Axelrod hits back at Hillary: When we say “don’t do stupid stuff,” we mean stuff like occupying Iraq

posted at 11:21 am on August 12, 2014 by Allahpundit

In case it wasn’t clear from Noah’s post how grumpy Obamaworld is these days about foreign-policy criticism, here’s a vivid intramural example. Remember this bit from Hillary’s interview with Jeffrey Goldberg?

JG: Is the lesson for you, like it is for President Obama, “Don’t do stupid shit”?

HRC: That’s a good lesson but it’s more complicated than that. Because your stupid may not be mine, and vice versa. I don’t think it was stupid for the United States to do everything we could to remove Qaddafi because that came from the bottom up. That was people asking us to help. It was stupid to do what we did in Iraq and to have no plan about what to do after we did it. That was really stupid. I don’t think you can quickly jump to conclusions about what falls into the stupid and non-stupid categories. That’s what I’m arguing…

JG: I think that defeating fascism and communism is a pretty big deal.

HRC: That’s how I feel! Maybe this is old-fashioned. Okay, I feel that this might be an old-fashioned idea—but I’m about to find out, in more ways than one.

Great nations need organizing principles, and “Don’t do stupid stuff” is not an organizing principle. It may be a necessary brake on the actions you might take in order to promote a vision.

Fast-forward a few days. This appeared at the top of Axelrod’s Twitter feed earlier this morning, conveniently shorn of any context for maximum deniability of who the target is:

I … did not expect to see big-name Democratic strategists needling the party’s next nominee over her biggest foreign policy liability in a public forum, but maybe Ax figures he has nothing to lose. He’s not going to have a role in a new Clinton administration; his crime against the throne in steering Obama to victory over her six years ago is too great to be forgiven. He’s better off protecting his and O’s legacy, he probably figures, by reminding a skeptical base that she voted for “Bush’s war” while Obama opposed it.

Just one really obvious problem with that logic, though. Jake Tapper, who normally stays out of political food fights on Twitter, couldn’t resist the obvious counterpoint:

O’s inner circle was and is a who’s who of believers in “stupid sh*t.” His first Secretary of State voted for war in Iraq, as did her successor (who was, by the way, the party’s nominee for president in 2004). So did his handpicked VP. Obama’s never been as remotely perturbed by support for the war as the passionate lefties to whom he pandered successfully in 2008. In fact, my pal Karl dug up this clip from his candidate days, in which Tim Russert grilled him on whether he might have voted for the war himself had he been in the Senate at the time. Does anyone seriously doubt that he would have? I know, I know — he gave a speech opposing the war in 2002, when he was a state senator. I’m willing to grant that that was his heartfelt position; what I’m asking is, would he have voted for the war anyway? Would he have given that speech if he was already a U.S. Senator eyeing a run for the presidency down the line? Electoral politics were surely a factor in Hillary’s, Kerry’s, and Biden’s votes for the war; they all ended up running for president later, which means they were probably already mulling it at the time of the vote. Go figure that they sided with the majority when support for the war was well over 60 percent. And of course, with gay marriage, we already have a famous example of Obama concealing his true position on a hot-button issue because he thought it was too risky in a general election. There’s no good reason to think he would have resisted doing “stupid sh*t” if he thought it would benefit him politically. When has he ever?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

The D-latrine civil war is on.

Schadenfreude on August 12, 2014 at 11:25 AM

Present!

BacaDog on August 12, 2014 at 11:26 AM

Are we occupying South Korea? Did we occupy West Germany?

rob verdi on August 12, 2014 at 11:26 AM

Oooof

Popcorn anyone?

cmsinaz on August 12, 2014 at 11:26 AM

The world is on fire.

Fuc*tard Susan Rice, the “national security adviser” sent a letter to Boehner “to close the Iraq war act” because “the war is over”.

Talk about a stupid political hag!

At State this morning there is pandemonium.

They don’t know how to keep the leftist latrine rats, the far leftists, in check on obama being back in Iraq.

“Chimpey” ruining the Ds is the height of irony.

Schadenfreude on August 12, 2014 at 11:26 AM

we mean stuff like occupying Iraq

Or maybe stupid like pulling out of a country and leaving a power vacuum that results in the execution and ‘ethnic cleansing’ of innocent people? That kind of stupid stuff?

