Who Is to Blame for the Disastrous After-Effects of Invading Iraq?

Some creepy prevaricator over at The Washington Examiner says the blame falls on... Obama!

"We've already seen signs that Obama's mismanaged pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq is having disastrous ramifications, with a wave of bombings last Thursday killing 60 people and wounding 200 others."

So, eight years of having Iraq as our puppet state just wasn't quite enough! Even though the Iraqi government, the very one we put in place, was demanding that we leave, and even though our (most recent) supposed aim in going into Iraq was to bring the people democracy, we should have ignored that democratically elected government, and just told them we were going to stay, probably forever.
And this was so predictable (if I predicted it, it must have been pretty obvious!): Nothing whatsoever would ever lead the neocon delusionaries to admit that they were wildly mistaken about Iraq. If we stayed for 100 years, and then left because the US Treasury hadn't a penny remaining to keep a single soldier in Mesopotamia, the grandkids of today's neocons would blame "appeasement" and not the invasion and occupation for the troubles that followed.

(Thank God Daniel Larison exists to keep up with these idiots, so we don't have to!)


  1. Even better is how a bombing that killed 60 people during the formal occupation would have been discounted as no big deal or explained as a positive sign (last throes; providing a clear lesson to Iraqis of good will about who their enemies are; etc.).

    I am of course NOT engaging in airy counterfactuals here. I AM REMEMBERING!


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Fiat Currency

Central Planning Works!