Bizarre, Congress, Military, Politics

Speaker John Boehner Was “For” Obama’s Iraq Policy Before He Claimed There Wasn’t One

By Mark Esposito, Weekend Contributor

oehnerobamaOne of the ways we decide how sincere a witness is down at the courthouse is seeing what he said about a topic before there was anything  really at stake and comparing that to what he’s saying now. Watching the scandalous political corruption trial here in Richmond for the past few days, I’ve seen plenty of “I said one thing then, but I’m saying something else now” from the various witnesses taking the stand. Take Governor Bob McDonnell’s friend and stockbroker, John Piscitelli, who upon being asked about a particular sleazy scheme to avoid the state’s gift disclosure laws –cooked up apparently by Virginia’s First Lady — answered that he was not “uncomfortable” with the deal. When his prior grand jury testimony was pushed in his face, the securities peddler cleared his throat, straightened his tie, looked around, and then remembered that , lo and behold, the aborted deal to dump stock right before the disclosure deadline and then buy it back did indeed make him feel ” uncomfortable.” Wonderful thing, a trial.

Pity we can’t put politicians on trial simply for being politicians — especially those who are simply flitting around the flame of geopolitical power hoping to catch it for themselves. Take House Speaker and Republican Party leader John Boehner, for example. The burgeoning crisis in northern Iraq caused by the jihadist crazed theocrats of ISIS has come front and center to the world stage. Crashing in from Syria, the fundamentalists, dedicated to establishing a new world order based on a universal muslim caliphate governed by sharia law, have rounded up non-muslim Iraqis, forced them to convert to Islam, and then quite ceremoniously beheaded them or when the swords got too dull, simply stolen their possessions and run the “infidels” into to the mountains. A direct by-product of the unnecessary War in Iraq II by Bush II, the teetering country is now firmly ensconced in civil war with some added religious crusaders  to spice the mix.

Seeing American interests and service personnel directly at risk from the full-out crisis and fearing a genocide of ethnic groups as well as  Christian Iraqis, President Obama ordered a humanitarian airlift in conjunction with  the British, and authorized American air power to perform limited bombing runs to dissuade ISIS from consolidating gains and advancing on even more Iraq cities and infrastructure. In a rare show of  something approaching solidarity, most Republican lawmakers expressed satisfaction with the President’s moves though predictably it was “too little to late” in the minds of some GOP Svengalis who pulled the “told you so” card from the bottom of the deck.

Chief among the critics was Speaker John Boehner who loves him some bombing calling it “appropriate,” but hates him some Obama policy saying in a prepared statement that he is quite dismayed there isn’t one:

I am dismayed by the ongoing absence of a strategy for countering the grave threat ISIS poses to the region.Vital national interests are at stake, yet the White House has remained disengaged despite warnings from Iraqi leaders, Congress, and even members of its own administration. Such parochial thinking only emboldens the enemy and squanders the sacrifices Americans have made. The president needs a long-term strategy — one that defines success as completing our mission, not keeping political promises — and he needs to build the support to sustain it. If the president is willing to put forward such a strategy, I am ready to listen and work with him.

Well, “work(ing) with him” apparently doesn’t include attending a White House meeting last week on what the Speaker claims is a “grave threat.”  No word on what was discussed at that meeting, but at a prior meeting on the topic in June attended by Republican hawks Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and John McCain (R-Arizona), Graham told reporters that the briefing “scared the hell out of him.” (You think Hell would have a better place to be anyway). McCain was no less “measured” in his commentary calling on the President to replace the entire national security brain trust.

No mention from these three prized elephants about what destabilized this seething caldron of a country in the first place (the late, great War on Weapons of Mass Destruction) or the lack of “exit strategy” from Bush II for this lark of a war that was plopped down on Obama’s desk on his first day in office, and nary a bit of grandfatherly advice for the man many Republicans consider “in over his head”  to handle world affairs about how to manage the crisis without a full-scale ground and air assault on the tinder box constructed by the Bush-Cheney team.

But Speaker Boehner and his cronies were not always so critical of the President’s plans in Iraq. In fact, when it suited him, the man with the perpetual tan seemed downright laudatory. In a carefully worded statement on Iraq released on February 27, 2009, Boehner praised the President’s policy to extricate American forces from the quagmire even agreeing with the timeline approach to disengagement and saying the plan provided ultimate flexibility to handle future crises caused by the likes of ISIS.

The plan put forward by President Obama continues our strategy of bringing troops home from Iraq as they succeed in stabilizing the country. I believe he has outlined a responsible approach that retains maximum flexibility to reconsider troop levels and to respond to changes in the security environment should circumstances on the ground warrant.

