Then there's this: "The Democratic narrative is that President Bush started the cascade of dominoes. The problem with that logic is that Obama administration officials were boasting just a couple of years ago about how peaceful and successful Iraq had become because of their fine work." Again: It's just "the Democratic narrative," not an objective fact, that Bush "started the cascade of dominoes." .Just the latest Kristof embarrassment. And let's not forget that he strongly urged Obama to bomb Syria last year--which would have aided the ISIS rebels.
Earlier: So how would the NYT (so responsible for getting us into Iraq in the first place ack in 2003) come down on urging action by Obama now to stem the tide there? In an editorial posted tonight the Times declares:
The United States has a strategic interest in Iraq’s stability and Mr. Obama on Thursday said America was ready to do more, without going into detail. But military action seems like a bad idea right now. The United States simply cannot be sucked into another round of war in Iraq. In any case, airstrikes and new weapons would be pointless if the Iraqi Army is incapable of defending the country.Meanwhile, David Brooks in a new column tonight blames it all on....Obama. Of course, he leaves out the part about the Iraqi ordering us to get out. "The president says his doctrine is don’t do stupid stuff. Sometimes withdrawal is the stupidest thing of all."
Why would the United States want to bail out a dangerous leader like Mr. Maliki, who is attempting to remain in power for a third term as prime minister? It is up to Iraq’s leaders to show leadership and name a new prime minister who will share power, make needed reforms and include all sectarian and ethnic groups, especially disenfranchised Sunnis, in the country’s political and economic life — if, indeed, it is not too late.