Washington Post learns to love the Iraq War
They’re only eleven years too late, but the Washington Post editorial board has decided that we need boots on the ground in Iraq. Isn’t that nice of them? I mean, I wonder what has changed that they decided they can finally get behind the president?
Earlier this year, Mr. Obama was dismissing al-Qaeda offshoots as the junior varsity of terrorism and promising Americans that the tide of war was receding. Now his secretary of state, John F. Kerry, calls the Islamic State an “evil” that must “be destroyed.” Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel says it is “as sophisticated and well-funded as any group that we have seen .?.?. beyond anything that we’ve seen.” Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says it “will eventually have to be defeated.”
What would it take to defeat the Islamic State, which continues to rack up military victories in Iraq and Syria, including the capture of another air base Sunday? When Mr. Obama was urged to support the moderate opposition in Syria three years ago, one reason given was that a failure to do so would leave an opening for more radical factions that would eventually spill out of Syria and threaten the region. The longer the president waited, the more the need for action would become obvious — but the more unappetizing his options would be.
Yeah, they want boots on the ground suddenly. I could have sworn that we had boots on the ground in Iraq twice before. I remember Easter morning 1991 when I woke up in sight of the Euphrates River not far from Baghdad – I had my boots on the ground, too. Many of you have been there since, too, with your boots firmly on ground. Neither time did we get the support of the Washington Post. Like I said, I wonder what could have changed. But I noticed that they still can’t form the words “war against terror”.
I’m guessing that the news out of Iraq and Syria are making them feel uncomfortable and you know what that means to Leftists; time “do something, anything”. If it gets American servicemen killed, well, that makes it even better, because it won’t affect anyone they know. Maybe those cuts to the military aren’t looking quite so attractive now.
On a hilarious note, the commenters on the article are calling the Post editorial board Neo-cons.
Thanks to Chief Tango for the link.
Category: Media, Terror War
I wonder what this news will stir up??
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/isis-demands-66m-ransom-26-year-american-woman/story?id=25127682
If the quaking cowards on the editorial board think we need boots on the ground, then buy THEM some boots and send THEM over there.
The full and proper phrase is “Someone elses’s but my boots on the ground”
So, the WaPo is now saying we have sound reasons, based on national security, to send forces to Iraq.
Gee. Aren’t puppies and kittens so cuuute when their eyes finally open? (smile)
I read the report elsewhere about Dan Rather calling for paying ransoms to get people back. Well, that’s just what I would expect from liberal, coward Dan Rather. A guy who quakes at his own shadow. I want these hostages home safely. I do not want to see harm come to them at all. At the same time, we cannot start a policy of negotiating with terrorists and accepting their demands. It was a bad move, in my humble opinion, to swap Bergdahl for five of the worst. Why would we do the same thing again, plus $6.6 million in ransom to be used to buy more arms to kill everyone in the path of IS? Nothing would make their day like caving to these demands.
This is similar in a way to the subject of women in combat. The constant thoughts, discussions and issues about women coming home in body bags. Women soldiers captured, being tortured and such. What is Obama going to do now? Because it is a woman hostage, will he cave in and pay the ransom for fear of the political and public outcry and fallout? Or will he use that outcry to get serious about the monsters being faced in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere and garner the support from all sides needed to put an end to IS swiftly and harshly? In my opinion, sadly, he will cave in. He cannot lead and never has had the ability. He has no guts for hard decisions and never has. He has surrounded himself with those, like minded cowards, with lots of empty words and no guts. He has turned the Pentagon into a “yes man”, lapdog organization. I also think the leadership of the Pentagon holds great responsibility for this as well, since they display no guts to tell the President the truth of anything.
I hope this young woman and the other hostages are released safely. But I have my fears. For the hostages as well as the message Obama will send to the terrorists.
Spot on, Sparks.
I remember reading a while back that the French paid some Somali pirates a large ransom to free someone. It was paid with actual currency vs. wire transfer. However, the money was fake.
Classic. If only….
“On a hilarious note, the commenters on the article are calling the Post editorial board Neo-cons.”
That’s some funny shit right there. Fuck the Post.
Depends on who the preezy is/the political party in power. If it’s Bush/Republitards then “war is eeeeeeevil”. If it’s Obeyme/Demonrats, then it’s “we MUST step in and Do Something”.