It is amazing to me how liberal progressives want to blow off the chaos in Iraq and the emergence of a regional caliphate as it happens under the watch of Obama the Weak.
Funny, it seems liberals fail to realize we still have troops in the Balkans, when their other president emeritus, Bill Clinton, said we would only be there for a year. But we also have had troops in Germany and Japan for quite some time, resulting from wars begun under the watch of a Democrat president, Franklin Roosevelt (of course, we did win that one). We also have troops still on the Korean peninsula after a war under the watch of a Democrat president, Harry Truman. And yes, Democrat presidents got us engaged in Vietnam and it was Johnson’s bungling and the American liberal media message of defeatism and propaganda that led to the scenes of Saigon.
There is no doubt we are watching something happening in Iraq that is far more horrific than the fall of Saigon and will rival the killing fields of Pol Pot.
So what makes liberal progressive socialists dismiss Iraq — and eventually Afghanistan? Easy to answer: it was a Republican president.
And so because it was “Bush’s War,” they love to say it should be abandoned and all efforts were in vain. Al-Qaida has been decimated and is on the run — yep, they’re running right towards Baghdad.
There are those who believe Obama is a Muslim. Only he can answer that question — but knowing his penchant for lying, who will ever know? What is for certain is that Obama’s failed foreign policies in the Middle East have afforded a resurgence of Islamic terrorism. Perhaps that is where Obama’s loyalties lie? I can think of no other reason.
Obama has sided with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. He has advanced Islamist forces in Libya and destabilized that country. He has sat back and watched the rise of a barbaric terrorist group in Nigeria. He has allowed Iran to continue its march towards producing a nuclear device. And now, he has allowed an al- Qaida group, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), to overtake major portions of Iraq. As well, he has set free the senior management of the enemy while they enemy is still fighting our troops.
As Investor’s Business Daily reports, “Obama and his former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, have been so busy patting themselves on the back for their foreign policy brilliance that they haven’t seemed to notice that their Mideast policies — from the disastrous Arab Spring, to encouraging Libya’s revolt, to Hosni Mubarak’s ouster in Egypt, to drawing a “red line” in Syria on chemical weapons use, to negotiating with a soon-to-be-nuclear Iran — are all in extreme disarray, threatening not just the region but the world.”
I seem to remember just over a year ago when Obama declared the “War on Terror” was over, and maintained al-Qaida and the terrorist groups allied with it in Iraq and Afghanistan were on a “path to defeat.”
And yes, he has allowed this by his feckless, empty rhetoric and inaction. What could he have done? He could have acted like an American president and showed strength and resolve. He could have listened to generals and not Valerie Jarrett. A residual force in Iraq serving as an outer cordon would have well served the security situation there, and we did not need to acquiesce to al-Maliki — but that would have taken courage and strength.
The rules are always different for Democrats and progressive socialists, but the truth is playing out. A new Islamist state may be taking shape before our eyes from an enemy that we once had on the run. And in ancient military history, the pursuit phase was always most devastating to the enemy. Drones don’t defeat an enemy — it requires crushing their will. But we don’t do that anymore because, well, we’re just too nice.
The world is a far more dangerous place because of Barack Hussein Obama — and anyone disagreeing is delusional. And just watch for all the “Blame Bush Derangement Syndrome” comments, since after all, it was “Bush’s War,” — so predictable. But unfortunately the return of Islamic terrorism under Obama was as well.