Obama won the war that Bush lost

Everything you need to know about the Obama Administration in one quote:

“On Larry King Live last night, Vice President Joe Biden said Iraq “could be one of the great achievements of this administration.” ~blogs.abcnews.com

Wow. With this one quote we learn everything we need to know about the Obama Administration.

They. Lie. About. Everything.

Since when did Democrats become habitual liars who shamelessly take credit for things that they have nothing to do with? (Rhetorical question.) Conversely they are also never to blame for anything that happens. Every thing is image without substance. All hope and no change. All hat and no cattle. All credit and no accountability.

Knowing this, we can examine everything that these guys try to spin and realize the truth.

Both Obama and Biden opposed the surge in Iraq. In fact they said the surge would fail and make things worse! The reality is that it succeeded. What's even more is that Obama's present day Iraq policy still has, "Bush Administration," stamped on the cover. There is not a dimes worth of difference between the two. Withdrawal of US troops was coordinated and signed by Bush. Obama has done absolutely nothing to change the Bush policies in Iraq. But he inherited a bad economy and now Iraq is his greatest success?

Just think back a few years. More than just questioning Bush's Iraq policy Democrats made a conscious decision to oppose victory in Iraq in the hope that it would become a Vietnam for them. Meaning, a lost war which they could ride as a political issue. They declared that the war was lost and that the surge would fail. But now that Bush's policy has succeeded, well, it was all their idea to begin with.

Less than three years after Sen. Harry Reid (D., Nev.) declared the war lost, less than three years after then-Sen. Barack Obama—with the usual fierce moral urgency—opposed the Bush administration's military surge, and within three years of Mr. Biden's own recommendation that Iraq be divided into three parts, these Democrats are laying claim to Iraq's extraordinary victory.

The vice president wisely made his victory assertion in the television studio of a left-leaning network experienced in fudging Iraqi history. CNN, by its own admission, muted coverage of Saddam Hussein for over a decade.

In the past, American liberals have relied on a sympatico press and leftist academics to obscure or whitewash their grievous historical errors. President George W. Bush, pursuing the global war on terror, encountered the same personal slander Ronald Reagan faced as he fought and won the last major political battles of the Cold War. Both were branded "cowboys" and "warmongers." Now, Reagan's victorious Cold War legacy is claimed by all Americans. ~online.wsj.com

Watch this clip: "the war is lost," or this one, or this one, or this one, or this one, or this one, and ask yourself where (D) defeatist policies would have put us in Iraq today. Democrats opposed victory in Iraq. The policy they advocated was to surrender, to give up, because they felt we had already lost and more importantly that Bush had to be denied any sort of victory.

You would think that the success of the surge would be an embarrassment for Democrats but that's just not the case. The truth, like the constitution, is a living thing; amendable and always in flux. Thus the war that Bush lost yesterday becomes the war that Obama won today.

Posted by Eric Simonson at February 20, 2010 11:44 PM
Comment #296012


The sitting president gets to claim credit for American successes.

What liberals don’t get to do is misrepresent history. They just missed the changes in 2006 and have not yet adjusted. Some of them really think that some kind of change in policy by Obama brought success. That is plain ignorant and we cannot let that stand.

This is the truth and all else are lies. The tide of the war turned in 2007 because of a changed strategy, brave Americans and Iraqis and some good luck. Obama inherited a success in Iraq, which he was wise enough not to screw up.

Posted by: Christine at February 21, 2010 12:05 AM
Comment #296014

Christine &Eric
You should be happy that BHO kept yet another campaign promise.It took much longer than originaly projected,of course. Good thing BHO kept Gates,the replacement for Rumsfeld,perhaps the most incompentent SD since MacNamara.
You may resent it but Christine is right that the sitting president gets credit just as GWB took credit for the brilliant initial campaign by the CLINTON military.

BTW, How can you praise the 3 trillion dollar deficit spending on a war we did not have to fight the day after condemning the smaller amounts being spent to help put Americans to work? Are you also proud that the Iraqis have national health care and we don’t?

Posted by: bills at February 21, 2010 2:40 AM
Comment #296019

Christine said: “Some of them really think that some kind of change in policy by Obama brought success.”

It is true that Bush finally relented on his permanent occupation of Iraq position as his presidency was coming to a close. In the speech where he ducked shoes being thrown at him, he was announcing the withdrawal of troops from the cities in Iraq, and the signing of a pact agreement (with an escape clause) that would withdraw American troops out of Iraq by 2011.

