By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
Obama is latest president whose policies, lies hurt Mideast stability
Placeholder Image

Everyone's angry over President Barack Obama's policy for the Middle East. Conservatives say he hasn't been hawkish enough to fight and win their wars; progressives feel betrayed because Obama did the opposite of what he promised to do when he spoke about bringing change to government.

Obama can now claim he's supporting proxy armies in Syria for the same reason we were fighting in Vietnam: to stop Russia and communism. Of course, before that, I remember Obama said we were in Syria to fight ISIS and terrorism, and before that we were supporting Islamic militants including al-Qaida to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Where's the truth? I'm reminded of the Bush administration's shifting rationales for the war in Iraq.

What is Obama's justification for attacking Assad and Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi? Neither of them threatened us. Conservatives claim it's in our national interest, but this agenda doesn't align with moral law, just war doctrine, the Founder's principles, or the public interest.

U.S. proxies and ISIS have attacked, destabilized or overthrown practically every country in the region except Israel. Something crooked is going on here. Obama must explain what we are doing and why. We deserve answers, especially after the failure of U.S. military missions in Iraq and Libya. These missions were disasters, unless we intended to topple stable governments that helped maintain regional security and replace them with chaos, Islamic extremists and civil war.

Would it be cynical to suggest Obama wants to duplicate that sorry outcome in Syria? Did Obama lie about change to get elected so he could complete the unfinished agenda of the previous administration?

Republicans won't impeach Obama, though the case against him is far stronger than the one they brought against Bill Clinton. Instead, they've spent all their energy pursuing a witch hunt against Hillary Clinton over a rogue email server and the Benghazi incident.

We deserve honest politicians. Dishonesty should be grounds for censure. This was supposedly the basis for impeachment of Bill Clinton, who was trapped into lying about a sexual relationship while testifying before the Whitewater investigation. Things have changed. Instead of requiring honesty, we now have a situation where republican House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy was forced to resign for telling the truth, specifically for saying or inferring the House Select Committee on Benghazi was created with the cynical intent to politically damage Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Whitewater was a GOP investigation of the Clintons' business activities that found nothing and wound up questioning Bill about sexual affairs. These investigations obviously were intended to create scandal and do political damage. Republicans count on the fact the public has a short memory and won't connect Whitewater to the Benghazi investigation.

McCarthy was right. Republicans have repeatedly abused these investigations for political gain. U.S. Rep. Richard Hanna said of him, "sometimes the biggest sin you can commit in D.C. is to tell the truth.”

Considering that insight, perhaps torches and pitchforks are an appropriate response.

Bruce Vandiver

Send a letter to the editor here or email

Friends to Follow social media