mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Hope is not a Plan
Obama’s Grave Miscalculations
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • JR

    I’m no fan of Obama and his foreign policy, but if his legacy is to leave ME in the midst of a bloody intra-religious civil war between Sunni and Shia, that is definitely something to be proud of. The only reason for anyone to actually care about any of it is the price of oil. Since OPEC is pumping all out, seems like that is not a problem, at least for now. So carry on, Mr. President, carry on!!!

    • CapitalHawk

      I agree that, assuming you are not going to put any effort into building a positive and strong country in the center of the ME (which is what we were doing/attempting to do in Iraq before Obama pulled out), the current state of affairs is not really a bad one.

      I recall that one of the arguments in favor of the USA being involved militarily in the ME was the “flypaper” strategy – meaning that our presence there would attract jihadis to them rather than to the US itself. The ISIS/Syria/Hezbollah/Iraq/Iran war is serving the same purpose now, with the major added bonus that very few members of the US military are at risk. Our sole goal now should be to cause the conflict to be as drawn out and bloody as possible, a la the Iran-Iraq war of the early 1980s.

      • JR

        ^
        |
        |
        What he said!!!

  • Blackbeard

    ” it looks more and more as if future Democratic presidential candidates will have to persuade the public that they won’t repeat President Obama’s mistakes.”

    I hope that’s true but I have my doubts. Where I live, in deep blue NYC, all my liberal friends, and all my friends are liberal, are certain Obama is a fine president. Any problems in the ME? Bush’s fault. I am very much afraid that the 47% or so of voters who are reliably democratic can’t recognize failure when they see it.

    • JR

      I live in NYC as well. I see the same problem as you do. But I believe that all human progress in all areas of life happened despite the political class of the time, not because of it. Here’s to hoping history repeats itself.

    • fastrackn1

      BB, have your doubts for sure…just ask FG what he thinks about Obama.

      Actually, large percentages of people on both sides of the isle will follow and praise their leader no matter how bad they are. Look at those who followed Hitler…not an exact comparison, but you know what I am getting at.
      Most people are sheep and follow things blindly. Not doing so would cause them to have to expend energy thinking and researching issues, and that would take away some of their time from watching mindless TV programs and doing senseless activities….

      • FriendlyGoat

        Part of the way we might sensibly judge presidents on foreign policy in the Middle East is not just on the state of affairs in various countries such as Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc., but also on the amounts of American lives and money expended to achieve various results. We can certainly imagine, for instance, that John McCain might have convinced the Congress and the country to do some things differently than Obama has. But, you have no way of knowing how much cost would have been involved or what the outcomes of our military efforts might have been.

        • fastrackn1

          Being that McCain was an exmilitary guy, I think we can safely assume that the (dollar) costs would have been much higher if McCain would have been president, because we would have been much more involved in all of this, but as you say…that outcome is anyone’s guess.
          I vehemently agree that that costs were way underestimated back in 01 and 02. That is simple politics as usual…say anything to the sheeple to get what you want…..

          • FriendlyGoat

            No, I am not really moving to the right. But, I do believe that George Bush had a good intention that, after 9/11, if we cleaned Al Qaida and Taliban out of Afghanistan and Saddam out of Iraq, that democracy would produce a transformation in those countries. I think it’s sad for Mr. Bush AND for all in our military who sacrificed a great deal that Islam has not proven amenable to secularizing via democracy anywhere. Even Egyptian voters elected the Muslim Brotherhood when they got a chance. Yikes.

            Obama thought a softer touch and a more respectful tone toward Islam would turn the trick in these places. His approach did not work either.

            So, rather than bashing either of these presidents for trying something hopeful in those regions, I just feel a sense of sadness and frustration for both of them and for America as a whole in this effort. We are pounding our heads against a hard wall of theological nonsense.

          • fastrackn1

            Bush at least got the ‘after 9/11 thing’ right.

            My answer to the Musloid plague (Islam) is a redux of the crusades.
            Send them all to get their complimentary virgins…..

          • Sammywoof

            Actually a reasonable and we’ll written post Mr goat….you are doing much better..basically agree

    • iconoclast

      Liberals (really leftists but they have successfully co-opted the liberal label) love a political and economic philosophy that has brought little but misery and death for the last 100 years. More misery and death is unlikely to dissuade them from their firmly held delusions.

    • nofauxnews

      FAILURE is wasting $2 TRILLION and 4300 lives for regime change in a country that was NO threat to the US in the first place. That is why intelligent people see Obama as an excellent POTUS.

      • Blackbeard

        A number of potential Republican presidential candidates have been asked if, knowing what we know now, they would have started the war in Iraq as Bush did. Surprisingly, several struggled with the answer. To me, if I had known then that Obama would come along and throw away all the costly progress that had been made, then of course I wouldn’t have started the war in the first place. After we helped win WW2 we stayed active in Europe until this day to make sure the fruits of our victory weren’t squandered. The same is true in Korea. But we are not that country anymore. Knowing that I agree that trying to help in a place like the ME is now futile.

        Congratulations President Obama you have converted me to an ardent isolationist. But, given the above, could you please explain what in the world we are doing in Iraq now?

        • nofauxnews

          Just how long would you, I assume a fiscal conservative, been willing to squander $400 MILLION every DAY, to occupy an insignificant country we never should have invaded in the first place?

          • charliehorse

            We have occupied South Korea since the 50’s and I’m sure that the cost at the beginning of that adventure was equally costly in 1950 dollars but the return has been worth it. Even more so with the Marshall Plan in Europe after WWII. Strong support from the US in both instances proved the correct path. You just don’t know what the future will bring if you bail out early as Obama has done in Iraq so we’ll reap the whirlwind.

          • RAP999

            The mistake neo-cons make with this argument is that Germany, Japan and S. Korea were mono-ethnic countries unlike Iraq or Afghanistan. Once order was restored there no ethnic differences to create future problems..

          • charliehorse

            There is no country in Europe that can be called mono-ethnic.

            I’ll give you Korea and Japan for that as they are rather pure, but if that is your fall back position as to why Obama decided to withdraw from Iraq early then that’s rather lame.

          • Fred

            They were also civilized countries, despite Germany and Japan’s barbarism during the war. That does not apply to the Middle East. That said, I wouldn’t have a problem with the invasion of Iraq if we had wasted Saddam, set up Saddam lite, and got the hell out, like we used to do during the Cold War. The name of Bush will live in infamy for falling for the insane notion that those savages are capable of any kind of democracy other than one man, one vote, one time.

          • fastrackn1

            Regarding your moniker, Fox News is simply a counterpoint to the liberal media that had controlled the US media for years. Okay, they controlled it for years, no big deal. They were just trying to spread their thinking, and media is a powerful tool to do that. But then Fox News came along and gave them a run for their money and the left is out of their minds about it and it is quite interesting to see how they can’t handle it and don’t know what to do about it. I watch Fox, CNN, CNBC, and even the BBC and Al Jazeera (to get an outside the US point of view). It keeps me on an even keel about what is going on in the world.
            So is that all you leftie guys can come up with is ‘Faux News’ to bash your competition? It’s getting old now. If you want to bash Fox News, then do it with ratings, not childish names.

