll wage the narrative contest of the activist game.

    They have a habit of their most aggressive politics based on false premise, and then when the false premise is exposed, they continue the lie and pursue the same lie-based course of politics, as the WaPo fact checker points out in your cite.

    Sunshine has no effect on them as a disinfectant.

  39. Eric, thanks for that link. And Amen to you, J.J., and ymasarker.

    My personal favorite American weapon—and I don’t know that it was used in OIF or the mountain caves of Afghanistan, is the delicate, sensitive Fuel-Air Explosive. ((-:

    Remember the films of those babies in the Iraqi desert in Gulf War I?? Remember ‘The Highway of Death”? Now, that well earned BBQ was ecstasy to watch. I’d love to see them toasting ISIS—except in cities—wherever the dark age butchers are seen in Iraq.

  40. “… the man who barely knows the meaning of the word “compromise” … ”
    = = = = = = =

    Obama is real clear on *HIS* understanding of “compromise”.

    We heard it from him back in 2009: “I won.”

    HIS version of compromise is the same as my Dad’s old joke: “Let’s compromise– We’ll do it MY way.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>