LilyBart on August 12, 2014 at 11:27 AM

Despite being a low life a**hole, I believe that David Axelrod is the best political campaign manager in history, in fact he is the best marketing guru in history… He took the most incompetent and least qualified person ever to run for President and made him win the Presidency not once but twice… That was the most successful marketing campaign in history of the world…

mnjg on August 12, 2014 at 11:29 AM

Don’t do stupid sh*t…

You mean like electing Jugears?

txdoc on August 12, 2014 at 11:30 AM

“Horsesh*t”

Thin-skinned

The clinically sick narcissist has all the chickens come home to roost. I always told you that such impertinence will and must be punished.

Schadenfreude on August 12, 2014 at 11:30 AM

Sure, that’s what you meant Axelrod, but do you understand the irony of what you actually said, compared to what you actually did?

Immolate on August 12, 2014 at 11:30 AM

obama owns every soul of every dead by ISIS and many of the dead in Syria, among which there are 10,000 children.

He feeds on carrion, always, the thug of the world.

Schadenfreude on August 12, 2014 at 11:32 AM

It angers me to no end, by 2009 we were in alliance with an elected Iraqi government. Iraqis by and large we on our side. Roadside accidents were a bigger threat then IED’s, and the left tossed it all away to deliver a defeat on the United States.

rob verdi on August 12, 2014 at 11:32 AM

MoveOn going after Hillary now, too. This should be interesting.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/moveon-slams-clinton-for-embracing-policies-of-right-wing-war-hawks/

GOPRanknFile on August 12, 2014 at 11:32 AM

Hasn’t Axelrod heard of Fort Marcy Park ?

viking01 on August 12, 2014 at 11:33 AM

……like donkey kong

cmsinaz on August 12, 2014 at 11:33 AM

Sadly, Axelrod is right.

Of course what he really means is we shouldn’t have invaded to remove Saddam, and on that he couldn’t be more wrongheaded, but what he actually wrote in that tweet is spot on. We should have gone into Iraq to hunt down and kill our mortal enemy (the guy who invaded one of our allies and later tried to assassinate a former American President) and his evil spawn, not to play nation building with barbarians.

fadetogray on August 12, 2014 at 11:34 AM

I find it ironic that a video from Media Matters can be used at Hot Air for the purposes of highlighting the man child’s dissembling on Iraq.

And, I absolutely love it when we can hoist the left with their own petard. Well done, AP.

Conservative Mischief on August 12, 2014 at 11:34 AM

Move-on going after Her Thighness?

I wonder if her sex offender husband is behind it?

viking01 on August 12, 2014 at 11:35 AM

Sadly, Axelrod is right.

Of course what he really means is we shouldn’t have invaded to remove Saddam, and on that he couldn’t be more wrongheaded, but what he actually wrote in that tweet is spot on. We should have gone into Iraq to hunt down and kill our mortal enemy (the guy who invaded one of our allies and later tried to assassinate a former American President) and his evil spawn, not to play nation building with barbarians.

fadetogray on August 12, 2014 at 11:34 AM

No, he is not f***ing right… We won the war in Iraq by 2008 when the islamic terrorist were utterly defeated… It was the welfare queens agitator who decided to leave Iraq without any residual force left behind to prevent the future disasters as we are seeing now..

mnjg on August 12, 2014 at 11:36 AM

Team Obama seldom gets anything right as of late–the Old Greaser felt the need to spike the football on this one. The problem is, the Obama Administration is ALWAYS doing “stupid s***.”

Armyspouse on August 12, 2014 at 11:36 AM

Did we occupy West Germany?

rob verdi on August 12, 2014 at 11:26 AM

For many years, yeah…

JohnGalt23 on August 12, 2014 at 11:36 AM

Hillary in a muu muu

John the Libertarian on August 12, 2014 at 11:36 AM

Great nations need organizing principles, and “Don’t do stupid stuff” is not an organizing principle. It may be a necessary brake on the actions you might take in order to promote a vision.

So Hillary said something I agree with. So, Hillary, what is your ‘vision’?

Fenris on August 12, 2014 at 11:36 AM

So the Obamas put Axe out there to respond to Killary?

Well, I guess Jim Messina was busy plying young boys
for his end of Summer Camp out….

ToddPA on August 12, 2014 at 11:37 AM

Moar Donkey punching please!!!

crrr6 on August 12, 2014 at 11:37 AM

Thin skin for the smartest most powerful man in the room.