The only change Obama made to this strategy was to step up the time table, and in so doing, free resources desperately needed in Afghanistan, for Bush’s neglected war in the country that sponsored and hosted the masterminds of the 9/11 attacks.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 21, 2010 3:24 AM
Comment #296020

Saint Reagan ,if he deserves any credit at all for the end of the Cold War,(right-the sitting president)deserves much less than Gorbachov,Lech Walesa and Charlie Wilson.
Reagan spent most of his time fighting democracy in South America, while the CIA at the urgeing of Wilson,a liberal Texas congressman, engaged in the covert trainning and supply of the ant-Russian Mujahadeen in Afganistan. Reagan’s only real connection was to have North try to stash some of the illegal arms sale money in the CIA’s accounts. They resisted and helped protect the program. (Charlie Wilson’s War,George Criles)
Beyond that it looks like you just love deficits so long as they go to the MIC and not people.Thats the true contribution of Saint Reagan to America.

Posted by: bills at February 21, 2010 3:31 AM
Comment #296021

Sorry,Eric for last.

Posted by: bills at February 21, 2010 3:35 AM
Comment #296022

Christine said: “Obama inherited a success in Iraq”

If you call a 5 year plus ongoing war in a little podunk country with a pitiful military that ran upon invasion, and a dictator who literally hid in holes in the ground after the first months of the war, a success, you and I have very different dictionaries. I recall FDR and Truman taking out Japan and Germany and Italy combined in far less time, with a real international coalition.

WWII was a success. Iraq would have been a military success if Bush and his cabinet had not dropped the ball in the first year trying to win on the cheap and under resourced logistics.

An even greater success would have been not to have invaded Iraq at all, and VASTLY cheaper for American tax payers in the future, because you see, Bush and Republicans refused to pay for their unnecessary little war, passing the bill on instead to our children to pay for, long after Bush, et.al. had skipped town.

Republicans are now famous for skipping out when the check comes for excursions into wealth distribution schemes from our children’s paychecks to their corporate supporters, like Haliburton, Blackwater, Kellogg, Brown & Root, and American oil companies though their best hopes were dashed a bit by the new Iraqi government. Those corporations contributed more to the Bush campaign than to any other politician in the entire previous 10 years. Can you say, quid pro quo. That is after all is said and done, what invading Iraq was really about.

Iraq posed no threat to the U.S. homeland, had no ties to the 9/11 terrorists, and had no weapons of mass destruction. All invented or cherry picked intelligence to justify the unjustifiable, the slaughter of more than 100,000 people for American corporate profits, tax payer dollar transfers to wealthy investors, and kickbacks to campaign supporters. These effects of invading are irrefutable and a matter of public record and factual history.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 21, 2010 3:46 AM
Comment #296023

I guess some liberal’s were really off their noodle on that one:


Somehow I think a change in the neocon policy of invade and ask questions later, might have improved our international standing.

I realize Eric’s solution to everything is invade, but that’s a topic for other venues:




Posted by: gergle at February 21, 2010 3:47 AM
Comment #296034

This is the second day in a row Christine fails to mention Al Sadr when she talks about Iraq, yes, he’s real and he fought our marines to a standstill twice, had he not left Iraq for Iran, the outcome of the Iraq war may have ended much differently than what we are witnessing. If and when Al Sadr returns to Iraq after Americans leave, he will most likely be the frontrunner to replace Saddam Hussein. Al Sadr is not our friend and he is still a very real player in the equation of Iraq’s future. It’s sad to see you still trying to muster support for an ill conceived invasion and a five year war waged with an incompetent commander in chief. Imagine, a hundred thousand innocent women and children killed, over 5,000 Americans dead and over 40,000 traumatic brain injuries, as compared to what, a dozen or so dead civilians in Marjah. Granted, the war in afghanistan isn’t over but it’s pretty obvious it’s being fought in a different manner as far as human lives are concerned. And no, the sitting president isn’t taking credit for the Iraq war, like Vice President Biden said, we are taking responsibility for it.

Posted by: Jeff at February 21, 2010 10:16 AM
Comment #296035


You make a decent point about the Clinton military, but if you make that point about the military in spring 2003 (more than 2 years after Clinton), you have to recognize that now we are still only a little more than a year after Bush, so it is still the Bush military.

The Iraqis might have national health care, but you would not want what they get, even if you were indigent in America.

Re Reagan- Reagan encouraged democracy in Latin America. Fighting against the spread of totalitarianism in Central America was part of that.


Re inherited success – I simply mean that he had options. He we not trapped in a losing spiral of destruction and death, as he would have been absent the surge.