A far cry from the sentiments of a man who recently  said  that Obama was “taking a nap” on Iraq.

So what are we to make of the hue and cry about incompetence and inattentiveness of Obama in dealing with Iraq from the man who praised him for the strategy in the first place?  Maybe Speaker Boehner should clear his throat,straighten his tie,  look around the room and tell us how he really feels. Now it’s your turn to tell us:

Source: The Hill

~Mark Esposito Weekend Contributor

 

By the way and for better or worse, the views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not necessarily those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays of art are solely the author’s decision and responsibility. No infringement of intellectual property rights is intended and will be remedied upon notice from the owner. Fair use is however asserted for such inclusions of quotes, excerpts, photos, art, and the like.

 

140 thoughts on “Speaker John Boehner Was “For” Obama’s Iraq Policy Before He Claimed There Wasn’t One”

  1. Mike Appleton,

    The COIN “surge” and Anbar Awakening happened. The current situation in Iraq only became predictable when we prematurely left Iraq.

    Don’t forget the state of Iraq’s progress at the point we removed the necessary American protection in 2011, as marked by President Obama in May 2011:

    Indeed, one of the broader lessons to be drawn from this period is that sectarian divides need not lead to conflict. In Iraq, we see the promise of a multiethnic, multisectarian democracy. The Iraqi people have rejected the perils of political violence in favor of a democratic process, even as they’ve taken full responsibility for their own security. Of course, like all new democracies, they will face setbacks. But Iraq is poised to play a key role in the region if it continues its peaceful progress. And as they do, we will be proud to stand with them as a steadfast partner.

    We’re not novices at this. Modern American history tells us peace-building takes time, patience, and care with a long, steadfast engagement. The main thing we did right with our post-WW2 nation-building projects was to stay the course and work the process. If we had left them at the 8-year mark like we left Iraq, no matter how promising they looked in their early developmental stages, they likely would have failed in short order due to internal fragility, outside invasion, and/or reversion to an historical, cultural form. In fact, at our 8-year mark with Korea, the Korean War was live. In comparison, post-Saddam Iraq was significantly ahead of post-Japan Korea at the 8-year mark – but not yet far enough ahead for us to leave Iraq to fend for itself, especially with the acute danger growing next door.

    Even if we had contributed nothing else to the process, the one absolute requirement for peace-building in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East – the one feature that allowed us to work through the inevitable setbacks, failures, and mistakes – has been the constant of American security.

    Security is the foundation for everything else. Despite the impressive progress the Iraqis made over our last days there, when we took away the foundational American security presence from post-Saddam Iraq, especially with what was happening in Syria, we doomed the Iraqi people.

  3. This was my response to Eric yesterday on a different thread in response to his defense of our ME foreign policy:

    “You mentioned cancer and that seems to be a good metaphor for the only legitimate purpose and justification for foreign entanglements. The world (not unlike America) would be more easily “controlled” if everyone shared the same beliefs. But human nature being what it is I’m actually in favor of the differences.

    If one begins with the view that every nation is sovereign and the people within it responsible for the government they allow, then when or why should we become involved in their internal struggles? Our founders drafted a document to make a case for foreign entities to support and “get involved in” our struggle for independence. The British government was a cancer on our unalienable rights and the Declaration’s justification for our right “to alter or to abolish it”, did not include the foreign entities remaining to “help” us build a nation.

    Our foreign policy (again in my opinion) seems to create the cancers we are then forced to fight. Where are the formal Declarations requesting not only our intervention, but entanglement in nation-building? It’s one thing to be the beacon of freedom, liberty, equality, democracy and natural rights. But there is a significant difference between shining the light and attempting to etch it into the hearts and minds of an indifferent culture. If they aren’t asking for it then no amount of effort, resources or lives can give it to them.”

  4. Speaking of hypocritical females who announce and celebrate their superiority while taking advantage of affirmative action, WIC, welfare, food stamps, HUD, HHS, etc.

    (I am woman, hear me roar. Yeah, for more help and free stuff, right?),

    I think the Caliphate is going to repeal the 19th Amendment when it “raises the

    flag in the White House.”

    What say you?

    Oops!

  5. Blah Blah…As far as I am concerned, in ordering air strikes and trying to rescue the fleeing men women and children on the mountain, the United States is finally using my tax $$ to do something I am proud of…not just talking everything to death and wringing our hands while civilians die.

  6. I would agree with Mike Appleton’s comment above. The religious fanatics will not allow democracy if that means all religions are welcome. Time to punt.