            Below is a link to the latest Neilsen ratings I could find for the cable channels. Why does MSNBC even keep it’s doors open?

            http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/04/30/cable-news-ratings-for-wednesday-april-29-2015/396612/

            I guess Fox isn’t so Faux now is it…..

          • nofauxnews

            The only reason it gets those ratings is because it is the ONLY source of information for the majority of people who watch it (of course YOU are one of the worldly ones). Unlike other cable news sources, it has NO competition for the viewership of those incapable of critical thinking. If the “Jesus and Santa were white” really WAS “fair and balanced”, they wouldn’t have to keep reminding their viewers, and probability themselves, of their clams.

            AS to the screen name? Had it for years, never saw a need to change. Fox is the same BS “news” it ever was.

          • fastrackn1

            Right…except that Fox’s ratings are higher than all the others combined, so there must be a lot more than a bunch or far right wingers watching it….

            If as you say “it is the ONLY source of information for the majority of people who watch it”, then don’t you as a leftie who believes that everyone should have equal opportunity, equal rights, equal share, etc., think that some of the left leaning media outlets should switch their bias to the right so all is fair for everyone? So that there are an equal amount of left and right mainstream media outlets (we’ll call it Media Format Redistribution)…you lefties LOVE redistribution I hear. So shouldn’t there be a few more like Fox? That is what you lefties always want is equal, equal, equal, right? So if Fox is the ONLY source for the right then you should be very happy that the right has representation in the media like Fox, right? And you should praise Fox for helping basically 50% of the population get it’s news as they like it. Or do you think Fox should become another left wing media outlet so they can give YOU the news the way you want it presented? No, of course you wouldn’t want that because you are a leftie, and lefties want everything equal for everybody.

            So the only channel that doesn’t present YOUR views is Faux.
            Funny how you lefties want everything equal unless that equal means something different from the world as you see it.

          • nofauxnews

            Two things.

            You are ignoring non-cable outlets that make Fox ratings look like the afterthought it is.

            The “bias” you imagine in other MSM is just in your narrow little mind that only wants to hear the Fox edited version of reality. It just ignores stories it doesn’t like, like BillO’s “combat experience”in Argentina, or defends right wing teenagers raping 5 year olds by saying “boys will be boys”. Nice.

          • fastrackn1

            That is your reply??…seriously??

            So what your saying is that you have no argument…that’s what I thought….

          • nofauxnews

            Just because you go on and on about essentially nothing, does not mean I can not make two simple points that totally destroy your useless blather.

          • fastrackn1

            As I said, you have presented nothing in your arguments…and could not simply counter my arguments, but chose to redirect the conversation.
            Anyway, cable outlets need to be compared to other cable outlets, so your argument is useless there.
            The ‘bias’ is not imagined it is well known on both sides of the isle…so another useless argument there.
            My mind is ‘narrow’ and ‘little’ because you imagine that I am a right winger (actually I am on both sides of the isle) that only watches Fox News even though I said I watch news across all spectrums to get as unbiased a view as possible…so another useless argument there…and from someone so biased that they need to have a childish moniker to show the blogging community how biased and childish they are.
            And that Fox is the only channel that skews it’s presentation of news to fit their demographic…are you really so ignorant as to think Fox is the only media outlet to do that??

            So my original point was that Fox is not Faux anymore than any other media outlet. They ALL play to their base.
            And since you can’t seem to accept that because they don’t play to your base, that makes you the narrow minded, little biased sheep that is so tightly tethered to their side of the isle that they need to express it with a childish moniker.

            “Useless blather”…very mature….

          • Fred

            I bet he also refers to Republicans as “rethuglicans,” conservatives as “wing nuts,” and all the other silly vocabulary of a troll not to be taken seriously.

          • Stumpy

            I’m wondering why you’re bothering to engage with a Kool aid toxic idiot ?

          • fastrackn1

            Because it is fun to paint them into a corner. I don’t really care what this clown has to say…his/her moniker says it all….

          • Blackbeard

            All my liberal friends, like you, curse the name “Fox News.” Then I ask them if they watch Fox regularly and they sputter with indignation. “How do you know it’s so wrong I ask, if you don’t watch it?” And what conservative web sites do you regularly visit? And what conservative writers do you read? How many conservative friends do you have? In the end it’s obvious they are living in the typical liberal bubble only reading and talking to people who will keep them comfortable in their liberal orthodoxy.

            Would you concede, for example, that Obamacare turned out much different, and much worse, than we were told it would? Had you been reading the NY Times, as I do, and watching MSNBC, as I do, and reading numerous liberal web sites, as I do, you would have been surprised at this outcome as all these sources, and many others, obediently toed the administration line. If you had been watching Fox you would not have been surprised at all.

          • nofauxnews

            You might want to talk to some of the millions who now have health care coverage before you blithely parrot the Fox meme that the ACA is an enormous failure. It is amazing how all you Fox watchers who claim to also get your information from real news sources (and you ALL seem to claim to) can remain so ignorant.

            Research has shown that Fox watchers know less about current events than those who watch no news at all.

          • nofauxnews

            http://www.cnbc.com/id/102756009

            But keep watching the Fox lies about the ACA.

        • nofauxnews

          BTW, we did not stay in either of those places to keep them from disintegrating from within, but to protect them from external forces. BIG difference.

          • TooTall7

            Really? So you’re saying that ISIS (ISIL) emanated from within Iraq when it is quite clear that they- in fact- came out of Syria. Sounds external to me.

          • nofauxnews

            Iraq began disintegrating from within as soon a Maliki dismissed the military leadership US taxpayers had spent BILLIONS training and replaced them ALL with political patronage appointees.THAT is why the Iraqi military was unable and unwilling to defend its borders. Maliki then used the military WE had built to persecute and disposes the Sunni minority within Iraq.

            To top it all off, in their great genius, Bush Cheney apparently never considered what would happen to the 375,000 strong Sunni dominated Iraqi military AFTER they disbanded it. Thousands of them went across the border into Syria to join the Sunni rebels there and ended up forming the core of Sunni ISIS.

          • TooTall7

            No they didn’t mister! They fought us in a brutal no holds barred insurgency- in country- that the Bush administration all but fomented. They won the maneuver war only to boot the peace that followed. In effect they had no plan following the toppling of Saddam other than to de-Baathify the country and await the arrival of something never before seen by the population: Jeffersonian democracy. It was a huge mistake to leave arms and munitions depots unguarded, dismiss the armed services outright (in effect putting approximately a million men on the unemployment line) and get rid (de-Baathify) any government official that new how to run things. At tremendous cost in blood and treasure the situation was finally retrieved by the surge; three plus years beyond when it should have been. You clowns over on the left never figured it out. the idea was to gain the Middle East’s center position (Iraq) as a base from which to project power throughout the region. Nice try mixing up time to suit your argument. Not until the Arab Spring was there a rebellion in Syria (quite some time after the Iraqi army was disbanded by Bremer. I believe that event occurred after the last American troops were withdrawn. You can cut it any way you like (Progressive like you always do) but you don’t succeed in cleaning up a mess by making a bigger mess. Simply put the one you so passionately defend is no more worthy of your effort than the previous numbskull.

