Unfounded

The Latest Attack On the President and Its Disregard for Reality

By: Jeff McDonough

President Obama is not the founder of ISIS. Anyone with a brain knows this. And while it’s reckless for a presidential candidate to talk in this manner, that’s not my main point here today, because the explanation we’re getting is that he didn’t mean it literally. He meant that basically President Obama has been weak on ISIS and the vacuum created by the way we pulled out of Iraq after the war birthed an environment in which ISIS was able to thrive. Which is a fine explanation, much more nuanced in delivery. There’s just one problem, it’s not true.

I’m no accomplished foreign policy expert, but I’m guessing you aren’t either, angry conservative relative who inevitably gives me grief over this column. So let’s just look at what actually happened. In 2008, President Bush signed the US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, or as it was officially known, “Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq.” Rolls right off the tongue. That arrangement — signed by President Bush, don’t forget — was an effective end to “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” The Status of Forces Agreement stated that the US would start withdrawing forces from Iraqi cities in Summer 2009 and that all of them HAD to be out of the country by the end of 2011. What ended up happening? The last of our troops left on December 16, 2011.

President Obama — who, if my research is correct, is a different person than President Bush — had no choice but to withdrawal entirely from Iraq or violate international law, after his Republican predecessor set up this agreement. Listen, I’m a registered Independent, and I like to think pretty moderate, so I enjoy needling both sides when I feel they get out of line. The “weak on ISIS” claim for President Obama is ironic to some, because he is often criticized by the left for going too far in his quest to thwart them by ushering in the era of drones, AKA indiscriminately killing people with flying robots. Either way, what bothers me — in this case and in all cases — is the complete disregard of facts.

We can have our debates and both sides can build arguments. That’s great. That’s democracy. We need that balance so we can find a happy medium. That’s healthy. But when you divorce yourself from reality so much that the truth no longer matters, then what the fuck are we doing here? I’m not sure why this particular topic drew my ire so much out of all the ridiculousness the last year has provided us during this bizzaro-world circus of an election. I think it’s that it’s so easy to directly refute things that otherwise intelligent people — and also some that can’t be described so kindly — are saying on big platforms. Do you not have the internet? And why do so few remember this anyway? This isn’t the War of 1812 we’re talking about! This was less than eight years ago.

So to sum up, the Iraq War sucked, dog. We all know it sucked. You can’t retroactively pin its effects on Barry. Not saying it’s all W’s fault either. International affairs are much more complicated than putting the blame on a singular scapegoat. Go figure. But it was a Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad War. It happens. The Dems had it happen with Vietnam, now it’s your turn. Another thing, the Sunni and Shi’a have been feuding for CENTURIES in this region. One war, much less the exact manner in which we pulled out of said war, is just a drop in the bucket as far as reasons for the lack of peace in the Middle East. And what, we were gonna stay there forever to make sure they stopped fighting, like a helicopter mom? No, of course not. That’s ridiculous, and both parties knew this in 2008. So it’s over guys. Enough with this fallacy. The GIF below is a much closer representation of President Obama’s role in the Iraq War. Let’s all move on. Just take the L.