Monday, September 29, 2014

It is a good thing that we have that smart Nobel Prize winner instead of that stupid cowboy!

Instapundit writes:

//WHEN EXCUSES DON’T WASH: On “60 Minutes,” the president faulted his spies for failing to predict the rise of ISIS. There’s one problem with that statement: The intelligence analysts did warn about the group. Says one former Intel officer: “Either the president doesn’t read the intelligence he’s getting or he’s bullshitting.” Or both.//


Anonymous said...

It's quite obvious that our current president needs to take a play from our previous president's playbook. He should claim, falsely, that ISIS has weapons of mass destruction, then attack with several hundred thousand groups troops. "Are we not going to do anything about ISIS until there's a mushroom cloud over the Potomac?"

Our current president doesn't even have to worry anymore about radically destabilizing the region. Our past president already succeeded in destabilizing most of it. Given that success, it also is pretty obvious we should just bring Bush and Cheney back. They only failed to stop 9/11. I mean, the civld war spilling over from Syria into Iraq (caused, apparently by our blatant failure both to invade Syria and to maintain massive military presence in Iraq) has been a way bigger problem than the direct attacks on civilians New York and Washington D.C. Bush / Cheny 2016!!!!

Anonymous said...

"I don't do nuance."
George W. Bush (as proclaimed by him proudly)

Stupid cowboy, indeed.

Peter Bradley said...

We know that Bush stabilized Iraq because Obama was claiming that Iraq was secure. Then Obama ignored his own advisers - and his intelligence services - and withdrew the troops that would have kept Iraq secure for the United States.

We might imagine that sometime during Obama's second term Democrats will stop blaming Bush for everything...of course, then they will start blaming the intelligence services while ignoring that those services are run by Obama.

Inconvenient, those facts.

Anonymous said...

Yes, it as simple as that. Iraq was stable, as long as the tens of thousands of U.S. combat troops (at about $1 million per year per soldier) remained in-country and continually used military force to ensure stability. I don't think that means means it was stable. If I'm not mistaken, that's what the pre-war Iraqi army was doing quite effectively.

The middle class guys and girls didn't have jobs anyway. The lapse in responsibility for managing wall street by the last 4 or 5 administrations (demos, repubs, neo-cons alike) ensured that. Might as well get disabled in Iraq instead of hanging around idle bank home.

But how could I argue with the American people. We clearly wanted an open-ended military adventure in Iraq. We all knew all along that the "couple of years" promised by the Neo-cons in the GWB administration when we went in was a lie. We also all knew that the weapons of mass destruction claims made by the Neo-cons was a lie as well. We just wanted the chance to stick our middle class sons and daughters in harms way for an indefinite time frame. Classic case of the citizens misleading themselves. I think we also liked borrowing money from the Chinese to pay for the whole thing. What could go wrong with that?

Neocons: Lied about WMD, lied about Iraq involvement in 9/11, lied or badly misjudged consequences of invading a major foreign country, left the whole mess up to someone else. The GWB neo-cons lied (many times) to get us into a war.

Obama: Lied or didn't realize that pulling out troops form an apparently never-ending military actions would have a downside. Obama lied (we all knew it was a lie, by the way) to get us out of one.

Peter Bradley said...

Well that is stunning bit of deflection from the post.

Do you have anything to say about the current President's failure?

Apparently, you don't think he's responsible for much of anything that happens during his administration?

John Kasaian said...

Passing the buck is Obama's claim to infamy.
Poor schmuck.
The challenge is beyond his abilities.
Way beyond. But that is why he has advisors and Cabinet, no?
Not for advise, but to have someone to blame (they are pretty lame bunch anyway.)

Anonymous said...

What I said above:

"Obama: Lied or didn't realize that pulling out troops from an apparently never-ending military actions would have a downside."

Oh, I guess I did acknowledge Obama's failure.

Balance that failure against the continued death of american soldiers and the continued outlay of borrowed Chinese money to pay for it all. Balance those lives and those dollars against the earthly paradise that is eastern Syria and Northern Iraq. Balance that failure against the extremely low likelihood (my opinion) that defeating ISIS will really mean much of anything. The middle east is a never-ending quagmire of ISIS-wannabes with middle age sensibilities. Our military is quite capable of the defending the oil fields farther south without having to pay so dearly for the wasteland that ISIS now occupies. Obama lied to get us the hell our of dodge. Bush, your "cowboy," lied to get us in.

Who links to me?