The View From 1776

Bush’s Iraqi Surge Worked; Obama’s Stimulus Failed

But Obama’s failed, inflationary stimulus program costs more than the entire war in Iraq.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/31 at 12:15 AM
  1. The $3 trillion expended for the glorious war on Iraq includes the projected cost of caring for the thousands of our military who were hideously maimed for the rest of their lives, not just the money spent (wasted) on bombs to date.

    It was a shocker to read in this morning's Times, an article by Paul Wolfowitz, who seems to have crawled out of the swamp just in time to comment on the bringing home of combat troops from Iraq. Wolfowitz, one of the shining lights for the so-called "New American Century," and one of the people most responsible for the disaster of Iraq, could not restrain himself in offering his advice to the nation on how we should not "abandon Iraq."

    I needed to take a shower after reading his piece.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/31  at  10:47 AM
  2. The surge worked. Right! So why is Iraq still in the f**kin mess its in.

    I wasn't going to comment anymore on anything The View wrote because generally it is so full of hypocrisy and garbage. But for some reason I logged on to it to day, only to discover it is still full of s**t and stupid ideas.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/02  at  05:33 PM
  3. History and hindsight have a way of proving past decisions. It is not always clear but there is no doubt that President Bush's Iraq policy has given the people of Iraq a good shot at establishing a free and successful nation. It may still be "a mess" as David Airth observes, but it is functioning more or less the way we set it up and the rest is up to them.

    And the Obama Stimulus spending has obviously been a disaster--a huge national debt we and our children are saddled with--which would not be so bad except it did little to help the economy. Governments do not make useful investments other than some infrastructure work, whereas that money in the hands of individuals would have been used more wisely. (Especially if it had been in my hands!)

    The current question is: will Obama's management of the Afghanistan War be a "success" or will he create another Vietnam??? It would be interesting to know if David and Jay support Obama's policy there?
    Posted by bill greene  on  09/04  at  08:49 AM
  4. Bill,

    In answer to your musing, I for one believe Obama is chasing a chimera in Afghanistan and that we should pull out ASAP. The government is corrupt, the Taliban had nothing to do with 9-11, Al Qaeda is no longer in the country, and the war is not supported by most of America.

    History is littered with folks who thought they could make Afghanistan civilized. There is little evidence that we will have any more success than the last group who tried.

    Afghanistan is really not a "country" in the traditional sense. It is a series of rugged mountains ruled by war lords who have no concept of western ideals. It must, of course, be acknowledged that the Taliban are generally horrible people who, among many anti-western mores, take delight in the abuse of women.

    We cannot, unfortunately, save the world from all the terrible people therein, and it is folly to try.

    I suspect that part of the reason Obama persists is that with the Republicans' love of war and violence for the sake of violence, he was concerned about being considered "soft."

    Bill, It would be interesting if you, yourself, support staying in Afghanistan.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/06  at  06:21 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.