Oh c'mon, you're not really blaming our inability to contain and control the insurgencies still going on in both Iraq and Afghanistan on Obama, are you?

It was Obama who authorized an increase in troop strength in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It was the Congress who never flinched once on funding whatever the military wanted, whether it was a Democratic or Republican majority. (In fact, Congress added to the Pentagon budget request with facilities and weapons systems that they wanted, that the generals never even asked for!) And wasn't it the Iraqi people who in a fair, democratic election voted for the U.S. to get the hell out of their country by the end of 2011? Maybe Obama should have deemed their election unfair and thrown out the result, huh?

As far as Bush's contribution to the whole Iraq-Afghanistan affair, who was POTUS when the decision was made that there was nothing more to be accomplished in Afghanistan and pulled the troops out to be available to invade Iraq? And whose administration was it that not only refused to listen to the generals who told the Secretary of Defense and the President that we would need 500,000 tropps to properly invade and occupy Iraq? Donald Rumsfeld fired that guy. It was Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and others who convinced George Bush that we'd never need to occupy Iraq, that we'd be welcomed with rose petals in the street and that the dictatorship would become a full-fledged democracy with no help from our military. How many young kids did that kill with roadside bombs and trying to attack and re-occupy insurgent strongholds like Anbar province, Fallujah and even Sadr City? How much did that decsion prolong the war and further break the U.S. treasury?

If you're really going to try to politicize the wars we started and can't seem to finish in the Middle East, blaming it on Obama and the liberals and lionizing the conservatives who would have won both wars if not for Obama, I guess all I can say is that history doesn't quite bear out the allegation.

By the way, you may get what you wish for. If Mitt Romney is elected, he may well invade both Syria and Iran. He hasn't been quite that specific, he seldom is. His favorite topic has been Iran and he often promises that only he can stop Tehran getting a nuclear bomb--but he never says exactly how. As Syria has sunk towards civil war, Mr Romney has turned the crisis into a general election issue. In one of his few comments on the conflict, he blamed the Obama administration for the continued carnage in Syria. But he's never said what he would do as POTUS.

I'll vote for Romney, but I don't beleive for an instant that he has much better ideas than Obama does on the problems in the Middle East. If fact, if he listens to that loose cannon John Bolton, who some say he will appoint as Secretary of State, we could wind up with an even bigger problem in that region.