Bmore on August 12, 2014 at 11:38 AM

Pretty obviously TFG would have skipped any war vote. Or voted “present”, and gone outside of the chamber to complain he couldn’t possibly vote for a war authorization that gave the President far too much authority. Or had a comma misplaced. Or something equally neutral and fence-sitting.

MTF on August 12, 2014 at 11:40 AM

No, he is not f***ing right… We won the war in Iraq by 2008 when the islamic terrorist were utterly defeated… It was the welfare queens agitator who decided to leave Iraq without any residual force left behind to prevent the future disasters as we are seeing now..

mnjg on August 12, 2014 at 11:36 AM

That’s the talking point everyone on the right seems to have agreed to pretend is true, but it’s obviously wrong. Maliki was still going to treat the Sunnis like crap. He had already started doing it before we left. So the Sunnis were still going to rise up, and a residual American force wouldn’t have helped. Even the force we had there before the Surge wasn’t enough to stabilize Iraq without the concessions Petraeus made to the Sunnis to get them on board, the concessions Maliki revoked.

If we wanted to make democracy there, we had to politically separate the Shias and the Sunnis. It wasn’t optional.

fadetogray on August 12, 2014 at 11:41 AM

Lame.

forest on August 12, 2014 at 11:42 AM

fadetogray on August 12, 2014 at 11:41 AM

Maliki was behaving well when we were in Iraq… It was only when left when he turned into an Iranian stooge…

mnjg on August 12, 2014 at 11:43 AM

Hillary claims that defeating fascists is a good idea, yet defeating the facist, Sadam Hussien… whose people were begging us for help, another of her criteria… was stupid?

Hillary has no business criticizing anyone, she doesn’t even acknowledge her own failings. She contradicts herself inside of her own arguments!!!!

Democrats can not be trusted with foreign policy and nothing any of them say should be taken as un-stupid.

petunia on August 12, 2014 at 11:44 AM

The Clinton machine is very smart politically. What better way for Hillary to distance herself from Obama than a public food fight?

Obama has nothing to lose as a lame duck and the more he reacts to her statements, the more distance is created.

Maybe by the time it’s over the useful idiots everyone will forget that she was even Sec of State?

Y2K on August 12, 2014 at 11:44 AM

This just proves obozo has an Axe to grind with Shrillary.

Flange on August 12, 2014 at 11:45 AM

Th

in skin for the smartest most powerful man in the room.

Bmore on August 12, 2014 at 11:38 AM

Excellent. I remember when ‘we’ concocted that :) Perfect!

Schadenfreude on August 12, 2014 at 11:46 AM

Democrat Uncivil War!!11!!

portlandon on August 12, 2014 at 11:46 AM

*taps fingertips together in sinister fashion*

Good. Good.

Good Lt on August 12, 2014 at 11:47 AM

Because Axelrod, like everyone in the Obama administration is a colossal JACKASS.

Having troops in place in a country is NOT the same as OCCUPATION. We have troops in Germany but don’t OCCUPY Germany; we have troops in Korea but don’t OCCUPY Korea; we have troops in a lot of places that we don’t OCCUPY.

This effing administration is one gigantic CLUSTERF*CK from top to bottom .. not one of them has the sense to come in from the rain….

clippermiami on August 12, 2014 at 11:47 AM

Did we occupy West Germany?

rob verdi on August 12, 2014 at 11:26 AM

For many years, yeah…

JohnGalt23 on August 12, 2014 at 11:36 AM

C’mon now, we occupied one zone for 5-6 years before we formalized an arrangement and kept troops their as allies for 50 or so years.

rob verdi on August 12, 2014 at 11:47 AM

Talk about “stupid shit”. Let me offer as Exhibit A, one Barack Hussein Obama and as Exhibit B, one Hillary Rodham Clinton.

TXUS on August 12, 2014 at 11:48 AM

Nothing to see here..
Only fearmongering and scaring the populace

Ned Pepper on August 11, 2014 at 12:46 PM

Schadenfreude on August 12, 2014 at 11:53 AM

C’mon now, we occupied one zone for 5-6 years before we formalized an arrangement and kept troops their as allies for 50 or so years.

rob verdi on August 12, 2014 at 11:47 AM

You asked. I answered.

And our Dept of State lists it as seven years…

JohnGalt23 on August 12, 2014 at 11:53 AM

Ned Pepper is now in the fetal position, rocking back & forth repeatedly muttering “yes we can”.

portlandon on August 12, 2014 at 11:54 AM

Actually Obama’s azz is a pretty safe place to be.