  7. I think that fundamentalist Islam isn’t compatible with a true Democracy. I don’t doubt that a portion of the population want one, but there are forces within their own society that are stronger, more forceful. Until the time comes that the majority of the population is willing to fight for their OWN Democracy, they will continue to fight one another in endless sectarian wars. It should be clear by now that our brand of Democracy and western ways, won’t flourish there, as others have alluded to.

  8. “I say this to America, that the Islamic Caliphate has been established. And we will not stop. Don’t be cowards and attack us with drones. Instead send your soldiers, the ones we humiliated in Iraq. We will humiliate them everywhere, God willing, and we will raise the flag of Allah in the White House.“

    *******************************************************************************************

    They did that in 2008 when the ineligible son of a foreign citizen was not denied by Speaker Pelosi and was illegally ensconced in the White House.

    Barrack Hussein Obama.

    The reason the requirement for president was increased from “citizen” to “natural born citizen” in the final constitutional draft was to preclude foreign allegiances (per the Washington/Jay letter) requiring two citizen-parents drawing from the definition in the Law of Nations, the contemporary legal reference, which the framers “pounced on” according to Franklin.

    The flag of Allah is fundamentally transforming America.

  9. John Oliver,

    That’s not a JFK quote. I said that. Mea culpa if I was unclear on attribution.

    FYI, what I said:

    If American, and Western, progressivism has been conclusively discredited for its forceful displacement of native cultures like the American Indian tribes, then what is the ethical difference, after removing the Lebensraum aspect of autarkic Western expansion, between that and championing a liberal world order today in a ‘clash of civilizations’ against autocratic Middle Eastern regimes like Syria, Iran, Saddam’s Iraq, or the Taliban in Afghanistan, and their fellow travelers like al Qaeda? Are we allowed to be progressive if we cannot, by self-imposed rule, classify our competitors as regressive? What’s the practical effect if we restrict our engagement at the same time our competitors are totally committed to establishing a social-political order that is incompatible with, and actively opposed to, our preferred liberal order?

    I believe we need to restore our chauvinistic commitment to the American progressivism that shaped much of the 19th and 20th centuries.

    There’s a lot to choose from for a JFK cite, but I suggest the classic:

    We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans–born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage–and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

    Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

    This much we pledge–and more.

    To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do–for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.

    To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom–and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.

    To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required–not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

  10. The choice in Iraq from the beginning was between a secular dictatorship and a theocratic dictatorship. A few people like Peter Galbraith understood that, but their voices were drowned out by those who argued, and continue to argue, that democracy can be exported like surplus wheat. The current situation in Iraq, in other words, was completely predictable. Indeed, I believe that it was virtually inevitable. I continue to believe, as I have argued for the past ten years, that Iraq will be partitioned.

  11. Oh that George Bush II; what a war-monger!

    The following were pulled from Eric’s blog:

    “I believe we need to restore our chauvinistic commitment to the American progressivism that shaped much of the 19th and 20th centuries.” JFK

    “The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian makeup. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.” Bill Clinton
    http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2014/05/operation-iraqi-freedom-faq.html#whatOIFabout

    Let’s continue trying to cram American democracy down the throats of cultures that simply have not acquired a taste for it.

  12. Susan,
    I didn’t realize calling out politicians of any stripe for their hypocrisy is a partisan rant.
    David,
    So for the very first time Rep. King is taking Obama for his word?? That would be a first.

  13. @Dave ““[Quoting Rep King] I can’t understand why a commander in chief would ever tell the enemy what we’re going to do or not do,” he said.”

    I think I have to agree. Sometimes some ambiguity can be helpful. It seems to me this might be a moment when it is better not to be so clear – even if senior advisers know there are real limits on what we are willing to do. But my recollection this administration was big on making sure everyone knew of the ‘date certain’ when all troops would be out of Iraq.

    It seems to me this is the time to imply that everything is ‘on the table’ even if the administration knows it is not. I don’t see how we gain by letting our adversaries know exactly where we stand.

  16. Is Obama watching JT’s blog? 8 minutes ago…..

    Obama warned Americans that the new campaign in Iraq “is going to be a long-term project.” He wouldn’t give a timetable for how long the U.S. military involvement would last,
    saying it depends on Iraq’s political efforts. “I don’t think we are going to solve this problem in weeks,” Obama said. “I think this is going to take some time.”

  18. I’d like to know just how the armchair generals here just KNOW the Obama Administration has no strategy. Do they have some secret clearance to sit in on strategy meetings?

  19. Nothing but a partisan rant. I expect more from this blog but do understand it’s open forum on the weekends.

Comments are closed.