          • nofauxnews

            You get most of it right, the account of the enormous mess Bush / Cheney made in a country that was no real threat to the US, and you don’t even disagree on the fact that it was the former Baathists who ended up forming the military might of ISIS.

            The idea of taking over Iraq to “project power” in the ME is just ignorant right wing foolishness. YOU idiots are the reason Islamic fundamentalists can use the US war on Islam as a recruiting tool

            YOU are the one that condensed my timeline, I never said that they left immediately to form ISIS in Syria, just that some of the former Iraqi military ended um in Syria and make up a major portion of the ISIS “military” force.

          • TooTall7

            Like hell I condensed it! You wrote it that way and got nailed for it. Apparently all you have left is obfuscation. Right wing foolishness or not, holding the center position was the plan. This goes beyond the traditional left wing (your point of view) canards of “no blood for oil” and “beware the military industrial complex.” The latter of which will acquire fantastic profit potential with the world your hero (Obama) is rapidly creating: failed states in Libya and Yemen (a declared success until), waffling indecision and delusional obfuscation in the now failed state of Iraq, redrawing (endlessly) any “red line” he claims to have never delineated in Syria, handing the nuclear option to the mullahs in Tehran and becoming Putin’s bitch in the Ukraine as well as the whole of Eastern Europe. That’s something only a cretinous hack like you could be proud of. The foreign policy parade of disasters appears to be never ending. So why don’t you tell us all what our great leaders plan for “degrading and destroying “ISIL” is? As for the US war on Islam being used as a recruiting tool I haven’t heard anything other than the stumblebums (those we’ve had to call Mr. President for the past fourteen years) telling one and all that we are not at war with Islam. Another obfuscation on your part. The jihadi need no other reason than the weakness of the current administration to recruit. I mean with Obama’s foreign policy (or rather the lack thereof) what’s there to fear.

          • nofauxnews

            Nowhere there did I state that Baathists left Iraq for Syria immediately. That is your own right wing neocon delusion, as is the rest of your pointless blather.

            And you think Scott Walker is going to be your salvation! ROTFL!

          • TooTall7

            The only blather around here is yours and it’s obvious you’re running low on even that. What’s the matter nofaux? Can’t answer the question eh. Never expected you to. Your hero is flailing away and no matter what he tries it all ends the same: total and unmitigated disaster. Not anywhere near a nice try attempting to divert my attention with your Walker bait. Apparently cheap ploys are a specialty of yours. Furthermore not even a good lawyer would try splitting the hair you’re holding onto: furiously back pedaling from your faux pas. Looking for a job as a presidential spokesman? You demonstrate here that you’re infinitely qualified. I’d quote you but it wouldn’t make any difference: a hack, like you, is and always will be a hack. Obama is headed for history’s dust bin and, unfortunately, may well take the country with him. You sing his praises no matter what. It’s what you do.

          • nofauxnews

            I never said any such thing, and if you think I did you obviously have reading comprehension problems.Your barely coherent run-on paragraphs would indicate as much as well.

            I am actually glad this administration is smart enough to understand that ISIS and other terror groups cannot be fought using traditional methods. They leave that belief to idiots like you who have your heads shoved up your asses.

            So what is YOUR brilliant idea to fight ISIS? 20,000 US soldiers on the ground so even MORE africans die in a war we have no vested interest in? Go ahead, vote for your girlfriend Lindsey, you think alike.

          • TooTall7

            Yawn!!! That last paragraph is priceless in its incoherence not to mention the non answer, answer you were asked for three posts ago. You’re nothing more than a pathetic loser who gets his yah yahs from giving people a rise with your psuedo neo liberal philosophy. Unfortunately philosophy demands discipline as well as coherence of which you possess none of either. I’d wish you good day except you wouldn’t know what to do with one if it fell on top of you; you miserable millennial creep.

          • nofauxnews

            So you have NO bright ideas about how to defeat ISIS but probably believe Trump does.

            Your CONcession is accepted.

          • TooTall7

            My concession? faux! You are so faux. Will beat you up again when I have more time to waste.

          • nofauxnews

            Still no bright idea about how to defeat ISIS. You can’t even answer the question you asked of another. CONcession.

          • TooTall7

            Didn’t expect a crud ball like you to remember that I asked you first and as to be expected, you try the grandstand play. You really are the loser. A humorous one but still the loser. LOL!

          • nofauxnews

            I answered your question. President Obama is smart enough to know that ISIS is a result of centuries of religious and cultural conflict, and that regressive, traditional old fashioned American “might”, of the type promoted by the ignorant GOP, is NOT the way to defeat them, or terrorism in general. I could not agree more.

            ISIS and AlQaeda could not have PAID for a more effective recruiting tool than the GOP “war on Islam” if they hired a top PR firm.

          • TooTall7

            I see! Your answer is that he will do nothing. Could not agree with you more. That was the question: how he would “degrade and destroy” ISIL. And that is the only way to interpret your answer: it’s all a big lie. To be expected. BTW that 20 thousand man figure you threw out earlier is probably where we’ll end up at before our fearless leader steps on Air Force One for the last time. Except not as a combat force but as a target. Do you really believe, as he said, that he has yet to see a plan, for the degradation and destruction of ISIL (Obama’s preference), come from the Pentagon? Are you really that numb to reality? A large chunk of military personnel make their careers by planning such affairs. Truth be told Obama has been banking upon a chimera of his own delusions: that he can get Iran to participate as a stabilizing influence in the Middle East. This, of course, is unraveling before everyone’s eyes except his and probably yours. The answer, as it has always been in war, is to destroy the enemy, Not to win the hearts and minds nor build nations but to destroy, by the most expedient means possible, the enemy. Which in this case proves to be ISIL: whether you care to acknowledge that fact or not (I consider you as deluded as our current president).
            I really don’t expect you to understand that; being a “peace at any price” type. Unfortunately when people like you figure it out the cost always proves a great deal more expensive. As I said before one doesn’t clean up a mess by making a bigger mess. I know you don’t think that way but when the bill does come due I’ll leave it to you, and those like you, to pay it.

          • nofauxnews

            And once again no bright idea how to combat ISIS or other terrorist groups that are a far greater threat to the regimes in Iran or Saudi Arabia than they ever were, or will be, to the US. YOUR regressive approach has been SO successful over the past decades.

          • TooTall7

            And Obo’s ‘new’ approach-which you doubtless recommend- has achieved such stellar results eh? You’re what one calls a fool. The approach I recommended was to go in and scorch the Earth. That’s a lot different than what we have been doing until Mr. Weak assumed the presidency. In effect it means to refrain from paying attention to ‘warriors’ like you. No winning hearts and minds. No nation building. Simply exterminate ISIL wherever you find it and leave. Repeat as often as necessary.
            You have obviously never lived in a bad neighborhood nor have you ever lived near one. The law of the jungle prevails. It’s the same in the world. Of course you never see it that way. You’re the one with the stupid “I can’t believe this is happening to me” look on your face as the knife is being pushed through to the hilt. Only then do you figure it out. ISIS is an existential threat whether you realize it or not. It was your worldview that prevailed as late as 9/10/01 and has again since this world class clown was sworn in. It will lead to the same result. Pushing back the clock always does.
            Your entertainment value has waned to the point that you’re beginning to bore me so enjoy the last word. You’ll never listen to anyone who doesn’t believe as you do so it’s pointless for me to go on. In effect your ignorance proves to be your strength.