Ned Pepper on August 11, 2014 at 4:36 PM

Schadenfreude on August 12, 2014 at 11:54 AM

People like Axel”small”rod and Obama don’t even know the difference between the concept of keeping troops in a country for support, that happened be an ALLY, and the concept of an OCCUPATION FORCE.

To idiots like them, there is no difference there. And that shows EXACTLY why Obama’s foreign non-policy is a complete joke and disaster.

Meople on August 12, 2014 at 11:54 AM

HRC: That’s a good lesson but it’s more complicated than that. Because your stupid may not be mine, and vice versa. I don’t think it was stupid for the United States to do everything we could to remove Qaddafi because that came from the bottom up. That was people asking us to help. It was stupid to do what we did in Iraq and to have no plan about what to do after we did it. That was really stupid.

What the h*ll was the *plan* after Qaddafi was *removed*? What composed the “bottom up” in Libya? the jihadists in the camps in eastern Libya that Qaddafi was containing?

HRC is not entitle to her own reality or flabby rationalizations.

onlineanalyst on August 12, 2014 at 11:55 AM

Having a moustache and a comb-over is pretty stupid.

mudskipper on August 12, 2014 at 11:55 AM

Nothing pleases me more than to see these liberal hacks cannibalizing themselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdFLPn30dvQ

Rovin on August 12, 2014 at 11:56 AM

Grifters gotta grift!

Ned Pepper on July 28, 2014 at 9:45 AM

Schadenfreude on August 12, 2014 at 11:57 AM

More in-fighting!

I love it!

Ded Pecker on anyday the OFA check clears at 11:30AM

HumpBot Salvation on August 12, 2014 at 11:58 AM

I … did not expect to see big-name Democratic strategists needling the party’s next nominee over her biggest foreign policy liability in a public forum, but maybe Ax figures he has nothing to lose.

Maybe Axelrod is just that sophomoric?

There Goes the Neighborhood on August 12, 2014 at 11:58 AM

Axelrod hits back at Hillary: When we say “don’t do stupid stuff,” we mean stuff like occupying Iraq

I liked it better when public debate involved something other than bon mots on Twitter.

Happy Nomad on August 12, 2014 at 11:58 AM

I’m his campaign manager! Way to go!

Ned Pepper on August 6, 2014 at 12:54 PM

Schadenfreude on August 12, 2014 at 11:59 AM

Having a moustache and a comb-over is pretty stupid.

mudskipper on August 12, 2014 at 11:55 AM

How about a mustache comb-over? Front to back.

It’d make Axelrod look less the shady mortician and more like Cousin It.

viking01 on August 12, 2014 at 11:59 AM

More GOP infighting. I like it.

Ned Pepper on July 18, 2014 at 12:46 PM

Schadenfreude on August 12, 2014 at 12:00 PM

not to play nation building with barbarians.

fadetogray on August 12, 2014 at 11:34 AM

We had no choice. Having removed Hussein we accepted responsibility for people living in the seventh century and needed to continue to take care of them until they really could stand on their own two feet. A task like that cannot be completed between tweets. It might take a couple generations.

If Zero had kept our people there, none of these recent events would have happened. At the time all Zero cared about was the optics of bringing all of our soldiers home, with utter disregard for the consequences.

Socialist mental defectives never care about consequences.

dogsoldier on August 12, 2014 at 12:01 PM

Apparently, it’s true what they say about no honor amongst thieves.

Hening on August 12, 2014 at 12:01 PM

And out from under a rock comes Axelrod

jake49 on August 12, 2014 at 12:03 PM

My fantasies trump any facts. Period.

Ned Pepper on anyday, 2014 at anytime PM

VegasRick on August 12, 2014 at 12:08 PM

Reading the book ‘Blood Feud’ by Klein, it appears that the Obamas and Clintons are irreconcilable enemies; So long as Obama lives and breathes, Clinton will NEVER occupy the White House again. Likewise, the Clintons detest and despise President Obama. It’s partly politics — Hillary and Bill’s triangulation is anathema to Obama — and it’s also personal, a trail of broken promises and bad faith.

So what we’re seeing here is the Democrat civil war. It is on. If Obama has any say in the 2016 nomination, it will NOT be Hillary. For this not to happen, Hillary and Bill have to destroy Obama as the leader of the Democrat party.

