Iraq in chaos

Muslim militias have been seizing city after city in Iraq. They haven't taken Baghdad or much US-funded military equipment yet, but they could. I'm not sure where it will end up, especially for a country with so strong a secular tradition coming under militant Muslim rule.

The whole thing worries me more than Ukraine did/does. Freepers should be worried too, lest this proof of NeoCon failure redound to the GOP. Luckily for them, they're too busy justifying for themselves why Obama is to blame for going into Iraq to worry about politics.

lacrew explains that you need to forget Bush entirely:

Things have to be viewed from the time Barry took office.

It doesn’t matter who got us into Iraq or why. Barry’s decisions should be evaluated based on the situation in front of him, on Jan 20, 2009....which was a fairly stable Iraq, with an army being trained, elections being held, etc.

tbw2 actually blames the Bergdahl affair for the violence:

Obama trades 5 top Taliban leaders for one deserter. And pretty much capitulates on terrorism by releasing others, too, from Afghan prisons.

Within a month, a terrorist group that hardly had an impact in Iraq takes over a large swath of a country that managed two separate elections and handover of government from one president to another - something Afghanistan has yet to achieve.

Obama’s total weakness led to the loss of a nation Bush won.

Williams - liberals all love losing wars.

Even if it’s not his fault, it’s his responsibility.

What has he done with that responsibility?

Folks, I’m amazed if people don’t understand that because of their backgrounds, Obama, Kerry and Hagel, all WANT to lose in Iraq.

That is what they insisted on in Vietnam. Liberals are sick.

Williams also blames Bush for not invading more countries:

The only “fault” of Bush is that when we had everything in the world in Iraq, he should have taken out Syria as well and done the hard work. Also should have pressured the hell out of Iran and maybe reduced their nuke and other capabilities.

But yes, if Obama wasn’t a cowardly leftist who can’t consider helping Iraq, none of this would have been necessary. He easily could have taken lots of actions to prevent this, from a continued US presence, to effective action in Syria.

blueunicorn6 blames Obama for doing things beyond Iraq.

Obama has had, what, 172 golf days since he took office?

Iraq is falling apart, and Obama is so concerned that he goes to a high school graduation and tells everyone how bad the Republicans are.

Golf and gab......that’s what you get from Obama.

Yorlik803 has some damning math:

Obama Cant Blame Bush for this any longer. He owns this one. Something like 75% of wounded and dead Americans happened after Obama took office. And Obama don’t care. He really is a sad person.

Logical me proclaims Obama a King in the same sentence he wants him impeached...

Yes the violence must now be blamed on King Obama. This blood bath is directly charged to his withdrawal of our troops. King Obama must be impeached NOW!

A 1998 Freeper, Romulus has not gotten with the program.

Give it up. There were no WMDs. Iraq was a railroad job engineered by Cheney, Rumsfeld, & Co. The power vacuum we created in 2003 has been filled by violent islamists — as I predicted at the time. Obama’s failure is in doing nothing to redeem the situation and in positively supporting the islamists in Syria and elsewhere. Obama took a bad situation and made it worse. But Bush destabilized the region, to his everlasting infamy. Second worst president ever.

Poor Graewoulf.

What does it take for Boehner to begin Articles of Impeachment for the Democrat’s Obama?

Rennes Templar thinks the only way to keep soldiers from dying is to keep them in Iraq.

The shame should be over the waste of US soldiers lives. If Obama had followed through with military presence, I believe Iraq would be stable. The only way to keep the sectarian violence down is with a strong deterent. I think the extremists could have been marginalized. Now, forget it.