          • fastrackn1

            The problem with many/most/all on the left is that they live in a world the way it ‘should be’, not in a world the way ‘it is’, so they often want to try a gentler, kinder approach….which is noble, but often makes things worse for the appeaser. It’s like the bully who keeps picking on you, and maybe going a bit rougher each time. They continue because you don’t push back, or you push lightly. It just keeps on and on. Then one day you swing hard right in their face and the bully never touches you again or even looks you in the eye. You can apply this to many situations in life, including war. Remember back when wars were fought hard and little attention was paid to collateral damage or hearts and minds…that was war. Get it over with fast and move on. It is our lives and resources being expended so why should we play nice in war?

            The only thing the Musloids understand is death in any way possible, so we should oblige them. They slaughter each other like animals and think everyone who is not them is an infidel and will be killed by them at their End Of Days. Most of their population supports this ideology so we really shouldn’t care how many we exterminate and how we do it….just get it over with.

            In their minds it is them or us at the end…so better us than them….

          • TooTall7

            Very well put. The most difficult part of it all is when scum the likes of nofaux finally wise up they come running to you for protection. It is so tempting to stand aside except the alternative demands otherwise.

          • nofauxnews

            Your ignorance is astounding, but typical of your regressive type, you are unwilling, or unable (probably the latter) to learn from past experience. With 1.57 BILLION adherents to recruit from, just how long, how many American lives, and how many more $TRILLIONS are you willing to waste on a battle that is not ours to fight.

            Too bad we could not require idiots like you, Miss Lindsey, and the Donald to actually SERVE, and have some skin in the game they are so willing to force others to fight for them.

          • azt24

            Had we not stayed in Germany and Japan, they would likely have reformed around Nazi and militarist lines. We stayed to rebuild them along democratic lines, which neither place had before.

          • nofauxnews

            Both those countries were aggressors in WWII, Japan directly against the US. Iraq was not even a threat to the US. It was the 1940’s, NOT the 21st century.

            Trying to compare Bush’s misadventure in Iraq to something that occurred 60 YEARS before is the kind of idiocy that got us into that mess in the first place.

          • TooTall7

            There’s no sense trying to debate with a paid for shill like nofaux. nofaux doubtless fancies itself a provocateur of some degree only too ill informed to qualify as such. Don’t bother wasting your time on such a dead end. Just some unsolicited advice.

        • azt24

          ” To me, if I had known then that Obama would come along and throw away all the costly progress that had been made, then of course I wouldn’t have started the war in the first place.”

          That is obviously the correct phrasing for all the Republican candidates to use (well, maybe not Rand Paul). I share your surprise that some of them had so many problems finding the phrase. Marco Rubio got it in one. He’s really been pitch-perfect on this campaign.

          What are we doing in Iraq now? Looking busy while kicking the can down the road to the next President. Next question?

    • TooTall7

      Oh they’ll recognize it when they see it. Unfortunately their realization will come following an extremely bright flash of light followed by a resounding blast and that followed by a stiff wind that blows first in one direction and then another. It is how they always learn: they gotta get beat over the head- sort of speak- first.

  • CapitalHawk

    “It’s worth noting that President Obama, who inherited two difficult wars in the region, made exactly the wrong strategic decision about both of them.”

    Yes, and he said he was going to take the exact actions he took before the election. He was explicit and very clear about what he was going to do. And then WRM voted for him. Twice.

  • Donald Campbell

    I think the label ‘JV team’ was wrongly applied. ISIS is full of veteran terrorists. It is the US that has a two year JUNIOR Senator, with the sole legislative accomplishment of voting ‘present’ at the helm. Seems that if we had seen the College transcripts we might better evaluate his strengths and weaknesses; however, considering the considers his major to be ‘constitutional law’ and the record number of 9-0 Supreme Court decisions *against* him, perhaps we should not be surprised with the results.

  • adk

    “Hope, however, is not a plan”
    Totally agree — so please tell us Mr.Mead what were you hoping for voting for a first-term senator without *any* accomplishments and questionable, at best, views?

    • Pete

      ” ….so please tell us Mr.Mead what were you hoping for voting for a first-term senator without *any* accomplishments and questionable, at best, views?””

      The professor was hoping that voting for “the Magic Negro” would ease his Southern guilt complex and redeem America. Yea, i know it sounds screwy but that’s where Mead and others like him were coming from back then.

      The real question is this: Has the guilt-stricken liberal whites learned anything from Obama’s failed presidency?

      • FriendlyGoat

        Sure, we learned that, although the world is a difficult place, a majority of people in this country and everywhere else were not comfortable with John McCain and Sarah Palin at the top of world affairs. We really don’t know what they would have done in the last six years, so we really do not know what Obama can be compared to in foreign relations.

        • adk

          The best — and the fairest — way to rate Obama on any policy, including foreign, is to compare the outcomes to his initially stated goals and promises. For extra points, take any his major policy and consider some intermediate points to understand how the initially stated goal morphed into something completely different.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Works for you, since you don’t like Obama. Wouldn’t have worked for you if we evaluated George W. Bush on keeping America safe while the twin towers were blown up under his nose. Wouldn’t have worked for evaluating Republicans on fiscal responsibility when they single-handedly converted the beginnings of surplus to massive deficit with tax cuts and wars, leaving office with a the specter of a world depression that only massive money-printing could even try to fix.

            I wouldn’t be bringing this up, BUT you are insisting on bashing Obama when your party is a rolling catastrophe at all times.

          • fastrackn1

            FG, I don’t agree with your statement about George Bush not keeping America safe regarding the twin tower situation. The things that led to 9/11 were planned and allowed to occur because of the lax security, lax military, and other things that happened during the Clinton administration. Even Clinton admitted that he could have had Bin Laden killed in 98 but chose not to because of collateral damage (of course I believe that if he had known what was going to happen on 9/11 I think he would have done it despite any amount of collateral damage).
            So old George (and I am no fan of his for many other reasons…some in your comment above) had not been in office too long when 9/11 happened, so it was a bit of a surprise for his administration.
            So blaming Bush for 9/11 occurring is like blaming Obama for the crash in 08 which was allowed to build under the Bush administration, but happened after Obama took office, and I am sure was a bit of a surprise for his brand new administration.
            No, Bush cannot be blamed for 9/11 any more than Obama can be blamed for the 08 crash.

            The only thing I will say about the 2 occurrences is that I think Bush and his administration handled the after 9/11 response (at least in a tough guy way, which is the only thing the Musloids understand) better than Obama and his administration handled the after crash thing, which almost all in the know about economics admit, was not very well in many ways.