Which is why previously loyal media outlets are now criticizing Obama — they’re Clinton shills out to assist in Hillary’s takeover. You didn’t seriously believe it was because the stink was so bad they had to notice, did you? These people covered for perjury. I don’t think there’s anything the lamestream media can’t ignore.

Of course, the fact that they believe they have the freedom to indulge in this kind of civil war implies they have no fear whatsoever of the Republican party.

pendell2 on August 12, 2014 at 12:08 PM

It angers me to no end, by 2009 we were in alliance with an elected Iraqi government. Iraqis by and large we on our side. Roadside accidents were a bigger threat then IED’s, and the left tossed it all away to deliver a defeat on the United States.

rob verdi on August 12, 2014 at 11:32 AM

This is the second time in my life I’ve seen this occur. The first was Viet Nam where we won all the battles and lost the war thanks to the left’s perfidy.

JLyons on August 12, 2014 at 12:10 PM

We had no choice. Having removed Hussein we accepted responsibility for people living in the seventh century and needed to continue to take care of them until they really could stand on their own two feet. A task like that cannot be completed between tweets. It might take a couple generations.

Are you really intending to say we cannot invade to depose a mortal enemy without taking on responsibility to sacrifice our young and bankrupt ourselves trying to civilize savages who hate us?

I mean this respectfully, but that is State Department nuttiness. It is hubris that comes with having too much power for too long. It is not our obligation to send our young men to die to civilize people who hate us. We don’t take on that obligation when we slay a dangerous monster.

If Zero had kept our people there, none of these recent events would have happened.

Of course they would. Why do you think Maliki was insisting on our troops being subject to Iraqi courts and law before he would sign a SOFA?

At the time all Zero cared about was the optics of bringing all of our soldiers home, with utter disregard for the consequences.

Socialist mental defectives never care about consequences.

dogsoldier on August 12, 2014 at 12:01 PM

That part is completely true. The only thing Obama is ever doing is campaigning. It’s what he knows.

fadetogray on August 12, 2014 at 12:14 PM

I love cannibalism in the democrat party.

DAT60A3 on August 12, 2014 at 12:18 PM

Time for SAMS CLUB/COSTCO giant size bag of popcorn. It sounds like the Dem war is about to began

ConservativePartyNow on August 12, 2014 at 12:18 PM

Popcorn anyone?

cmsinaz on August 12, 2014 at 11:26 AM

I’m going in tomorrow for popcorn detoxification. I’ve got stalks growing out of my ears.

No thanks…

Kraken on August 12, 2014 at 12:19 PM

By next Novemeber Democrats will be openly running on the ACA. Mark my words.

libfreeordie on December 20, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Schadenfreude on August 12, 2014 at 12:20 PM

Just curious: have we received any threats from the country of Iraq since “occupying” them?

No? I didn’t think so.

Marcus Traianus on August 12, 2014 at 12:20 PM

What’s amusing is that they use that early opposition to the Iraq War-as a state senator, in a seat where he needed to run way left-as proof of Obama’s forward thinking on issues, but he’s yet to demonstrate that same thinking as president. Especially on foreign policy…the overthrow of Qaddafi created a power vacuum in Libya that has led to the country devolving into chaos, from which we’ve completely disengaged. Could he not see that coming? Could he not see that not adhering to the red line he himself put down with respect to Syria would lead to not only a substantial loss of credibility, but also the emboldening of the terrorists who’ve since been on the march towards Baghdad?

He’s done plenty of stupid stuff in office, which you can see across the globe today.

changer1701 on August 12, 2014 at 12:24 PM

Thank you, President Obama!

Ned Pepper on August 11, 2014 at 3:47 PM

Schadenfreude on August 12, 2014 at 12:26 PM

For many years, yeah…
JohnGalt23 on August 12, 2014 at 11:36 AM

I don’t think you really understand what “occupy” means. Maybe you could ask verbadouche since he/she has one of those LeapPad toys with interwebs access.

Nutstuyu on August 12, 2014 at 12:28 PM

obama’s “true position” is whatever one gets them the most votes, first of all. it’s always been all about him, not ideology. second of all, nobody voted for an occupation. that was all bush.

independent76 on August 12, 2014 at 12:34 PM

Would anyone trust Axelrod alone in a room with young girls?

The sleaze just drips off of him.

HumpBot Salvation on August 12, 2014 at 12:36 PM

Yes: Popcorn

More GOP infighting. I like it.