Bush’s often stated policy was NOT to have a permanent occupation of Iraq.

As for the shoe thrower – he was a rude a-hole. We should not use him as an argument. And he was dishonest too. If he had thrown a shoe at Saddam, he would have had his testicles cut off before they tortured him and most of his family to death. He KNEW he lived in a society that had become much more civilized.

Re – Iraq and WWII - Thank God that we cannot make valid overall comparison between WWII and Iraq. Comparison of WWII to silly. World War II was a total war. More people were killed during some single days during that war than in the whole Iraq conflict. We suffered 6821 KIA on a few acres of land on Iwo Jima and 21,575 Japanese died.

The other thing that is important to remember is the general destruction. My father was in the Army Air Corp during WWII. He told me about the total destruction of German cities and I have seen picture. I have studied and been in Iraq. Much more of Iraq was destroyed by lack of maintenance under Saddam than by war.

It might be the problem among many people that they do not understand the differences among conflicts. If your paradigm is WWII, it is impossible to understand Iraq.

You mention that we did not benefit that much as “…American oil companies though their best hopes were dashed a bit by the new Iraqi government.” YES, YES YES. WE GAVE THEM FREEDOM. It is an amazing thing, very rare in the history of the world. We had the power to take what we wanted, but we gave them freedom instead. We risked our own lives with rules of engagement designed to protect theirs. We fought the good fight and we kept our word.

Posted by: Christine at February 21, 2010 10:35 AM
Comment #296037

I have studied and been in Iraq. Much more of Iraq was destroyed by lack of maintenance under Saddam than by war.

The United States took out their water supply, their power supply, we cut off their food supply. WE made Saddam Hussein an international criminal, we put embargo’s on his country, no fly zones, no food coming in, no aid coming in. The minute he tried to buy food for his people, he violated international sanctions. America was the principal party on enforcing these sanctions on the iraqi people, it was a planned invasion by the bush administration from the beginning, we just had to make him hated by the entire world to justify our invasion. Even after all that, the world knew what President Bush did, Hence, very little alliance from the rest of the world. .


Freedom with an occupying army isn’t considered freedom to the Iraqi people.

We risked our own lives with rules of engagement designed to protect theirs

There were no restrictions on rules of engagement in Iraq. Rules of engagement have been changed under the Obama administration in Afghanistan.

Posted by: Jeff at February 21, 2010 11:01 AM
Comment #296039


As David pointed out, the Iraqi government has been able to say “no” to American firms and suggestions.

I don’t know how much history you have read, but do you imagine situations where this has happened before when you have a big army?

I suppose you are talking about sanctions and you are right to some extent.

However, food and medicine were not subject to sanctions.

And what would you suggest? You thought force was wrong and you evidently think sanctions are wrong. Should we just allow aggressive dictators to do what they want until they get sick of doing it?

Re rules of engagement - this is just plain and unequivocally wrong. I was in Iraq in 2007-8. I know personally about the rules of engagement and how they were applied. Anybody who told you something different is misinformed or a liar. You should probably not listen to that person again and I strongly request that you do not repeat such things, as they are insulting to Americans and Iraqis who died in defense of civilian lives.

Posted by: Christine at February 21, 2010 11:12 AM
Comment #296044

Re rules of engagement - this is just plain and unequivocally wrong. I was in Iraq in 2007-8. I know personally about the rules of engagement and how they were applied. Anybody who told you something different is misinformed or a liar.

Really? A lair? Please, nobody told me anything. All one has to do is use google, 2007-08 when you were there in 2007, did somebody tell you it was one of the deadliest years of the war? And in 08 when you were there, over two thousand soldiers died, fighting in the streets. My guess is if you were there, you were in the green zone. There were no changes to the rules of engagement while you were there, that I am aware of. If the rules of engagement changed in 07, please supply me a link to prove your point. I don’t recall the rules of engagement ever being a topic of discussion in the media until Afghanistan.

You should probably not listen to that person again and I strongly request that you do not repeat such things, as they are insulting to Americans and Iraqis who died in defense of civilian lives.

Insulting to who? One who tries to justify the Republican position while conveniently having selective amnesia of the facts? It certainly isn’t insulting to myself or any other vet who paid attention to this war since the beginning. You have spoken for the vet’s in the past and IMHO unless you’re a vet, you have no right speaking for them. And yes, I am a veteran.

Posted by: Jeff at February 21, 2010 12:18 PM
Comment #296054


The rules of engagement protected Iraqi civilians even at the risk of our troops.

