Senator Lindsay Graham appeared on CNN and said the following about President Obama and Iraq.
"Stubborn-headed, delusional, detached president," [Graham] said.There can be no greater example of hard headedness than the same folks who were proven disastrously wrong-headed in cheerleading this nation into a needless war in Iraq now insisting that America should go back in. I literally thank God that John McCain did not win the 2008 election and that Romney was defeated in 2012, because either one of those would be Presidents have made clear that they would like to continue America's misguided militarism in Iraq.
"Get into the game, Mr. President. You can -- leaders are judged not by the fact that they never make a mistake, but how they adjust to their mistakes. Bush made plenty of mistakes. I have made plenty of mistakes. Obama has made plenty of mistakes. But we have an opportunity -- and time is running out -- to turn this around. Get involved with airpower. Stop the march toward Baghdad. Deal with Syria. But get a new government in place as quickly as you can that will bring the Iraqis back together for a counteroffensive."
Talk about delusional and detached: Graham advocating the overthrow of the Iraqi government ("get a new government in place that will bring Iraqis back together") while also saying the US should only get involved with airpower defines detached delusion. Later in the interview Graham contradicts his own wish for the Iraqi government to be replaced when he says:
"If Baghdad falls and the central government collapses in Iraq, the Iranians are the biggest winner, we're the biggest loser."Just what is it man? Are you for the Iraqi central government or against it? I mean pick a side here, we're at war! Or at least Senator Graham would like us to be at war...
Graham's read on what is best for the Iranians is not based in reality. The current Iraqi central government is an Iranian client state. If that government falls Iranians would be the biggest loser, and anyone with any sense of the loyalties in the region knows that.
My take on what Republicans actually support is crossposted at Allthingsdemocrat, and continues below the orange turd.
Graham's confusion as to whether or not the government of Iraq should be tossed or supported is emblematic of the unhinged approach taken by the right to current events in the region as a whole. Republicans are advocating that America militarily support of the Iraqi government, while also advocating that it be replaced... while arguing that President Obama should also give more support to the Syrian insurgents, against a backdrop of right wing pressure for America to go to war with Iran.
If one considers the situation on the ground at this moment it is obvious that the Republican position is completely untenable. Iran is currently supplying arms and troops to the Maliki government to combat the Sunni insurgents. Iran is also using Iraq as a conduit for supplying arms and men to Syrian dictator Bashar Al Assad who is facing the same Sunni insurgents that are fighting the Iraqi government.
Republicans would like for us to simultaneously attack Iran while supporting their interests in Iraq, battling the Sunni insurgency in Iraq while supporting the Sunni's in Syria. If Republicans had their way we would be allied with factions that we were simultaneously at war with depending on which side of three different borders the battle took place.
Imagine American and Iranian forces in Iraq battling the common enemy, aka Sunni insurgents. If our side pushed the insurgents over the Syrian border, Republicans advocate that American forces would suddenly start to fight alongside the Sunni insurgents against the Iranian forces and Syrian forces.
That is the insanity that Republicans are calling for right now. Perhaps they would support a sort of ping pong type battle back and forth over the Syrian/Iranian border until everyone except American forces were killed or captured.
Frankly, to understand what Republicans support or oppose when it comes to the Middle East all one needs to do is consider what President Obama supports, and then take the opposite side, no matter what sort of logic pretzel one must twist oneself in to justify that position.