Ned Pepper on July 18, 2014 at 12:46 PM

Schadenfreude on August 12, 2014 at 12:00 PM

Thank you. My thought exactly.

CW on August 12, 2014 at 12:36 PM

Hmmmmm

and can you think of any former senators/secretaries of state who voted to do that?

IS THAT NOT the ELEPHANT in the ROOM?

CW on August 12, 2014 at 12:37 PM

Like Kinetic Military action? Or leading from behind?

antisocial on August 12, 2014 at 12:41 PM

I … did not expect to see big-name Democratic strategists needling the party’s next nominee over her biggest foreign policy liability in a public forum, but maybe Ax figures he has nothing to lose. He’s not going to have a role in a new Clinton administration; his crime against the throne in steering Obama to victory over her six years ago is too great to be forgiven. He’s better off protecting his and O’s legacy, he probably figures, by reminding a skeptical base that she voted for “Bush’s war” while Obama opposed it.

If Axelrod thinks there’s a chance of a progressive uprising against Hillary, look for his fingerprints to be all over the Liz Warren campaign — he won’t be out-front about it, because that would lead to an open war between the Clinton and Obama camps that the big media couldn’t avoid covering. But Axelrod wants to play the gender card in 2012 as much as Hillary does, just not with her, but in the same way he played the racial angle in 2007-08 with Obama.

This could be lots of fun to watch, especially if Team Clinton decides the hard-core left Hillary could lose in the primaries by being hostile to Obama is more than offset by labeling Fauxahontas or anyone Axlerod helps as “Obama’s candidate”

jon1979 on August 12, 2014 at 12:43 PM

Thin skin for the smartest most powerful man in the room.

Bmore on August 12, 2014 at 11:38 AM

Yeah, underneath his poseur BS he knows we’re all laughing at him.

Jaibones on August 12, 2014 at 12:44 PM

Considering his Messiah was willing to take credit for the quiet there just a few years ago.

I wonder who advised him to do it?

formwiz on August 12, 2014 at 12:44 PM

His first Secretary of State voted for war in Iraq, as did her successor (who was, by the way, the party’s nominee for president in 2004 served in Vietnam).

FIFY Allah.

UnstChem on August 12, 2014 at 12:45 PM

I would like to point out the former faculty lounge lizards who occupy the government know nothing of the world. Their whole lives were occupied by critiquing the acts of those who lead the world past dangers in the past. To leave a conquered nation (Iraq) prematurely as we did, because Obama opposed the war therefore was willing to leave the Iraqis to their fate. Those who understood the office in past days, left our forces in those places where our best interests could be served as well as that of the people of that land. Obama, and his ilk. Thanks to historian lying Zinn, Obama feels America had no business doing what it has had to do and has acted accordingly. This all proves elections have consequences. Thanks.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on August 12, 2014 at 12:50 PM

Carter gave the world the mullahs of Iran.

Obama will give the world an islamist caliphate.

The world can’t take much more SMART Power!!!!111!!!!elebinty.

jukin3 on August 12, 2014 at 12:56 PM

Yep Dave, you’re great at not occupying Iraq. You are also great at aiding terrorists to come to power to attack Iraq.

You guys are good.

hawkdriver on August 12, 2014 at 12:59 PM

fadetogray on August 12, 2014 at 12:14 PM

So you advocate invading a country assassinating their leader and then driving off into the sunset without looking back?

Besides being immoral it will leave a power vacuum that will get filled by undesirable elements.

I have never been a fan of State department drivel. In this case taking care of the people of Iraq was and is in our own interests.

Nature hates a vacuum, it tends to fill it with terrorists.

We did the right thing. We should have stayed and continued to guide them. Look at what is happening in Libya. There, Imperious reader did as you suggest. He removed Qaddafi, got him killed and now what is Libya? Anarchy and a hell hole filled with terrorists.

Maliki had pulled that nonsense before about the SOFA and always backed off. If we had permanent bases there, AQ and ISIS would not have attacked.

Bottom line here is Zero wanted out, to SHIRK OUR RESPONSIBILITY and now the helpless are murdered because of it. The blood of all those butchered by ISIS is on Obama’s hands.

dogsoldier on August 12, 2014 at 1:03 PM

Just to clarify: “Don’t do stupid stuff” means stuff like occupying Iraq in the first place, which was a tragically bad decision.

Didn’t Axelrod once have a reputation for intelligence? He’s turning into the Karl Rove of the Democrat Party.