            It’s not always about the occurrence, but it is always about the follow up….

          • FriendlyGoat

            Mere days ago I wrote that I am not a serial Bush basher, and expressed some sympathy for things that happened to George W. and America with respect to the world of Islam.

            But, when people want to “rate” Obama (as adk did above) without comparison to other administrations, then—-of course—-there are some things which should be brought up about the Bush years too.
            He was in office for 9/11, after all, and had that been Obama’s situation, we would NEVER have heard the end of how HE was 100% responsible for it. I am willing to cut GWB some slack, but only in situations where others will cut BHO some slack.

            As for Obama’s “handling” of the economy in 2009-forward, in the first place, presidents don’t really “handle the economy”. His opponents are mad at him for not championing more high-end tax cuts, of course, but the high-end tax cuts contributed to the mess in the first place and the last thing we needed then or now was more of them.

          • fastrackn1

            Yes you are right, a president does not “handle” an economy, I was just using it as a simple way to express my thought, but also, I did say Obama and his administration…because one man does not make all the decisions, and any of a presidents decisions are usually because of their advisers and administration’s input.

            There is no way to quantify what or how much high end tax cuts have caused or fanned the flames of the 08 crash, but I doubt it had little to do with anything there. But what I can say with certainty and direct knowledge (as a person who for the last 30+ years has been closely involved in the housing and loan markets), is that the main contributor to the 08 crash was housing, and that was because of the overly-relaxed lending policies that started taking place several years before the crash. For several years before and up to the crash, anyone that could breath could get a loan for as much as they stated on their loan application. So then that caused a great demand for housing because now anyone could buy a house, and a house that cost much more than they could actually afford. That caused extreme inflation in housing prices. I was living in San Diego at the time and house prices went up 25% or more per year for 5 years in a row…insane! So builders started building like crazy to keep up with the demand. Eventually the bubble burst and most of those bad loans were foreclosed upon which destroyed the financial markets along with the housing market and even the commercial building market. The housing market (directly and indirectly) alone is 1/3 of the US economy, not to mention the financial markets, and the commercial real estate markets.
            Those are the things that caused the crash, not tax cuts. It was the government squeezing banks to relax lending standards and create loans so everyone could buy a house (seemed like a great idea at the time…help everybody!).
            That in turn caused extreme greed as everyone piled in to take advantage of and profit from it…..

          • FriendlyGoat

            The great political debate about all this seems to center on whether we are to blame those who wanted to get the poorer folks into the house appreciation that other folks had been enjoying for years—the Clinton liberals

            or

            whether we are to blame the business community which was only too happy to process the loans—no matter how dicey—, package them into bonds, get the rating agencies to bless the bonds highly, and sell them as investments all over the world. (Then, of course, as you know, there was a builder community only too happy to build everything that loans could buy. Can’t blame ’em for fulfilling demand.)

            But, net, net, are we to blame people who bought too much house in the era when houses looked like investments—-AND, nearly all prices were inflated? Or are we to blame those who enabled whatever dishonesty necessary to package and sell bonds? And did tax cuts fuel the latter group? Not only that, but did the idea of exempting most people’s gains on sale of a house also attract a mania in trading houses?

          • fastrackn1

            Many are to blame, FG.
            Everyone can’t own a house. That is part of the problem with some of the thinking on the left…’everyone should’, for example. That’s not how the human condition works. We are not all equal, not matter how much a government tries. Some people should never own a house for many reasons….mostly they are not responsible enough or financially stable enough. Part of a governments job is to regulate and control greed through laws and regulations. If the government tells the lending institutions to relax lending standards so everyone can own a house, then that government is irresponsible and not doing it’s job. If a government allows greed, human nature will happily oblige. It is just the way humans are programmed through evolution, it is a form of self-preservation to hoard things… including money.
            So I blame the government for what it did by trying to get everyone into a house. They should have known the ramifications of allowing the relaxing of lending standards the way they did. Their shortsightedness has cost those they tried to help all the way up to those on top, more hurt and anguish than can be measured. I know it has cost me 10 years of my life, and I never got a bail out…I guess I am not too big to fail….

            Is it the fault of those on the left, well that is the story that has been going around…about Barney Frank and Chris Dodd during the Clinton years. It seems to be true…few, even on the left deny it.
            I just wish the left would stop trying to make everyone equal. Humans are not all equal, and the faster those in power govern that way, the better we will all be.

          • FriendlyGoat

            You’re right that not everyone is going to behave equally well. I am one of the “few, even on the left” , though, who is not going to accept the notion that poor people with poor ways either created the bubble or burst the bubble. History is written by the winners, they say, and that characterization strikes me the one now being written by those who did get bailed out—-such as Goldman Sachs, AIG, Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and one who didn’t—–Lehman. No one very high up in those organizations wants to admit, “gee, we didn’t have the slightest idea what we were doing”—–but, of course, we know they didn’t. If they had, there would have been no crisis.

          • fastrackn1

            The poor did NOT create the bubble, the government created it by relaxing the lending standards in a vain effort to get everyone into a house. The government did not do it’s job by allowing a situation for it’s citizens (humans) to borrow with reckless abandon (greed). If a government doesn’t control the built in greed of it’s citizens there will be chaos…people just can’t help themselves…it’s in their genes.
            For example, imagine if the government now allowed people to borrow 150% against the value of their houses, what do you think would happen? The greedy people would go out and borrow themselves into trouble, and the greedy business people would make their share for putting it all together…why?…because they are all human and humans can’t help themselves when it comes to greed
            .
            The point is not about what history will say about it, although there are plenty who know how this all started (relaxing of lending standards), the point is that the government screwed up big time and SHOULD have known what would happen when they did what they did. It doesn’t matter whether it was those on the left or those on the right who started it, what matters is that it never should have happened….

          • adk

            I’m glad we are in agreement that Obama’s track record is horrible, otherwise you would have found a way to defend at least something in it without bringing up GWB and whining about the no-good Republicans that just don’t like Obama.
            Btw, I’m not a Republican and consider GWB a mediocre president. However, the blame for 9/11 belongs more to Clinton than GWB — it was in the 90s when Al Qaeda blossomed and repeatedly attacked US targets while Clinton did nothing to stop it.

          • banderlogtorpedo

            He did not do nothing, he got BJs under the table. Work, work work…

          • FriendlyGoat

            I’m glad you are not a Republican. I always have this kneejerk reaction when someone wants to “evaluate” or “rate” Obama (or Clinton) without at the same time “evaluating” or “rating” both the real GOP presidents we have had AND other presidents we might have had saddled with the circumstances handed to Obama (or Clinton).

          • adk

            In the recent history, Clinton quite possibly got the best “circumstances” ever handed to a new president, both economic and geopolitical — end of the Cold War, the Soviet Union gone, Russia in shambles, China just beginning to reform, ME seemingly peaceful, Internet on the rise, etc. USA stood tall as the only remaining superpower, and history, as we knew it, “ended”. So please don’t pity Clinton.

