If you are of the belief that, since the Iraq war started under President Bush, all bad things which have occurred in that country since President Obama become President/Commander In Chief are Bush\’s fault anyway, then don\’t waste your time reading the rest of this blog. It won\’t mean a thing to you.
But if you believe that Barack Obama bears responsibility for his 5 1/2 years as President/Commander In Chief, the following excerpts from an editorial in today\’s Washington Times might be worthwhile.
Here they are:
MostAmericans aren\’t much interested in “foreign affairs” untilevents demand it. Americans pay the president to worry about troublesin faraway places and usually feel entitled to nap until they get awake-up call. But this is an option not available to presidents.
Barack Obama doesn\’t hear about a crisis, whether in Benghazi or Syriaor Ukraine or at the IRS, until he reads about it in the newspapers.He says so himself. The opportunity for democratic government inIraq,purchased with the blood and bone of thousands of splendid youngAmericans, is crumbling, and once more the president is surprised.
Thedisaster in Iraq is stunning. First, Fallujah fell, then Mosul, and then the assaulton the capital itself by a ragtag army arriving in pickup trucks.Iran volunteers to save the day (and we can only hope that the presidentdoesn\’t see Iranas the solution). Mr.Obama will try to spin “the Big Crumble” as the fault ofGeorge W. Bush, and Mr. Bush deserves blame for his naive belief thatdemocracy and decency, surrounded by so much inhumanity and barbarismin the name of Allah, could survive in such surroundings. But the BigCrumble is on Mr.Obama\’s watch, abetted by his eagerness to pull American armsout of Iraqtoo soon, just to take credit for something he could call success.
Toaccomplish something in Iraqnow, even if the president\’s heart were in trying, – a very big”if” – will be difficult. It\’s difficult to imagine that theUnited States still has leverage to apply in Iraqafter six years of wishing away the credibility of America\’s will.
Butan exceptional nation must figure out what can be done and find a wayto do it. Leading this is expecting a lot from a president who revelsin his disengagement with the responsibilities he asked for. But whena fire bell rings in the night, someone must answer, and that someonemust not be a firebug from Iran.
It should be noted that the Times\’ editorial also contains a reference to the 12th century that I take great exception to and it should be ashamed of. You can see it by using the link I\’ve provided above – maybe you\’ll agree.
That aside, however, the points made above are 100% valid. Whatever condition President Obama was left with in Iraq – and some would say it wasn\’t half bad – he has been in charge since January 20, 2009…….and this is June of 2014, almost 5 1/2 years later.
At what point does this man ever take credit for his missteps? For his failures?
He sure as hell has no problem taking credit for anything on his watch that he perceives as a success, doesn\’t he?
A worthwhile President would stop mumbling, fumbling, bumbling and stumbling. A worthwhile President would not be whining that he needs time to figure out what to do.
A worthwhile President would have had contingency plans at the ready for Iraq, and everywhere else in the world.
But, just as there were no contingency plans on that terrible night in Benghazi, when four of our people were massacred with virtually no resistance, and no threat at all that any further resistance would be forthcoming, so are there no contingency plans for Iraq, as it disintegrates into a cesspool of hatred and mass killing between Islamic factions.
What does that make Barack Obama? You don\’t need me to answer, do you?
In good times (which ones would those have been under the current administration?) and bad, the President is still the President. When does this President do something about Iraq?