I was not in the Green Zone. I was in Western Anbar with the Marine Combat Regiments of the 2nd and 5th Marines. I walked through Haditha, Hit, Al Qaim, Rutbah and lots of other little places hardly on the map. I know what I saw there. I am not going to link to some journalist who wrote from that Green Zone you talk about.

If you were in Iraq, I don’t know how you would not know about the rules of engagement there. If you did not follow them, I don’t know what to tell you. You said that there were no restrictions on rules of engagement in Iraq. There always were. General Petraeus then emphasized the need to protect civilian populations even more.

You can continue to believe what you want. There is no requirement to actually have the right information. Don’t worry you and I will not be talking again.

Posted by: Christine at February 21, 2010 3:42 PM
Comment #296057

“If you were in Iraq, I don’t know how you would not know about the rules of engagement there.”

2007-8? General Petraeus? What about 2003-4-5-6?

Most of the civilian deaths at the hands of Americans and insurgents occured during the first GWB war in Iraq, not the second one in which General Petraeus was in command.

Under his command, the rules of engagement were changed and we began doing the job properly. As a result civilian casualities dropped. Partly because we did a better job of distinguishing between civilians and insurgents (often, not that easy of a job) and because we did a better job of protecting civilians.

With Rumsfeld out of the Whitehouse and Cheney put on ice, General Petraeus was actually given the authority to conduct the war.

As to the Iraqi’s just saying no to America, it is hard to say no to plane loads of American 100 dollar bills. I can only imagine the wealth accumulated by the Iraqi politicians at our taxpayers expense.

All this talk about who won the war upsets me a little. It reminds me of Bush standing under that big banner.

How did Bush know that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction?

Cheney had the receipts.

Posted by: jlw at February 21, 2010 4:51 PM
Comment #296059

You have Biden running off at the mouth about Obama winning the war. You have Democrats and Republicans arguing over who actually won the war.

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration is alarmed about the possibility of the return of sectarian violence over the Iraq elections. The Military Command is extremely concerned as well and is saying that the Obama Administration may have to postpone the withdraw of tens of thousands of U.S. troops scheduled to occure between now and August.

Posted by: jlw at February 21, 2010 5:18 PM
Comment #296061


the only rules of engagement for the fighting man. If you feel threatened, you can use deadly force. you may not use deadly force to protect property.

If anyone here had more than that speak up.

Posted by: Jeff at February 21, 2010 5:28 PM
Comment #296062

maintain the course for years, in 06 bush said we aren’t pulling out of iraq as long as i’m president. in 07 bush said, telling the enemy when we are pulling out would admit defeat. In 08 bush said, I have no idea when we will be out of iraq, we may be there for thirty years.

Obama won the war that bush lost. They say if you can remember the 60’s you weren’t there. Where were the republicans for 8 years.

Posted by: Jeff at February 21, 2010 5:36 PM
Comment #296064


If you look at Saddam’s massive arsenal, you find that 0.47% was American. The idea that the U.S. armed Saddam is completely w/o merit. I don’t expect to dispel conspiracy theories, but the is no non-conspiracy theory reason to hold that Cheney sold him anything at all.

During the Iraq-Iran war, the U.S. did not want Iran to win. Even in retrospect that looks like not a bad idea. We allowed intelligence sharing. We did indeed walk a fine and not entirely ethical line in the middle 1980s. But sometimes you have to choose what looks like the lesser of two evils.

Re WMD - remember that the problem with WMD is that much of it is EASY to make from ordinary materials. Poison gas is a very old and well known technology. The reason conspiracy theorists link the U.S. is because they think that these technologies are too complicated for people like the Iraqis to make. This is not true.

Re winning the war - I will say again - it is an American success. I am glad that President Obama had the options and that he did the right thing by not following the course implicated during the campaign. My only complaint is with the erroneous idea that there was some kind of unforeseen course change.

IMO - if you looked only at the policy in Iraq & Afghanistan, you would not be able know if Obama or McCain had won the election. This is a GOOD thing. It means that the policies are bipartisan, even if partisans on both ends complain.

Posted by: Christine at February 21, 2010 6:00 PM
Comment #296069


Yeah, sitting Presidents do generally get to take credit for ‘American successes’. I’m ok with that in general. In this case however, it strains credibility for those who distanced themselves as far as Democrats did to now attempt to take sole credit for success that they predicted wasn’t possible or necessary.

