Back to Iraq

Back to Iraq

The President has, in the past, said some things about the situation in Iraq and some of the players that he’s had to take back recently (or at least ignore). Now, we all know that Presidents can’t be perfect prognosticators. They have aids that specialize in different areas who try to anticipate issues before they get out of hand. But there is someone that perhaps President Obama should’ve hired who made a prediction back in 2007.

Obama has proclaimed over and over, over the course of years, about how he promised to end the war in Iraq, and he did. The question is, was it a good promise to make?

And I ask the question again; where’s the anti-war crowd? They’ve been conspicuously absent while a Democrat has been in the White House. What do they think about this new “surge”, so to speak? Their silence speaks volumes.

Mentioned links:

Podcast Shoutout

A President Whose Assurances Have Come Back to Haunt Him

President George W. Bush’s chilling warning on Iraq in 2007

Obama, in Speech on ISIS, Promises Sustained Effort to Rout Militants

Another Obama lie. I ended the war in Iraq – I didn’t end the war in Iraq.

Carr: Anti-war crowd stunningly silent on ISIS plan

Getting some shopping done? If you're going to shop at Amazon, please consider clicking on my affiliate link. Thanks!

On Apple devices, you can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes.

If you're on Android, listen with Google Podcasts.

Stitcher Radio is another possibility for both Apple and Android devices. If you do download Stitcher to your phone, please use the promo code “ConsiderThis” to let them know where you heard about it.

Browser-based options are the Blubrry Network and

And if you have some other podcatcher or RSS reader, click here to get the direct feed and paste it wherever you need it.

I would love it if you would spread the word about the podcast! Click the Facebook, Twitter, and other icons (or all of them!) at the bottom of this post to recommend "Consider This!" to your social media audience.

Show transcript

When President Obama spoke to the nation on September 10th, he did not use some of the phrases he has in the past. He didn’t refer to ISIS as the “JV” team, nor did he refer to Iraq as “sovereign, stable and self-reliant” with a “representative government.” And he didn’t say, as he has before, that “the tide of war is receding.”

Now, all those things would have sounded good, as they did the first time he said them. But they would have been just as wrong. As so often happens when Presidents paint a rosy picture for political purposes, reality has a way of rearing its head and biting you in the posterior. Reality, in this case, is ISIS. Or ISIL. Or whatever.

In defense of the President, one might say that the Chief Executive is not a prognosticator or a soothsayer, and one might have a point. They have aids that specialize in different areas who try to anticipate issues before they get out of hand. Perhaps President Obama should’ve hired this guy, who made a prediction back in 2007.

[George W. Bush 2007 prediction]

You might recognize that voice as belonging to former President George W. Bush. Yeah, someone else wrote those specific words, but it’s something he believed. As it turned out, he was right, on every point. Well, except that, while Al Qaeda is still something of a factor in the region, ISIS has become the new “big bad”, only badder.

We don’t need a soothsayer in the Oval Office. We need a “truth sayer”, regardless of how it plays to his base or offends his sensibilities.

So now we have a President calling for American military might to be used in the service of getting rid of an extremist element in Iraq. If this sounds familiar, it is. No boots on the ground, he says. So I guess that means the hundreds of advisors and trainers are wearing more comfortable footwear.

But it’s odd when you consider what this President has said in the past about ending wars.

[Obama, I ended the war in Iraq, see video above]

That last bit was a question from a reporter in 2014 asking about pulling all the troops out. Interesting how, when it turns out that his decision falls on its face, that he no longer wants to take credit for it. I cut out a lot of the audio where he had repeated and repeated that claim. If you want to share it, there’s a link in the show notes.

All our troops left Iraq. That’s what he promised, and that’s what he did, which, for something as large as the Iraq war, is a big deal. The question is, was it a good promise to make? His speech suggests that, no, it wasn’t. Even the President that the Left mercilessly mocked as stupid could figure that one out.

So here’s another question; if we don’t leave Iraq this time, when would we ever leave? Are we to remain there in perpetuity? That’s a good question, to which I will ask a similar question? When do we leave South Korea? When do we leave Germany and Eastern Europe? If we really ought to be completely out of Iraq, I submit that, before we do, we should be out of countries that we’ve been in for over 40, 50 or 60 years. Doesn’t that seem reasonable?

So now we have a President calling for American military might to be used in the service of getting rid of an extremist element in Iraq. If this sounds familiar, it is. OK, I’ve already said that, but there is one thing a bit different this time; the lack of any serious anti-war effort. Howie Carr, writing for the Boston Herald, put it this way.

Where exactly is the anti-war movement? Have you see a single “No Blood for Oil” sign in Cambridge? To paraphrase the John Kerry of 2004: “Can I get me a candlelight vigil here?”

Whatever happened to Cindy Sheehan? Where is Code Pink? I haven’t seen an “EndLESS War” bumper sticker in years, since 2009 to be exact.

The anti-war movement is MIA as this war, er counter­terrorism operation, begins. Back when Bush was waging war, dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Now it’s “racism.” If you speak truth to power in the Obama era, they call it hate speech. The IRS will audit you.

As I’ve noted time and time again, for the Left, it’s not about principle, it’s all about politics. The anti-war movement is only there to be of service to the Democratic Party. Yes, some are true to their principles regardless of the party in power, but as we see, on the whole the outrage is extremely selective. That’s politics.

Filed under: IraqMiddle EastWar