Steve Benson by Steve Benson

Steve Benson

Comments (31) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Chillbilly

    Chillbilly said, over 3 years ago

    Clearly the context is the ten year anniversary of the start of the Iraq War. Maybe you should ponder the irony of blaming Obama with a knee-jerked reaction.

  2. Jase99

    Jase99 GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    He had a lot of helpers.

  3. avarner

    avarner said, over 3 years ago

    Bush was obviously a lousy President.

    Without him, someone completely un-qualified would never have been considered “better.” These two make me long for Clinton…

  4. Nos Nevets

    Nos Nevets said, over 3 years ago

    It’s 1 war, 1 enemy.
    The enemy still knows it.
    We still don’t.
    World War Three.

  5. mikefive

    mikefive said, over 3 years ago

    “Let’s talk about the illegal war in iraq (sic),”

    Although I’ve seen the term “illegal war” attached to the second Iraq war, I have not been able to find any country’s executive or judicial declaration on the war’s legality. Kofi Annan says the war was illegal. The AG’s of Australia and England say it was legal, The Davids report (Brussels) says illegal. I’m sure that these opinions are well thought out, but they are just that, opinions. If you know of any country’s official declaration on the legality or illegality of the second Iraq war, I would like to read said declaration. But, please, please don’t send me to any more opinion pieces.

  6. grenjello

    grenjello said, over 3 years ago

    I like how the"main stream media" always fails to mention that the reason that debt went up under Obama is that unlike his predisessor he put the war debt “on the books” instead of hiding it from us.

  7. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, over 3 years ago

    Back up a second. “Illegal WAR”? First, war was never declared (yeah another 10 yr “conflict”). Second the President was authorized to use force in Iraq by a bipartisan vote in Congress and thus it was a “LEGAL” action.

    Still, the US has no business and never did have ANY need to invade and occupy Iraq. So why didn’t Obama bring all the troops home the day after his first inauguration?

  8. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, over 3 years ago

    Not the point Ahab. The discussion was “legal/illegal” war.

    If your stand is that something is illegal, why do you continue to do it when you become the one in charge of it?

    Obama used the plan already in place created by the war criminal bush. does that make obama a war criminal as well?

    But yes I know the logistics and how complicated it is.

  9. Simon_Jester

    Simon_Jester said, over 3 years ago

    No, those were BILL CLINTON’S fault

  10. Fourcrows

    Fourcrows said, over 3 years ago


    Why didn’t Obama bring all of the troops home immediately?
    Good question, and valid point. I would expext an official answer would be along the lines of logistics – could it be done without a huge overrun of insurgents that would have resulted in an even higher casualty rate? Would it have left any allies we had there exposed and subject to execution by “vigilantes”?
    You may also consider the lesson learned in Somalia – We were able to pull out nearly as quickly as we went in, but how long has the country been run by individual warlords and pirates since then? I don’t think that was an option after Achmenidijad took power in Iran. The rest of the conservative muslim world looks to him as the one who was willing to stand up to GWB, and probably would have supported him had he decided to enter an anarchic Iraq as a way to bring some stability to the country.
    The primary reason was most likely the political climate at the time. I remember the Republicans in 2008, knowing they were going to get their butts handed to them in the election, started making speeches about how Obama would “cut and run” and leave the Iraqi people in the hands of the insurgents, and America would appear weak. This wasn’t Fox news, this was ALL media outlets (with the exception of MSNBC) allowing senators, representatives, and pundits to come on and “warn” the American people about Obama doing just what you asked about in your comment (so much for the “liberal media” myth). This went on for a while after his inauguration as well, with the republicans looking for any reason to show Obama as “weak”.
    The irony, in my opinion, is my answer to your question. I feel he showed weakness by NOT announcing, on inauguration day, his set plan to bring home the troops within the first year and tell the Iraqi “leadership” to suck it up and start cleaning their own house. I read the comments here and what conservative pundits have said, and it seems that after the first year of his first term, they suddenly changed their tunes. It was no longer “Obama’s going to cut and run” to “Obama’s taking ownership of the Iraq war”, because he didn’t bring our troops home on his first day in office. It shows the pettiness of modern politicians – rather than find a stance and stick to it, you simply adopt the opposite of the other party, no matter what it is.

  11. Fourcrows

    Fourcrows said, over 3 years ago

    There have been 3438 Iraq veteran suicides since 2003. That number will rise for possibly another deacade, and at the current rate will surpass the number of actual deaths due to the conflict itself. GWB can add that to his baggage as well.

  12. dannysixpack

    dannysixpack said, over 3 years ago


    it also shows how astutely obama has handled the withdrawl from iraq.

  13. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, over 3 years ago

    If the war was justified and a clear outcome was desired, you’d see a whole lot more people volunteering for the armed forces, just like WWII. If the war has no goal and no direction, and no reason for existing, we just recycle the same troops because we have no fresh ones. Viet Nam comes to mind; very few volunteered for that service, fewer and fewer as the war dragged on. If it weren’t for the draft, we would have sent people on multiple tours just as we’re doing now.

    The American people, by their willingness to ignore these conflicts (how many people died yesterday? where are there battles? what “victories” have occurred? Don’t know? you’re not alone…), have shown that the wars in the Middle East have no purpose. Stay for 200 years or two weeks, there will be violence and upheaval among the natives. Our presence will cause nothing beyond resentment of the occupiers.

    If we had gone after bin Ladin, tried him and fried him and gone home, we’d have much more money, less debt, and a far better standing in the world. Oh, and Iraq would have crumbled under its own weight soon after, without us losing one life or spending one penny.

    Whether Bush has been gone for one day or 500 years, his actions and inactions brought great damage to the country. They are part of history, regardless of his current status.

  14. spyderred

    spyderred said, over 3 years ago

    Well said Played One, but don’t forget that Bush and Nixon were the ones whose lies and general deceit left today’s legacy of distrust of the government. Yet another consequence. Of course the Bush clan think governing is their god-given right and have Jeb and his son both trying to stay on the public’s milktrain.

  15. mikefive

    mikefive said, over 3 years ago

    “Would you accept a world courts determination?”

    If we were Constitutionally obligated, most certainly. As of yesterday, I saw no proceedings by the International Criminal Court involving any U. S. citizens. From other proceedings listed on their site, it doesn’t seem to bother the ICC to get involved in investigations into countries other than signatories, either.

    As for TimeWeaver’s and other’s “illegal war” posts. I may be being to much of the geek, here, but I can’t see a differentiation between “use of force” and “war”. As a side note, I don’t think there would be as much controversy on this subject if the U. N.‘s resolutions (about four of them I think) hadn’t been done with such ambiguity as to cause controversy. But then, in Diplomatic Speak, “concern” and “grave consequences” mean different things in international diplomacy than they do to the rest of the world.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (16).