            Yes, Obama got a major financial crisis but also a basically pacified Iraq. He also got something close to absolute power in the US — high personal ratings, Democratic majorities in both chambers and Republicans in total disarray. He then proceeded with a series of both domestic and foreign policies that decimated Democrats in Congress and helped make world far more dangerous than it was in 2008.

            But here’s the main point — nobody forced Obama (or anybody else) to run for Presidency promising such small things as “healing the planet” and “stopping the rise of the oceans”. You’d hope that candidates for the office of “the leader of the free world” have some degree of self-awareness of their own abilities and limitations, and the gravity of the “circumstances” they’d be getting into — and then make a decision whether they might be up to the task.

            Obama clearly wasn’t, and after six+ years in the office, it’s equally clear that he’s uniquely unable to learn and adjust (compare him to Clinton or GWB in that respect, if you like.)

          • FriendlyGoat

            Well, healing the planet actually is important, to include “stopping the rise of the oceans” to whatever extent we can stop the melting of ice which we are causing with fossil fuels. I’d rather have a president with that much sense than one who ridicules any environmental cognizance

            You do know—-I hope you know—-that any one of your preferred replacements for Obama is not going to be able the play the “There ain’t no Global Warming” game from The White House.
            If you think Obama is thought to be a nincompoop around the world, try THAT one and see how it goes.

          • adk

            “healing the planet actually is important”
            As is curing cancer, getting rid of all nuclear weapons, replacing fossil fuels with something totally green, clean and equally effective, having excellent and cheap health care available to everyone, and on, and on. Great intentions, all.

            I don’t know what’s wrong with you so-called liberals — you are staring at the real world with its numerous and urgent problems, you are looking at the man who made everything he touched worse, and all you can say, “Global warming!” and “Republicans are bad!”

            With all due respect, this is not a sign of even a moderate intellect.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Well, we don’t agree about Obama and we don’t agree about policy, but that’s why they call us left and right.

          • banderlogtorpedo

            “You don’t like Obama”, like domestic and international disaster is a matter of taste.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Both the twin towers and the economy blew up between 1/20/2001 and 1/20/2009. I have a hard time understanding what “domestic disaster” you are blaming on Obama. That he didn’t put two more Alitos on the Supreme Court? That he tried to expand health insurance? That jobs won’t restart and revive after too many GOP tax cuts? That he hasn’t pressed the military families into literally ENDLESS deployments?

          • fastrackn1

            I think both parties are a rolling catastrophe….

          • FriendlyGoat

            Well, perhaps, but we don’t have choices until both the far left and the far right put up 3rd and 4th parties at the same time. Neither side can ever do that unilaterally without just forfeiting any race to one of the existing two. It’s a serious problem for those of us who wish for more substance in politics.

          • fastrackn1

            Agreed!

          • banderlogtorpedo

            aka monstrous duplicity

        • banderlogtorpedo

          They would not have willed failure, so there’s that.

      • Ellen

        The answer to that question is no, they won’t admit to having learned anything because the party line is that Obama has had a successful presidency. Unfortunately, now that the Democrats in Congress have repudiated Obama’s trade bill and hopefully will do the same on his Iran policy, he is getting his comeuppance. Even the NYT had to admit in a front-page article that he is being thrown under the bus by his own party because they can’t stand him. That is the first time I have read a NYT front page article in weeks, because it was so delicious – from a schadenfreude point of view alone.

        As for Prof. Mead, let’s say this. He voted for Obama once in 2008, and has spent the last several years repenting for his sins, by trashing almost all of Obama’s policies on a daily basis at TAI. At least he is casting away his sins in a visible manner, unlike the liberals in the media who are too busy reporting on transgender phenomena. What a worthless liberal elite we have. They should definitely move on a permanent basis to Teheran, where they can negotiate with the people they like best forever more.

        • fastrackn1

          “That is the first time I have read a NYT front page article in weeks”

          NYT, are they still around?…that’s a shame….

  • Anthony

    “President Obama is in danger of achieving the least successful track record in foreign policy of any American president, bar none.”

    A counter point of view has been offered by Princeton’s Sean Wilentz as well as National Journal editor Robert Mery – Woodrow Wilson foreign policy generational impact both domestically and globally. And then there’s “…that his invasion of Iraq, the greatest example in American history of what is known as prevention war, proved to be one of the most colossal foreign policy blunders in all of American history, if not actually the greatest.” So one ought not conflate failure of omission and failure of commission – the difference between handling an inherited crisis (foreign policy) and creating a crisis (foreign policy). But of course President Obama let the deepening sectarian war between Sunni and Shia Muslims fester by not maintaining a U.S. military force or doing more diplomatically critics will argue.

    That being the case and to turn WRM’s construction, the world definitely has been both “grimmer and more dangerous” historically as a result of Presidential foreign policy engagement.

    • JR

      If a whole lot of fanatics kill themselves in deserts of Syria and Iraq as a result of W’s and/or Obama’s foreign policy, I fail to see how it can be seen as anything other than a resounding success. I mean, Hizbullah fighting ISIS…. How awesome is that!!!!
      And with oil down by more than 50% to boot! WINNING!!!

      • adk

        You are looking at it as a neatly contained epidemic that will burn itself out with few consequences for the outside world. But that’s not the case — ME conflicts have a nasty way of spilling out and affecting Europe first, but, as we now well know, US as well. We already see ISIS attracting European and US would-be jihadists many of whom will eventually return to their countries and commit terrorist acts, waves of Syrian, Libyan (and other) refugees reaching EU and causing all kinds of problems, and that’s just a beginning. The sheer scale of the current interlocking ME conflicts looks horrendous, and they are far from over.

        So I’d suggest postponing the champagne.

        • JR

          Couldn’t agree more with all your points. But having as many dead fanatics as possible is still a good start.

      • Anthony

        Comprehensible and variation of Ronald Reagan’s policy in the 1980s of allowing the warring forces to kill each other. But any understanding of the Middle East ought to begin with the creation of a new political geography after World War I (a geography that layered over broader social and political realities in region). Equally, post Desert Storm our foreign policy has been caught in regional cross-currents.

        • JR

          I think that what we are seeing is a true turning point in the decline of Western civilization in being able to actively control the political environment across the world. You’re right, new political geography means that new actors and alliances are taking shape. As you have said, post-Desert Storm US foreign policy in the Middle East has been continuously poor until finally W and Obama combined to drive the whole thing into a really deep ditch. I don’t know if you are a sports fan, but allow me to use an NFL metaphor. We are like a mediocre team that after two completely different coaches have finally hit 2-14. Everything sucks, everybody sucks. But it also allows everyone to take a step back, re-evaluate things and see how it all shakes out. It is time for a re-think and a clean slate. I hope that we get it.
          P.S. I think people think that W and Obama are very different presidents in terms of foreign policy. No they are not. They are exactly the same. They both believed that their way was somehow uniquely right. At least W listened to generals and as a result we got some good results (imagine that, having somebody who knows what the #$@! they are doing to do their job) militarily towards the end. Obama refuses to listen to generals, he is way more isolated. I think this is where the verdict of history will be the harshest. But like I said, this is just my personal opinion.