Hillary specifically mentioned the occupation of Iraq as “stupid stuff”:

It was stupid to do what we did in Iraq and to have no plan about what to do after we did it.

Had Axelrod stated that the decision to invade itself was stupid, I would understand his point, and he would score points against Clinton, who voted to invade, while Obama has been resolutely opposed from day one. Instead, he blew it. I mean, how inept do you have to be to let Hillary “Libya was a success story” Clinton win this round.

Joseph K on August 12, 2014 at 1:13 PM

I don’t think you really understand what “occupy” means. Maybe you could ask verbadouche since he/she has one of those LeapPad toys with interwebs access.

Nutstuyu on August 12, 2014 at 12:28 PM

Perhaps you should take it up with the US Dept of State

JohnGalt23 on August 12, 2014 at 1:13 PM

I don’t think it was stupid for the United States to do everything we could to remove Qaddafi because that came from the bottom up. That was people asking us to help.

“You ask for it, you get it” and “bottom’s up” aren’t exactly foreign policy “organizing principles” either, but since the Obama administration is on the wrong side of Libya as well…

Joseph K on August 12, 2014 at 1:17 PM

Stupid $#!+? Not seeking Congressional approval for Benghazi. Overthrowing Gaddafi. Not providing sufficient security to the Benghazi mission. Supporting Morsi. Not sending a rescue mission to Benghazi. Snubbing the Saudis and other Gulf States. Failing to conclude a SoFA with Iraq. Hitting the reset button with Russia. Alienating the Canadians over Keystone XL. Interfering in Honduran politics. P!$$!ng away a budding relationship with India. Allowing IS to take control of vast swathes of territory in Iraq and Syria. Not arming the Kurds, or the Ukrainians, or providing missile defense to Poland or the Czech Republic. Not responding to China’s provocations throughout the East China and South China seas.

I really hope that Hillary slams Obama. Don’t go after Axelrod. If it weren’t for his association with Obama, he’d be written off as a nobody sycophant. Go after Obama himself, and do it in the most personal way possible.

Esaus Message on August 12, 2014 at 1:17 PM

I know, I know — he gave a speech opposing the war in 2002, when he was a state senator. I’m willing to grant that that was his heartfelt position; what I’m asking is, would he have voted for the war anyway?

At that time about 60% of the country supported the Iraq invasion. I have no doubt that Barack Obama would have voted for it if he had been in the U.S. Senate. He also would have joined the rest of his party in turning against the mission when things started to get difficult in 2005.

TarheelBen on August 12, 2014 at 1:22 PM

Or maybe stupid like pulling out of a country and leaving a power vacuum that results in the execution and ‘ethnic cleansing’ of innocent people? That kind of stupid stuff?

Would that be Iraq or Libya…or both?

Techster64 on August 12, 2014 at 1:31 PM

dogsoldier on August 12, 2014 at 1:03 PM

You have not thought through the morality of it. What should your country do if a tyrant it had beaten in war signed an armistice, and then the tyrant violated the armistice over and over again, continued to make common cause with your country’s enemies and attempted to assassinate your leader who had beaten him and with whom he’d signed the armistice,

AND

your country only had enough resources to invade and depose the tyrant, but lacked the resources (manpower, wealth, whatever) to build and civilize the country over the following 50 years?

Would your country then have no right to invade and depose the tyrant?

You suffer from the same hubris our State Department has. We are not God. Our resources are not unlimited.

Now LOOK AT WHAT HAS HAPPENED.

Who was right in 2003? Me or the State Department?

fadetogray on August 12, 2014 at 1:40 PM

fadetogray on August 12, 2014 at 1:40 PM

What I have is not hubris. You either don’t do a thing or you do it all the way. Look at Libya. That is the end result of what you advocate.

dogsoldier on August 12, 2014 at 1:44 PM

*taps fingertips together in sinister fashion*

Good. Good.

Good Lt on August 12, 2014 at 11:47 AM

Yes, this is a nice turn of events. There’s nothing President Petulant abhors more than criticism. And to think they’d do it during his vacay! And from a fellow party member! The horrors. If the criticism continues, Obama will implode. Oh, yes he can!

conservative pilgrim on August 12, 2014 at 1:46 PM

Jake Tapper ✔ @jaketapper

Hmmmmm

and can you think of any former senators/secretaries of state who voted to do that?

https://twitter.com/davidaxelrod/status/499193669975834624
10:12 AM – 12 Aug 2014

Thank you Jake tapper for reminding everyone what is a matter of record; something the people have not forgotten.

conservative pilgrim on August 12, 2014 at 1:48 PM

Had Axelrod stated that the decision to invade itself was stupid, I would understand his point, and he would score points against Clinton, who voted to invade, while Obama has been resolutely opposed from day one.

