You whine a lot but you don't provide any practical answers.

If you think that Obama could send a couple hundred thousand troops to Syria after what happened in Iraq, then you need to read a newspaper every once in awhile. Reagan ran away from Lebanon for less.

You forget, Obama is a God not a mere mortal.

First, in a situation where the given is always that whatever happens, no matter who does it or how long after January 2009, it is Bush’s Fault, no practical, sane answers can be given. Second. I wouldn’t expect Obama to send any troops to any new trouble spot anywhere in the world – including Alaska if the Russians decided to take back that former possession. Third, the clear implication of your point is that what happened in Iraq has paralyzed the United States from either taking direct action or supporting our allies – at least until we get a new President with a backbone. You're right. No one to run alongside his chariot reminding him that he is not a God - because he is one.

It has nothing to do with who is president, and everything to do with the fact that the Iraq war defeat just happened. It takes awhile for Americans to forget and shift back into gullibility mode. (Admittedly, you are an exception and are always ready to be gullible.)

The Iraq war was was a defeat? You're too pessimistic. I took comfort in Obama's description of the result, but then I was gullible, I suppose:Of course, I forget, you can't believe anything he says.

It wouldn't be very nice to tell the guys who did the fighting that their buddies died for nothing and that their previous commander-in-chief moved US foreign policy a step or six backwards.

So you're saying he can't speak the truth? He has to adjust what he says to the audience. So I am correct that you can't believe anything he, or a professional politician - says. Maybe that's why Trump (not my guy) is leading on the Republican side.

Charles Payne, an anchor on Fox Business News, will be interviewing Trump this evening. This should be interesting.

Poland and the Baltic States are members of NATO. You do understand what that means, right? And would this be the Israel that continues to receive $$$ of military aid and other assistance from the US every year?

For someone who claims to be an attorney, you display a remarkable lack of critical thinking. Or maybe, bizarrely, I still have too high an opinion of attorneys.

I didn't say that he lied about everything. Your penchant for hyperbole does you no favors.

I do of course understand what Article 5 of the NATO agreement provides.

Nevertheless, if Russia were to move proxy forces into Estonia to "protect" the Russian-speaking minority (25%of the population), at their "request" from the fascists in the Estonian government and threatened war if NATO intervened under Article 5 - do you really think they'd intervene? Would Obama commit "boots on the ground" to intervene in Estonia and possibly get into a hot war with Russia, on their border?

At this time I think expressions of concern, or maybe "grave" concern, and perhaps consultations under Article 4 are the limit. That test may well come before the end of Obama's term and then we'll see.

As for Israel, we send military $$ to protect our own interests there and to appease their supporters in this country. Our political support has been minimal in the past few years.

Would it be too politically incorrect and too imperialistic to say the following axiom/truth?

'When America disengage from the world stage the world become even more messier than it normally is and that very bad actors fill in the gap left by the US'?

I didn't say you said he lied about everything, and neither did I. Your penchant for mischaracterizing what I write - and then throwing in a contemptuous dig - does you no favors.

Interestingly we both cited the same Guardian article. No, he didn't call it a victory, but neither did he call it a defeat. He said it was a success. If it was a success then logically it wasn't a defeat, unless we define our defeat as a successful outcome or our success as a defeat. Our enemies would logically be doing that.

The question are: if a politician cannot talk straight about an issue, is he lying about it? If he won't talk straight about an issue should we believe what he says, or should we simply price in the spin?

-vs-

How do you expect me to take you seriously when you don't even know what you've said?

I don't think he actually did call the war a success, even though that was The Guardian's interpretation. Here's what he said:

"It's harder to end a war than begin one. Everything that American troops have done in Iraq - all the fighting, all the dying, the bleeding and the building and the training and the partnering, all of it has landed to this moment of success.".

You can certainly accuse Obama of a very "Clintonesque" phrase by talking about "this moment" rather than the war as a whole.