Red-diaper baby David Horowitz famously walked away from the Left. Now he's walking away from his neoconservative illusions. The Right, which largely backed George W. Bush's nation-building efforts to bring democracy to the Middle East, would be wise to follow Horowitz's lead. Read my column @ Human Events on why admitting mistakes is a sign of strength, not weakness.

Right, wrong or indifferent, we never leave, do we? There were allegedly legitmate reasons that had us go into Iraq in the first place. But we're still there. Ditto Afghanistan. Hell, we still have troops on Korea and over 60 years later Germany.

So, will our most recent and weakly constructed reasoning for military intervention in the Middle East ever end? Or will we again interfere and continue to nation build.

Rome collapsed for a number of reasons. Spreading it's military too thin and being more involved with the affairs of foreign countries rather than taking care of business at home was another.

America's modern day Nero seems to be leading us on the same path. But, that's just the way he planned it, isn't it?

What changed that led to this wondrous metamorphosis? Obushma is President. Admitting mistakes is a sign of strength or politically opportunistic.

You'd never find asdf criticizing these same policies, either, when GWB was President. But he very conveniently changes his tune now that Obushma is President.

You would be wrong. Again.

Although I will admit, that I didn't criticize necessarily but I did question a lot and certainly was not in full agreement with what GW did with regard to Iraq OR Afghanistan.

I realize your 'one size fits all' thought process has a hard time with that.

Ultimately, I didn't criticize initially as my belief was that there was enough data and facts to warrant at least a military intervention in Iraq. There was hard intelligence suggesting that Barack Hussein….sorry, Saddam Hussein was in fact developing nuclear weapons and would be a major destabilizing factor in the Middle East much as he had been conventionally in the past.

Also, he had skirted at least 17 U.N. Resolutions and refused to allow inspectors to investigate his facilities. And when put before Congress there was solid support even by some pretty famous Lefties who voted for war (Kerry, Clinton, Biden, Reid, etc.).

I was on board until the mission became a policing operation and one of building democracy and nation. Over time, it has proven to be a losing proposition and we will need to be there for quite some time to see that come to fruition.

It's one thing to criticize going in in the first place. But once you're in, you can't just walk away.

And if we destroyed such order as there was in Iraq, we have an obligation to restore order. Simply leaving a decapitated Iraq in a state of anarchy, in addition to being unjust, would have led to worse evils than merely leaving Hussein in place. So once we went in, nation-building was inevitable and obligatory. And again, you can't just walk away.

I think the problem with Iraq and Afghanistan is that we have never had an exit strategy, or a good plan to restore order once we brought down our enemies.

No plan? What have our alleged leaders been doing for the last nine years? There has been no time or the brain power to have formulated an exit strategy?

Sadly, it seems apparent that you're probably right. If, in fact, the powers that be do want exit. But unless I'm missing the really big picture, we need to exit, sooner than later, and if we haven't laid the groundwork by now for that exit, when? Ever?

I'd feel a lot better if we were actually keeping our military there to exploit Iraqi oil. Anything short of that, no more American military and no more American Welfare.

It is comical to me that one would merge the names of Obama and G.W. to insinuate that they are one in the same.

Considering that Bush spent $3.2 Trillion in eight years and Obama has spent $4.4 Trillion in just under three years is more than enough to separate them even though both were big spenders.

But the main difference and the most important one is that Bush actually liked the United States of America and respected its sovereignty. Especially with regard to how the world viewed us. Obama could care less and in fact goes out of his way to $hite on the country that he purports to lead. He, like his freeloading wife, are not proud of this country and he shows it by doing things like killing our energy industry while propping up like industries in foreign countries and his insistence on going into a war with a country that has posed no immediate threat to us just to show how the United States is ready to take a back seat to other coalition forces while looking up to the United Nations and Arab League and at the same time dismissing the Congress of the United States.

Outside of their stand on how to handle an alien invasion, they could not be more different. Although, by great degree, they both do $uck.

asdf,

I know you don't care about facts, and have little grasp of them, but they're very important.

Most of the Bush/Obushma differences are cosmetic. The only significant differences are LGBTQ stances and the nomination of Sotomayor and Kagan. (although Lindsey Graham has sung the praises of Kagan's belief in the unitary executive theory; a Kagan replacement of JPStevens undeniably shifted the court further to the right)

I believe in the transformational power of liberty. I believe that the free Iraq is in this nation's interests. I believe a free Afghanistan is in this nation's interest.
-GWB

For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and advocate for human freedom. Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world's many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That is what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks
-Obushma

There are slight differences in the delivery and presentation, but the content and doctrines are identical.

Bush-Obushma Economic Policy Continuity

"The Bush-Obama plan had a stimulus package which failed, they came back with a housing package, which failed. They then had a 700 billion Wall Street plan which failed. There is a Bush-Obama continuity in economic policy, which is frankly a disaster for this country and cannot work."
-Newt Gingrich 2/27/2009
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/27/gingrich-claims-disastrou_n_170577.html

(1) Continued Bush-Paulson regime TARP

(2) Advocates neo-liberal market reform policies (free-market privatization programs like CAFTA, NAFTA, S. Korea Trade Pact)

(3) Capture of regulatory arms of government by Wall Street interests and power players (Geithner and Goldman Sachs, et. al. -- Paulson and Goldman Sachs, et. al.)

(4) Maintained Bush era tax cuts for the wealthy

(5) Maintained generous subsidies for corporations (corporate welfare)

(6) Maintains 2000+ page tax loophole for corporations (US corporations now pay lower per capita taxes than any other industrialized nation, despite Tea Bag idiots bleating "highest rates in the world")
-http://www.phillytrib.com/tribune/newsheadlines/18187-support-for-corporate-tax-reform-on-the-rise.html
-http://www.ips-dc.org/articles/stop_corporate_tax_dodging_talking_points_and_background_information

Bush-Obushma National Surveillance State Continuity

(1)Maintained and expanded Bush terror policies.

“The new administration has been as aggressive, if not more aggressive, in pursuing these issues . . . ” [Bush CIA Director Michael] Hayden, who is most often cited for the unlawful surveillance programs under Bush, stated “I thank God every day for the continuity” shown by Obama in continuing Bush’s approach to the law and terror.
-http://jonathanturley.org/2010/12/27/bush-officials-praise-obama-for-going-further-than-bush-in-terror-crackdown/

(2) Maintained Bush Iraq withdrawal timetable; has now violated and extended Iraq commitment

(3) Expanded Bush occupation of Afghanistan

This took about 8 minutes and I could go on and on, but I'm bored with this already. Anybody who tries to make a meaningful distinction between GWB and Obushma is generally a Tea Bag retard or tribalist/loyalist.

There's a "Q" now? WTF?

lol, Homer--"questioning"

I re-read my post and I tried to find something that I wrote that was not a fact. Maybe just not the 'facts' you're looking for, eh?

And this obsession with T.A.R.P., like one day Bush woke up and just thought it would be a great idea.

Don't forget he was cleaning up the mess the Dems made starting with the total F up of the housing market.