The conversations we had about the Iraq war on this blog— for some to now say that Obama and Democrats deserve credit for the successful policy or to say that what finally worked was what they wanted the whole time… it’s really like George Orwell’s Big Brother rewriting history.

Posted by: eric at February 21, 2010 6:53 PM
Comment #296074

Oh, you can make a lot of these gases without the industrial technology. But enough for a weapon? Without getting killed? You don’t exactly want to try making Sarin or VX in your kitchen sink.

Ditto for biological weapons. If it’s deadly enough to kill people after it’s been burst out of a weapon, you certainly don’t want to be handling it yourself, and you’re not going to make a lot of it with just a brewery kit.

All this couldn’t be an effort to hide the fact that Obama’s kicking the Taliban’s ass in Afghanistan, right?

KABUL, Afghanistan — Two senior Taliban leaders have been arrested in recent days inside Pakistan, officials said Thursday, as American and Pakistani intelligence agents continued to press their offensive against the group’s leadership after the capture of the insurgency’s military commander last month

We’re getting somewhere here. If there’s one thing Christine is right about, Obama is not letting politics determine his policy. He’s making it about getting things done, which I think is ironically a much better political decision. You can’t win a war with happy-talk alone.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 21, 2010 7:53 PM
Comment #296077


YOu and I probably can’t. Anyone with control of a government and a fair amount of money probably can.

A country like Iraq would certainly have sufficient resources to do it.

That is the danger of these things. They are NOT so complicated. What Fritz Haber could invent and make in 1915 with the technologies and facilities of those times, Saddam could make in 1985 with the experience of the intervening 70 years of “progress”.

re your comments about Afghanistan, I just want the good guys to win. And there are some things that work and some that don’t.

Posted by: Christine at February 21, 2010 8:24 PM
Comment #296079


Way to go…one of the very few here who appears to have a handle on reality.

It is impossible to ‘win’ a dishonorable conflict. The Iraq invasion was not necessary, and was based on lies and exaggerations, hence, dishonorable. Cheney/Bush did not make any real progress in Iraq until the truth finally started to come out, and then wanted to take credit for a ‘win’…some nerve! These mongers can choose ‘win’ over lose, as they normally choose war over peace, if they wish, but I’ll take honor over dishonor every time.

On Rummy’s watch, we walked past Iraq’s largest arsenal. Arms and explosives from that cache were used during the following five years to kill thousands of people, most of them noncombatants. If our troops can get out of there without completely destroying that nation, President Obama can surely call THAT a WIN.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 21, 2010 8:56 PM
Comment #296080


You have an interesting point of view. You would prefer that the U.S. do penance by losing a war and plunging the region into bloody conflict rather than getting what you consider an undeserved success?

Of course, in doing that you are choosing war over peace.

There is probably no use talking about this with you. I suppose we will keep on talking over each other and let others decide.

Posted by: Christine at February 21, 2010 10:05 PM
Comment #296090

>You would prefer that the U.S. do penance by losing a war and plunging the region into bloody conflict rather than getting what you consider an undeserved success?


Hardly…I just don’t think you celebrate a ‘victory’ on such an enterprise.

And, to be frank with you, you’ll never be able to talk ‘over’ me. That would require wits.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 21, 2010 11:35 PM
Comment #296093

Marysdude, it is oil, you use it, I use it, nearly all of us use it. With reguards to Iraq and Iran, it’s oil and it has been for 70 years.

“If you look at Saddam’s massive arsenal, you find that 0.47% was American.” Why?

Christine, I think that 0.47% is probably close to accurate but, The U. S. taxpayers have a long history of supplying Iraq with it’s military.

What changed? In the 1970’s, the Iraqi’s nationalized the Iraq petroleum Company owned by western oil companies. V. P. Saddam was instrumental. U.S. taxpayer dollars stopped flowing to Iraq and they started getting their weapons from other sources.

When we view the world through corporate eyes, political oppression and human rights are less of a concern for us in countries where we can get what we want.

Posted by: jlw at February 22, 2010 12:37 AM
Comment #296094

We typically use other counties as proxies for armming shaky regimes.We did the same with the Mujahadeen. Most of their weapons came from other countries. You know this as well as I and probably better considering your employer. In the case of Saddam,we used Saudi Arabia extensivly. There were “Saudi” AWACs with American crews as command and control during the bloodiest battles with Iran including directing poison gas attacks.This is nothing to be proud of but pretending it did not happen is mis-leading, even deceptive.
The findings of the Church Committe are clear. So is this.