          • Anthony

            Fundamentally (for me), “The President” is the embodiment of the executive centered political system that defines American corporate interests at home and abroad. The occupant of either party is the guardian of the system but as country’s only nationally elected leader (along with vice president) he draws mass focus and invariably is caught between democracy and plutocracy (but I digress). At some level, one ought to ask….

          • JR

            It’s turning into elected monarchy. The problem with elected monarchy, a transition from a Republic to an Empire, with an emperor in tow (sigh), is that it is an inherently less stable system of government. It’s not all roses.

    • Ellen

      I read that piece by Robert Merry. He flogged the horse to death by going over the idiocy of Woodrow Wilson’s ideas and policies. He really put a lot of energy into that piece, which made me suspicious. Frankly, 100 years later, how many people care that Wilson was so utterly misinformed about the post WWI world? Yes, we are living with the consequences 4 generations later. However, it struck me as one of those Pravda-like distraction pieces they used to put on their front page. Whenever there would be a huge train crash somewhere in Russia, killing hundreds of people, Pravda would have a front page article entitled, “Huge Train Crash in the United States – 500 people dead.”

      You see, the point is to distract everyone with how awful the US is, so they won’t notice how awful Russia is. You see the comparison? Obama’s foreign policy looks to be just as awful as Wilson’s was. So, to make everyone distracted and disoriented, we get a very detailed discussion on something that happened 100 years ago, so as not to worry our little heads about the disasters today. Sorry, the trick didn’t work.

      • Anthony

        And your point is?

  • wigwag

    Isn’t it possible that Obama accomplished precisely what he wanted to accomplish? He wanted to alienate the United States from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States; mission accomplished. He wanted to put as much space between Israel and the United States as he could possibly achieve; mission accomplished. He wanted to sustain as much sympathy as possible for the terrorist movements known as Fatah and Hamas by painting Palestinians as innocent victims; been there-done that.

    Most importantly he wanted to delay and delay and delay to give Iran an opportunity to build up its nuclear infrastructure before implementing a weak deal that would give the appearance of slowing down Iran’s nuclear program while in reality that nuclear program would be sustained; it’s Obama’s greatest victory to date.

    Sure there’s collateral damage. Tens of millions of middle easterners have lost their homes, their livelihoods and their lives, while everyone in the region lives under greater threat than ever before.

    Of course, about that, Obama couldn’t care less.

    • fastrackn1

      “Sure there’s collateral damage. Tens of millions of middle easterners have lost their homes, their livelihoods and their lives, while everyone in the region lives under greater threat than ever before.

      Of course, about that, Obama couldn’t care less.”

      Neither could I…they have propagated their violent and idiotic Musloid religion forever, and think anyone that is not one of them will be destroyed by them at their End Of Days, so they get what they deserve.

      Let them self-exterminate until every last one of them is extinguished from the earth….

    • FrankArden

      Hi, Wig Wag: long time no read. That’s my fault for a number of good reasons and bad excuses.

      I’m back, for what it’s worth, and when I read Mead’s opinion I yanked off of Real Clear this afternoon I imagined you would post a comment so I decided to risk going broke to subscribe to the site if only to read your cogent remarks. Other than work in my yard in 96 degree tempts this afternoon, getting back on Mead’s blog was the best thing I’ve done all day.

      I realized that when I read your above post. It was typically incisive as usual. I hope you are doing well.

      I have thought many times about how to involve the Kurds in this fight as you suggested years ago before any of us had even heard the term ISIS (personally I prefer the name ISIL, even if the president uses it, because it is the entirety of the Levant that is claimed by the so called Islamic State.

      As you know, Kurdish territory in northern Iraq spreads out like a delicious serving of spaghetti thrown against the kitchen wall throughout Turkey, Syria, Iran and, of course Iraq. I wonder if the Kurds would be willing to accept weapons from the US not as much a suzerainty and somewhat less than a US surrogate in the region, but more as a Kurdish region that will fight for statehood and less against Islamic differences of religious sects. The Kurds could put pressure on every major player from a base in northern Iraq and might challenge the balance of power in the existing status quo.

      I imagine Sunni states would welcome this.

      • wigwag

        Frank, always great to hear your voice in cyberspace. All is well with me as I hope it is with you. I still remember your gracious offer to have me visit your church during my periodic sojourns between my homes in New York and Ft. Laudedale. Perhaps someday I will take you up on it.

        The American Interest site is worth subscribing to. Mead, Garfinkle and Berger usually have interesting things to say; compared to what else is out there, AI is pretty good.

        Cheers!

  • זאב ברנזון

    you cant solve it it too big and complex

    when the flag bearers of Ali and Omar do battle
    the followers of the house of David hold the lines of of civilization against the barbarians
    welcome to the clash of civilizations 2.0

  • stan

    Obama has managed to remind any potential allies we have remaining in the world that they would be idiots to trust the USA. If they had forgotten what happened to Vietnamese who trusted us, the abandonment of everyone who trusted us in the Middle East should be a horrifying reminder.

    When the US military wants cooperation, run like hell. They won’t be there for you no matter how much they promise.

  • Dan Greene

    Well, what did they imagine could realistically happen in Tikrit?

    The problem is that only the Shia militias have the combat power and morale to hold the city. But they are rightly concerned that if they let the Sunni population back in, IS will infiltrate and start to use terror operations against them–and they’re exactly right.

    No good solution for Tikrit until Mosul is retaken. Very complex puzzle.

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    “President Obama is in danger of the achieving the least successful track record in foreign policy of any American president, bar none.”

    Obama is the worst President in American History, bar none.

  • adk

    “…[Obama] doubled down on what he called the war of necessity in Afghanistan…”

    That’s simply not the case. He just couldn’t find a way to wiggle out of Afghanistan (like he did with Iraq) without hurting himself politically, so he’d settled for a halfhearted way of prosecuting the war. If he could only find a “moderate” Taliban faction to sign a “peace treaty” with, he’d have been out of Afghanistan in a heartbeat.

  • nofauxnews

    “He abandoned Iraq, where victory was won and remained to be consolidated”

    How deluded can a writer be? Nothing was “won”in Iraq. If the only chance at stability is endless occupation by thousands of troops costing tens of millions of dollars EVERY DAY, that is NOT winning!

    • HAPPY

      No, not the writer….but surely to you, Joe Biden is CREDIBLE. Here’s how he put it, Feb. 10th, 2010:

      I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.

      I spent — I’ve been there 17 times now. I go about every two months — three months. I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society. It’s impressed me. I’ve been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences.

      Maybe your problem is No Fox News! Tell your mommy to let you have more media outlets to open up your cocooned mind.

      • nofauxnews

        Just how long were you “fiscal conservatives” going to spend $400 million a DAY to keep 10,000 Americans occupying a country we never should have invaded as it was NO threat to the US, to protect it from ITSELF?

        What Biden did not, and could not have known, was that Maliki had replaced the entire military leadership we had spent BILLIONS training, with political appointees to pay them back for getting him elected.

        • HAPPY

          FACTS are so damned inconvenient, ain’t it? The future is always subject to today’s decisions! Your Magical geniuses threw away a stable Iraq in 2010…..Hope and Change, for the worse! How much are we spending today and getting nothing but more chao? How much more will we spend and still get no where?