Joseph K on August 12, 2014 at 1:13 PM

they didn’t vote for an “invasion.” they authorized “force.” bush determined what that force would consist of.

independent76 on August 12, 2014 at 1:49 PM

independent76 on August 12, 2014 at 1:49 PM

So what’s your point?

Joseph K on August 12, 2014 at 2:02 PM

What I have is not hubris. You either don’t do a thing or you do it all the way. Look at Libya. That is the end result of what you advocate.

dogsoldier on August 12, 2014 at 1:44 PM

You have it backwards. I was adamantly opposed to our helping topple Ghadafi.

He was a despicable tyrant who richly deserved what he got, but he had genuinely submitted, something Saddam had refused to do. He was no longer a threat to us. What we did there was way beyond stupid. We punished the guy who had submitted.

Why would any tyrant ever yield to us when he sees what it gets him rape, torture and gruesome death?

BTW, what I was advocating for us to do in Iraq in 2003 was splitting up the country into three parts and letting each part decide what they wanted to do. Arm them all and leave, letting them all know invasions of their neighbors would draw down our wrath. I never would have disbanded the Republican Guard, leaving the Sunnis helpless against Shia revenge.

That way the relative moderates in each part would hold the political high ground instead of the radicals getting control as the best people to fight the enemy.

We could have done that and left by late 2004.

fadetogray on August 12, 2014 at 2:06 PM

The world is on fire.

Fuc*tard Susan Rice, the “national security adviser” sent a letter to Boehner “to close the Iraq war act” because “the war is over”.

Talk about a stupid political hag!

At State this morning there is pandemonium.

They don’t know how to keep the leftist latrine rats, the far leftists, in check on obama being back in Iraq.

“Chimpey” ruining the Ds is the height of irony.

Schadenfreude on August 12, 2014 at 11:26 AM

Imagine the talking points. “Republicans in congress have forced us to abandon the Yazidis and Kurds in their time of need!”

Then, when congress has re-authorized the use of force they can run against the (new) war in Iraq.

AbeFroman on August 12, 2014 at 2:08 PM

fadetogray on August 12, 2014 at 2:06 PM

That might have worked.

But that isn’t what we did. Up until 2009 Iraq was stable, things were going along ok. The real problems began erupting in Afghanistan.

Zero abandoned Iraq before they were able to take care of themselves. Maintaining a presence there would not have been a big expense. How long have we been on Japan, Korea and Germany?

Obama is 100% responsible for the deaths in the middle east.

dogsoldier on August 12, 2014 at 2:26 PM

they didn’t vote for an “invasion.” they authorized “force.” bush determined what that force would consist of.

independent76 on August 12, 2014 at 1:49 PM

It’s all Bush’s fault right?

Everyone was for turning the other cheek back then right?

The Al Qaeda training camps in Iraq were another of Bush’s lies right?

Right after 9/11, I happened to be working with a young Somali man who had just immigrated to the U.S. He said it made total sense to invade Iraq in retaliation. According to him, growing up in Somali, everyone there knew that when you joined Al Qaeda, you’d be shipped off to Iraq for “boot camp” at an Al Qaeda training camp.

UnstChem on August 12, 2014 at 2:35 PM

Obama is 100% responsible for the deaths in the middle east.

dogsoldier on August 12, 2014 at 2:26 PM

I agree. IMO Bush spent lives and treasure poorly, and the basic plan was fatally flawed, but the current chaos and slaughter is all Obama’s.

Obama had every opportunity to fix what Bush had screwed up. He would have had to effectively hold a gun to Maliki’s head and made him put the concessions Petraeus had made to the Sunnis into their constitution or something of the sort, but as long as we were the power there on the ground it could have been done.

Instead he decided to double down and complete the Plan Built To Blow Up, leaving the Shias in a position to take political revenge. Maliki’s misbehavior followed just as sure as night follows day. Scorpions, leopard spots and all that.

fadetogray on August 12, 2014 at 2:49 PM

Keep talking, Axy.

22044 on August 12, 2014 at 3:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2