Posted by: bills at February 22, 2010 1:29 AM
Comment #296109

What I’d tell you is that there are certain physical and biological realities that make WMDs difficult to make safely and in great quantity on an individual level. The fact that most of these substances and many of the precursors are deadly to human beings on contact doesn’t help.

I have always found that when analyzing any situation, it’s helpful to understand the underlying realities of the situation first, before you move into the realm of imagining possibilities. When you just come up with possibilities blind, you miss both the impractical and impossible possibilities, and the clues hidden in plain sight which mean more if you’re not ignorant of the situation.

A chemical weapons facility, for example, requires a certain amount of precursor chemicals in certain amounts in order to manufacture the weapons. As these chemicals are well known, and the amounts need to create a certain amount of chemical weapons, we can figure out whether something’s being produced that shouldn’t be.

Same thing with a Nuclear facility. The laws of physics that govern how nuclear material is refined towards bomb grade requires certain amounts of Ore, certain amounts of the original, from-the-ground mix of isotopes, and then a certain level of industrial equipment to come up with the needed concentration of fissionable weapons grade material. Centrifuges capable of pulling this off need certain parts, certain levels of maintenance, and a certain number of them altogether to serve as the “cascade” for the production of the isotope. You can make do with fewer, but these things wear out fast, and the chemicals themselves are corrosive to the equipment.

I’m not saying all things can be perfectly predicted, but you can give yourself a reasonably good idea of what may be true.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 22, 2010 10:49 AM
Comment #296115


And don’t forget delivery systems. In the worst case scenario, Saddam had bukoos WMD, but how was he supposed to get them delivered to America, and why would he have wanted to? If we invaded to protect Israel…did Israel want us to? Was it incapable of defending itself against the likes of Saddam? If it was to protect Israel, and since most of America sympathizes with Israel, why was that not mentioned in our march to invade?

So if Saddam had the WMD, who would he have used it against? Why would he have used it, and how would he have delivered it?

That is why I doubted the honor of our invasion from the start, and when my suspicions were vindicated, it is why I laid the dishonor label on Cheney/Bush.

We constantly hear, from the right, that us liberals/progressives must be lily-livered or unpatriotic if we see this through a scientific prism…but, I say Cheney/Bush and those on the right were the cowards for creating a cause for the invasion, and are unpatriotic for not condemning it now, and are fools if they think there can be a ‘victory’ in this stupidity we are committed to. That’s like saying the school yard bully ‘wins’ if after he knocks the little girl down, he kicks her until she cries…whee!

Posted by: Marysdude at February 22, 2010 12:54 PM
Comment #296131


I will let others decide if they think you are being “talked over”. While I admire your confidence, there are many situation where confidence exceeds competence.


IMO the time of the Iraq-Iran war was a hard one to come out of w/o some dirt. The best scenario was that both sides would lose, and that is sort of what happened.

We had to deal with Stalin to defeat Hitler and the list of compromises we made then is staggering, but I don’t think anybody would argue that we “created” Stalin.

So I am not defending the actions of the 1980s from the sense that it was all good. I am pointing out that 0.47% (ZERO POINT FOUR SEVEN) of Saddam’s arsenal was American. Most of his stuff was Soviet, followed by French, Chinese and many others.

What I see happening in the world is a kind of joint and several liability that applies only to the U.S. Scores of countries are involved, but if we have even a half of a percent of the blame, we are asked to pay the full price. It just doesn’t make sense.

The U.S. is an immensely powerful and involved nation. We are part of almost anything that happens in the world – good and bad. I don’t think it is valid to search out the bad, no matter how indirect, and count only that.

And even with twenty five years of hindsight, I still think it was a good thing that Iran did not conquer much of the Middle East.


Please see above. We don’t really have long history of extensive involvement with Saddam. I remember in the 1970s (when lots of people thought Saddam was okay because of his socialist policies) we were criticized for NOT getting closer and accused of playing Cold War politics, since Saddam was a Soviet client.

BTW – Saddam wasn’t always all bad. He started off doing some good things, such as building infrastructure and helping the poor. His is the unfortunately typical tragedy of a bad man who stays too long and gets too much power. Had he died in 1978, idealists all over the place would cry because the progress he was making was cut short. But the lesson is that power corrupts. All power corrupts and that is why we should not concentrate it. Of course, some people get worse than others.

Posted by: Christine at February 22, 2010 9:29 PM
Comment #299200

haha how taken out of context. Biden was saying how iraq withdrawal could be a huge political win. stupid annoying neo-cons.

Posted by: franklin at April 19, 2010 12:07 AM
Post a comment