WaPo: Obama at odds with every U.S. president since World War II

Okay so when it turns out to be the wrong thing when we have to send troops back in you'll blame which one for screwing it up?

The Bin Laden thing is something I credit Obama for as a slam dunk good thing. He approved a mission that I wouldn't have thought he'd approve and it was a complete and total success. Nothing can take that away. I wish his judgement had been as good on the Bergdahl disaster and wish he'd have acted so decisively on the rescue mission for the journalist that lost his head, but those mistakes don't erase the success he had with OBL.

 

Bush screwed the pooch in Iraq, Obama was left to clean up the resulting mess, which turned out to be just as big a mess as it has been for the last three millenia or so. Iraq is Bush's debacle, anyone trying to blame that clusterf*** on Obama is ignoring reality.

 

So in your mind, Bush "screwed the pooch in Iraq" and Obama "cleaned it up" by continuing Bush's Iraq policy? Solid.

 

Obama at odds with every U.S. president since World War II

GOOD.

 

I don't believe it is any "cleaner" than it has been in 3,000 years. Bush screwed the pooch in a wide variety of ways...

• Invading in the first place
• Disbanding the military and police forces
• Not engaging the Sunni in the rebuilding process

He also signed a treaty giving a date for troop withdrawal. If that turns out to be a mistake, it would also go on Bush's ledger.

Obama didn't want to break the treaty and also didn't want to overthrow another government to get around the treaty. You're welcome to try and blame the mess today on Obama, but in the absence of any of the above items, the mess wouldn't be there in the first place.

Only biased partisans blame Iraq on Obama.

 

Heh, it's funny how quickly this turned around, at 11:24 you were "crediting Bush with signing the treaty and Obama with implementing it" and now at 12:00 you are blaming Bush for the entirety of that exact same thing. Who is the "biased partisan" again?

Personally I blame bush for signing the treaty and blame Obama for going along with it, and I see it as a black mark on both of their records.....but yeah, I'm the "biased partisan".

 

You are. You're so biased that you aren't able to properly interpret the English language. Bush gets credit for everything Bush did and Obama gets credit for everything Obama did. The whole region is a clusterf*** and has been for 3000 years. Even when we had 100k troops in Iraq, the whole thing was a clusterf***, so blaming the fact that Iraq is a clusterf*** is disingenuous at best

Yes, you are. It is truly stupid to blame Obama for following the law given that his entire job is enforcing federal law. You may not like the fact that he followed the law, but I can only imagine how apoplectic you would have been if he had sent 100k troops back into Iraq in order to overthrow the government installed by Bush solely so that he could get out of the treaty that Bush signed.

 

I'm not sure if your false dichotomy is because you aren't very bright or if you are just being intellectually dishonest....I'll let you pick.

 

There is no false dichotomy at all, it isn't my fault you aren't able to understand that Bush deserves credit for signing the treaty and Obama deserves credit for implementing it, given the reality that these are the actions in which they engaged.

As far as my intelligence, I'll be happy to engage in any battle of wits to which you would like to challenge me.

As far as intellectual honesty, you have never encountered anyone who is as rigorous as I am in this regard.

 

Your viewpoint. We'll see. A recent example is the chemical weapon deal from last year. So many were so sure Obama got played. No US military boot on the ground needed to destroy Syrian chemical weapons simply was not possible and Obama was a fool in the Russian & US deal was the common viewpoint from the Right.

 

The US must respect the treaty it signs with countries it invades, implements is desired form of government and sells weapons to. Not doing so shows a complete failure in its goals.

With the situation with ISIS, why bother doing anything? If Syria is an enemy and ISIS is an enemy and they are both enemies of each other, then where is the harm in not doing anything?