          By the way, I see you’ve posted over 11,000 comments……that’s it, I don’t respond to professional trolls!

          • nofauxnews

            Your “stable Iraq” was costing US TAXPAYERS hundreds of millions EVERY DAY, not to mention the 10,000 Americans whose lives were at risk.

            The inconvenient FACTS for you dimwits are that BUSH negotiated and signed the SOFA specifying withdrawal of US troops, and Maliki hadNO intention of allowing them to stay. Within days after troops left he replaced all the military leaders US TAXPAYERS had spent billions training with untrained patronage appointees. THAT is the “stable Iraq” W created.

  • RAP999

    So Tikrit is destroyed and it’s population driven out. Sounds like Atlanta after General Sherman took it. That is what is needed in Iraq. Warfare W.T. Sherman or Curtis LeMay style.

    • ibeeducky

      The dems will never agree with that thought logic!

  • valwayne

    Putin, China, ISIS, Iran all have Obamas number. They know Obama is the Weakest, Most Incompetent person to ever sit in the White House, and they all are on the move to take advantage of their remaining time with our idiot President. Every day Obama weakens our nation more. Thing won’t get better.

  • Wmn04Ken07

    Obama keeps giving the same gift to everyone who once depended on and respected America. The back of his hand.

    I can see him standing at the top of the stairs of plane getting ready to take him away on his last day in office. He waves and yells to his adoring cult members who have come to say goodbye. “You’ve been punked!” As he turns to leave, he raises his middle finger.

    • FriendlyGoat

      We can see the author of such a scenario (you) doing what you have cooked up in your imagination. That’s about it.

      • Wmn04Ken07

        Fanciful perhaps. I sure we, the people, will receive one last lecture from the wee man.

  • Jerome Ogden

    Our most important goal in the Levant should be to assure that Iran’s growing domination in the region is contained. That’s Israel’s
    strategy, as evidenced by their aid to Sunni militia in Syria fighting against Iran and its Shia puppets on Israel’s borders–the same Sunnis we are trying to bomb into oblivion.

    Look at it this way: If our partnership with Iran and its puppet government in Baghdad succeeds in annihilating their most dangerous
    enemy, the Islamic State, then Iran wins. It will be uncontested hegemon from Hormuz to Beirut.

    If the US/Iran axis fails to destroy it, then Islamic State wins. Either way, we lose.

    It takes remarkable strategic incompetence to end up with a lose-lose policy and no way out. But it looks like Obama’s interventionist advisors and their congressional echo-chamber have managed to do it.

  • ZigZ

    Hillary’s failed foreign policies are a big part of Obama’s failures.

  • Black_Saint

    -In just 6 years Obama and the Democrats have:

    +Destroyed our national sovereignty and put the invading horde of Illegal Aliens ahead of American Citizens welfare and security!

    + Destroyed health care

    + Destroyed the sanctity of marriage

    + Turned race relations back 50 years

    + Quadrupled the number of people on food stamps

    + Restarted the Cold War

    + Reverted the middle east back into the middle ages

    + Turned the IRS and NSA into the KGB

    Offended all of our friends while amusing and encouraging all of our enemies

    + Doubled the national debt

    Obama is trying to destroy us! The laziest, most incompetent, lying, racist and corrupt POTUS to ever be elected.

    • ibeeducky

      I totally agree. However, the dems still think he walks on water and that hillary will also walk on water.
      Quite scary.

  • SaraB55

    “I look at Barack Obama and I see the worst president in my lifetime,
    without question—and that’s saying something. I used to have significant
    criticism of Jimmy Carter, but compared to Barack Obama and the damage
    he is doing to the nation—it’s a tragedy, a real tragedy, and we are
    going to pay a hell of a price just trying to dig out from under his
    presidency.”

    — Dick Cheney

  • Black_Saint

    The Democrat plan for the invasion, colonization, conquest and one party rule of this Nation is proceeding ahead of schedule and has exceeded all expectations in fundamentally transforming this Nation!

    Amnesty for the 12 to 30 million criminals and uneducated invading Illegal Aliens alone with chain Immigration for the ones still left in Mexico and Latin American will assure all Red States are turned blue and a Democrat majority forever with a Spanish speaking Third World Slum here of Crime, Corruption, Poverty, Diseases and Misery modeled on Mexico and controlled by the Socialist/Democrat party of Northern Mexico!

    Leaving the border open for more uneducated Democrat welfare voters to invade this Nation is much more important to Obama and the Democrats than closing the border to protect American citizens from disease and terrorist!

    It is all about Power, Control and the Democrat party and how to use false compassion for the invaders, lies, poverty and government dependency to install the Democrat party as absolute all powerful dictatorship to enslave a free people and a great Nation!

  • http://inthisdimension.com/ Alexander Scipio

    It’s amazing how many people, after so much time, refuse to understand Obama. He is not making mistakes. If he wanted to expand Shia to the Med what, exactly would he do differently? He is using the brutality of Sunni ISIS to demoralize Iraq so much they are willing to turn to Iran for help – Obama won’t let America help; it would destroy his strategy. Iran – finally, after Obama has spoken for a year about getting them to assist, will come in & be just as brutal against ISIS as ISIS has been against Iraqis. ISIS will be defeated. Americans – with zero understanding of the region’s players or history (an excuse Mead lacks) – will rejoice that ISIS has been defeated. With an Obama-enabled Shia nuke, Iran will extend its hegemony through Syria to the Med. The Saudis will call due the payment for their funding of Pakistanis SUNNI Bomb, and the Shia 12th-imam nutters will have their own regional nuclear conflagration. Obama, having midwifed the mess and put America squarely on one side of a millennia-long internecine war, likely will intervene. Israel will have little choice once nukes start popping. And the American Congress, unwilling to enforce Constitutional limits on our erstwhile tyrant, the American military, unwilling to act on their oath to the Constitution (NOT to the president), and the American Democrat voter, will be directly responsible for the deaths of millions. THAT is what’s going on. Obama isn’t making mistakes; he’s achieved every goal he set out to achieve.

    • azt24

      Obama isn’t bright enough to have intended this. Obama is a narcissist who drank his own Kool-Aide and who really believes the shallow anti-Americanism of the far left, that America was what was wrong with the Middle East, so if we just pulled out everything would improve. That is the “Orientalist” nonsense they teach at Columbia.

  • GeorgeHanshaw1

    “Democratic candidates for 2016 need to start figuring out how to distinguish themselves from the Obama foreign policy legacy;”

    A difficult thing to do if you were the Secretary of State who helped to formulate and implement it. Or can she blame all the failures on Kerry?

  • William Ockham

    Haven’t the Shia militias become the Ayatollah’s little green men?

  • muslimehole

    all evil zeitgeist dies along with its acolytes and opponents. the leftist darwinists known as liberals are dying with their God and are consigned to everlasting torment in hell.

  • Bobby117

    Hope is not a plan? That is all Obama ran on as his plan. Hope and change. We have had the change. Hope is dead, may it rest in peace.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service