From the Washington Post:

[Sandvol]

In his Sunday interview President Obama was not asked some fundamental questions: Where does he get the authority to change laws unilaterally? He bragged about pulling troops out of Iraq and then denied it was his call–so which is it? Didn’t his failure to act in Syria allow the Islamic State to grow? When the next GOP president wants to unilaterally change the tax code, what is he going to say? Hasn’t he lost Ukraine?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

In his Sunday interview President Obama was not asked some fundamental questions: Where does he get the authority to change laws unilaterally? He bragged about pulling troops out of Iraq and then denied it was his call–so which is it? Didn’t his failure to act in Syria allow the Islamic State to grow? When the next GOP president wants to unilaterally change the tax code, what is he going to say? Hasn’t he lost Ukraine?

Whoa whoa whoa... when was this?

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

"Failure to act"

You need to understand something about government intervention, once you intervene, you have to keep on intervening because of the "unintended consequences" of your first act.
It's an endless cycle. It's always best to mind our own business.

 

[rjd970]

"Failure to act"

You need to understand something about government intervention, once you intervene, you have to keep on intervening because of the "unintended consequences" of your first act.
It's an endless cycle. It's always best to mind our own business.

The warhawks in DC and some on here seem to think we need to perpetually fight every battle for our allies in the middle east, until they become our enemies, then fight previous enemies who are now our friend.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

 

[red butler]

"Failure to act"

You need to understand something about government intervention, once you intervene, you have to keep on intervening because of the "unintended consequences" of your first act.
It's an endless cycle. It's always best to mind our own business.

Yeah, that should probably be rephrased to say "Obama's support of radical Islamists against Assad in Syria allowed ISIS to grow."

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

The warhawks in DC and some on here seem to think we need to perpetually fight every battle for our allies in the middle east, until they become our enemies, then fight previous enemies who are now our friend.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Gave you a like.....:thumbsup: because it sounds about right

 

[K-town Vol Fan]

Lol. So when were in Iraq, "why can't Obama pull out the troops and just let them all kill each other and we kind mind our own business."

When we don't take action in Syria, "Obama should be reprimanded for his failure to act."

 

[utvolpj]

When we don't take action in Syria, "Obama should be reprimanded for his failure to act."

Actually he should be reprimanded for his actions in Syria a year ago. He also brags about pulling troops out of Iraq so he kinda owns that one as well

Wonder if the admin still believes it was impossible for the "rebels" to have used chemical weapons themselves

 

[lawgator1]

Bush gets the blame for the original invasion, which created the power vacuum and the trigger for Suni v. Shiite. Obama gets the blame for increasing the vacuum by getting us out of the picture. What you need to realize is that the latter was inevitable, no matter who was POTUS, because at some point we'd have drawn down. We weren't going to stay there forever. This one really is Bush's fault.

 

[Gramps]

Bush gets the blame for the original invasion, which created the power vacuum and the trigger for Suni v. Shiite. Obama gets the blame for increasing the vacuum by getting us out of the picture. What you need to realize is that the latter was inevitable, no matter who was POTUS, because at some point we'd have drawn down. We weren't going to stay there forever. This one really is Bush's fault.

This one is so simple to understand , yet those wearing those dark red goggles will not accept the fact that if Bush had not invaded Iraq we would not be having this problem.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Yeah we would have. Saddam would have lost control. The Kurds would have eventually gained their independence

 

[Gramps]

Yeah we would have. Saddam would have lost control. The Kurds would have eventually gained their independence

Again you are wearing those dark red goggles. You have zero facts to back that up. Saddam may or have not lost control, that is something we will never know. IMO, the Kurds should be independent from Iraq.

 

[Arclight]

The WP is a Dem-lib rag.

 

[volinbham]

Yes Iraq was a mistake and that is Bush's fault. However, how we managed the "transition" under Obama has been a disaster. We'll never know for sure but much of what we are seeing now could have been avoided had we managed the transition better.

Both these clowns F'd it up.

Sad thing is that we are doing the same damn thing in Afghanistan just because the current guy wants to be the POTUS who ends wars.

