OK, **Bullitt, Clothahump **wasn’t wiling to explain his reasons but maybe you are. So, enlighten us please.
How about the day that planes crashed into the WTC and the Pentagon? Was that day better than the day the architect of that atrocity was killed?
With all due respect Obama in his rush to get out of Iraq ignored all the warning signs that were clearly there of the mess we have now. Once again he was handed a stable Iraq and squandered it to the mess there now.
From both Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta in their recent books, Obama made the decision not to leave a residual force in Iraq against their advice and that of those in the Pentagon.
This current mess is Obama’s baby.
Iraq was not “stable”, and there’s no evidence that a residual force would have made a lick of difference. A residual force could have made things even worse.
The President decides where and who we fight. The Pentagon just executes those decisions. It’s not the job of any active-duty general or admiral to decide who we should be fighting.
Does it affect your judgment that the “stable government” in Iraq *wanted *us out?
That is correct. The President decides where and when to fight and the Generals and Admirals carry out these orders, and in this case the orders were carried out. That is as it should be.
With that said the Generals and Admirals have an area of expertise in which their advice would be important to take into consideration.
Also the Secretary of State and The Secretary of Defense. Why did you leave them out ?
The advice of all was ignored.
Look all. Six years in you can’t keep going back to the well to blame Bush. It’s gone dry and many decisions you are completely ignoring were made in those six years.
It wasn’t “ignored”. He listened, and he made a decision. And it was the right one. It was time to get out. I’m glad we did. Less Americans are dead because we got out – if we stayed in, more Americans would be dead and injured, and more money would be spent. He said we’d get out, and he got us out. And I very much hope we don’t go back in. Nothing good will come of American soldiers going back to Iraq.
Bush kept federal income tax cuts in place despite two ongoing foreign wars. I’d call that pretty aggressive in cutting taxes. And I know some conservatives who consider low taxes the very definition of “conservative”. You may disagree with them. You may think the deficit matters too. Or cutting spending. Since I’m not a conservative, and I don’t claim to know what the “true” definition of conservative is, I’ll leave it to you all to settle the matter.
And I disagree that Bush didn’t push for any conservative social issues. He used up considerable political capital on the Terry Schiavo case (although that may have been partly because he overestimated how much political capital he had at that point).
Your right. He listened and made a decision, it’s his decision to make, and that is the way it works. Only now the blow back is starting you want to say “Oh wait, he not responsible for his decision, someone else is”
You can’t have it both ways. That that he listens to advice and counsel, makes the decision but then is not responsible for it.
As for less American being killed as a result. That remains to be determined IMHO.
Enjoyed to discuss with you (really), but no more comments from me here.
I’m willing to accept failures from liberal policies. If ACA fails, I’m willing to buy that. On the other hand, if I think the recovery would have been faster with a bigger stimulus, I won’t accept that the slowness is due to liberal principles, but rather due to too much acceptance of conservative ones. The NSA nonsense didn’t come from him being too liberal.
The big weakness I see is not a matter of politics but rather personality - the too great willingness to compromise.
He’s responsible for his decision, and it was the right decision. It was right then and it’s right now. I’m very very glad we didn’t keep US troops in Iraq longer.
Not sure who you’re arguing with, but it’s not me. I never said he wasn’t responsible for his decision.
Elvis, I really hate to break this to you, but I have a life outside the SDMB. I’m oh so sorry that you got your knickers in a knot about the fact that I didn’t immediately jump through the hoop that you wanted me to. Life sucks - get a helmet.
As far as reasons go, I am simply comparing the two administrations. Bush wasn’t great; I’d say B- at best. But Obama’s record is just one fuck-up after another, with no end in sight. The only thing he has succeeded in doing is making Jimmy Carter look competent.
Aside from killing OBL, resurrecting the auto industry, passing the ACA, recovering the US economy, getting us out of Iraq, and greatly expanding gay rights, you mean?
I think that’s fair, but it also applies to Republican governance. Medicare Part D was unpaid for and opposed by the most conservative in the party. On some level we still own it because our guy who we voted for did it, but it’s definitely not an example of conservative governance.
Now the NSA though, I agree that ideologically it’s not liberal, but in polls Democrats support the NSA spying more than independents and Republicans, so for better or worse, it’s now an issue Democrats are on the pro- side of. Although I think the real issue is that Democrats put too much trust in their Presidents.
Or maybe the problem is that Republicans have withdrawn their support for the war on terror now that they didn’t vote for the guy in charge?
The New York Times blew the whistle in December 2005, but I didn’t hear Rush, et al, complaining.
Actually, a lot of my right-wing friends complained about the whistleblowing.
Republicans still support the NSA with a majority. Democrats made the big switch. Democrats just trust government. It’s Republicans they don’t trust.
Between 2006 and 2013, that majority shrunk from 75% to 52% (from your own link).
Republicans trust government, when they’re in charge.
They trust government MORE when they are in charge. A majority still does, at least on security issues, which is the government’s core job. On issues that aren’t the government’s core job, like trying to get people skinnier, government is obviously mistrusted for good reason.
You have enough time to take a shot, but not to defend it. Gotcha.
So, you still have no actual criteria or examples to offer us. The time you took to take the long way to type what amounts to “Dumbocraps suck, hurhurhur” could easily have been taken to type “Because of this, this, and this”. But you didn’t do that, did you? Why not?
Well, there are two problems with your reasoning.
-
It’s unclear that even Bush would have been able to negotiate a deal with the Iraqi government to keep more troops there. Maliki wanted it, but the Iraqi Parliament wasn’t having it. We do NOT keep troops in places where the local government refused to grant immunity to them.
-
Had we kept 10k more troops there, it’s unclear they would have been able to stop ISIL. And, remember that ISIL in Iraq is allied with the Sunni tribes, and we’d be fighting against them. That’s one reason I’m not too keen on what we are doing now. We are taking sides in what is a civil war in that country.