Oh yeah, we've got another one brewing in Libya.

 

[Gramps]

Yes Iraq was a mistake and that is Bush's fault. However, how we managed the "transition" under Obama has been a disaster. We'll never know for sure but much of what we are seeing now could have been avoided had we managed the transition better.

Both these clowns F'd it up.

Sad thing is that we are doing the same damn thing in Afghanistan just because the current guy wants to be the POTUS who ends wars.

Oh yeah, we've got another one brewing in Libya.

well said B'ham. gave you a like.

We are looking at 16 straight years with two of the worse presidents in our history. I hope the next one is better.

 

[rjd970]

Yes Iraq was a mistake and that is Bush's fault. However, how we managed the "transition" under Obama has been a disaster. We'll never know for sure but much of what we are seeing now could have been avoided had we managed the transition better.

Both these clowns F'd it up.

Sad thing is that we are doing the same damn thing in Afghanistan just because the current guy wants to be the POTUS who ends wars.

Oh yeah, we've got another one brewing in Libya.

What's your beef with the transition? What should have been done different?

 

[Gramps]

What's your beef with the transition? What should have been done different?

Did Bush announcing the troop withdrawal date back in 2008 add to this current mess? Via knowing we were leaving could the bad guys have just layed low a few years waiting on us to leave before cranking back up with the violence ?

Is this not the same thing Obama is doing in Afghanistan ?

 

[McDad]

Bush gets the blame for the original invasion, which created the power vacuum and the trigger for Suni v. Shiite. Obama gets the blame for increasing the vacuum by getting us out of the picture. What you need to realize is that the latter was inevitable, no matter who was POTUS, because at some point we'd have drawn down. We weren't going to stay there forever. This one really is Bush's fault.

Agreed. Before we go to war in the future, i want to see Americans killed on American soil by WMDs or something. I want the war to be swift, powerful, and using our superior might to the fullest extent possible.

 

[MG1968]

Agreed. Before we go to war in the future, i want to see Americans killed on American soil by WMDs or something. I want the war to be swift, powerful, and using our superior might to the fullest extent possible.

wait, so you're saying you want to see Knoxville get nuked before the US commits it's full arsenal to wiping out an enemy?

 

[McDad]

wait, so you're saying you want to see Knoxville get nuked before the US commits it's full arsenal to wiping out an enemy?

Knoxville is a low target priority i suspect. NYC or DC are much more likely.

 

[MG1968]

Knoxville is a low target priority i suspect. NYC or DC are much more likely.

answer my question, please

and Knoxville has a big target on it because of Oak Ridge and Interstates 40 and 75

 

[rjd970]

Did Bush announcing the troop withdrawal date back in 2008 add to this current mess? Via knowing we were leaving could the bad guys have just layed low a few years waiting on us to leave before cranking back up with the violence ?

Is this not the same thing Obama is doing in Afghanistan ?

I don't know. Nobody does is the point. I'm not sure there was a clean way to transition without prolonged, indefinite troop involvement. Nobody wants troops there anymore, but nobody wants a failed state either. It's lose/lose no matter what you do.

 

[McDad]

answer my question, please

and Knoxville has a big target on it because of Oak Ridge and Interstates 40 and 75

I did answer your question. Clearly, it isn't the answer you wanted. Knoxville was a target in WWII and during the cold war. I'm sure it still is to the soviets, chinese, etc. I doubt the guys in some islamo fascist country could even identify Knoxville on a map of the US.

 

[volfanhill]

well said B'ham. gave you a like.

We are looking at 16 straight years with two of the worse presidents in our history. I hope the next one is better.

Wouldn't hold my breath if I were you

 

[MG1968]

I did answer your question. Clearly, it isn't the answer you wanted. Knoxville was a target in WWII and during the cold war. I'm sure it still is to the soviets, chinese, etc. I doubt the guys in some islamo fascist country could even identify Knoxville on a map of the US.

Actually, you dodged the question, twice. Your original statement was that you WANT to see Americans killed by a WMD in a US city before the US commits it's full arsenal to destroy an enemy.

My point was simply to ask if you would really want that to happen, or if you were using hyperbole.