Bush Was Wrong In 2007. 2012 Troop Pullout Won't Mean Aq Takes Over Iraq.

[NotfooledbyW]

There is no case that al Qaeda or any offshoot terrorist organization will take
over Iraq. So Bush had it wrong when he warned a premature US troop pullout would mean an Iraqi surrender to al Qaeda.

Bush is still a fool. Iraq will not be surrendering to al Qaeda.

Far from it, heard this from a Kurd:

"But we have got a constitution. If we would be committed to the constitution - the way to democracy and the way to keep Iraq united is to have regions."

SIEGEL: You told me in July it wasn't just about individuals. You didn't see the mentality, the ideology, the culture of democracy in Baghdad. Do you see any more of that in Baghdad today?

HUSSEIN: No, it doesn't exist. But we have got a constitution. If we would be committed to the constitution - the way to democracy and the way to keep Iraq united is to have regions. And that means federal structure. So that means the Sunni can have their own region, the Shia their own region and Kurdistan also as a region. And Baghdad can be the capital of all.

. SIEGEL: Will the Peshmerga fight too if they have U.S. air support?

HUSSEIN: Yes.

SIEGEL: Will they fight to liberate Mosul?

HUSSEIN: We are ready to fight terrorists everywhere because those, if they will stay in Mosul, they will stay a threat for us and a threat for the rest of the world. Because then they can reorganize themselves again and attack us again. But also it will be threat for the neighboring countries.

Both excerpts from here:

Kurds U.S. Fight Against ISIS Requires Ground Forces NPR

Fuad Hussein is the chief of staff to the President of the Kurdish Regional Government.



And the French have engaged the enemy in Iraq:

French fighter jets strike Islamic State supply depot in northeastern Iraq - The Washington Post


And Egypt is all in for killing the IS M'Fers.

Egyptian Pres. El-Sissi Ready to Support Fight Against ISIS
By Associated Press Last Updated: September 20, 2014 4:30 pm

Egyptian Pres. El-Sissi Ready to Support Fight Against ISIS - The Epoch Times


So where is Cameron?

 

[deltex1]

What price will be paid for you to be able to say bush was wrong? We have to fight another war to win back what we won in 2008...and your warped mind says that's a good Deal? You have fallen off the cliff Foo.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You won nothing. Iraq was the deadliest country on earth in 2009 when Bush left his Maliki mess behind.

 

[TooTall]

You won nothing. Iraq was the deadliest country on earth in 2009 when Bush left his Maliki mess behind.

You do mean when Obama left the mess prematurely don't you? Bush wasn't President in 2009.

 

[deltex1]

2011

Obama praised the U.S. troops for their efforts in Iraq, saying they will leave "with their heads held high, proud of their success, and knowing that the American people stand united in our support for our troops."

He also pledged assistance and "a strong and enduring partnership" with the government in Iraq.

"With our diplomats and civilian advisers in the lead, we will help Iraqis strengthen institutions that are just, representative and accountable," Obama said. "We'll build new ties of trade and of commerce, culture and education that unleash the potential of the Iraqi people."

The president also appeared to deliver a warning Iran, which he has accused of helping insurgents in Iraq. "We'll partner with an Iraq that contributes to regional security and peace, just as we insist that other nations respect Iraq's sovereignty," Obama said.

 

[kiwiman127]

You won nothing. Iraq was the deadliest country on earth in 2009 when Bush left his Maliki mess behind.

You do mean when Obama left the mess prematurely don't you? Bush wasn't President in 2009.

Obama stayed the course of the scheduled withdrawl of US troops per the agreement signed by GWB. Obama didn't pull the troops prematurely, he did it right on schedule.
But keep on rewriting history and making shit up.
Iraq War ends on Bush’s schedule, not Obama’s
Iraq War ends on Bush s schedule not Obama s RedState

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9834738

. We have to fight another war to win back what we won in 2008...

No we don't. Bush's war involved tens of thousands of ground troops and 4584 dead US soldiers a phony mission. It cost hundreds of billions of dollars over six years.

No such massive military campaign is being considered. You are neglecting the critical facts.






9835224

You do mean when Obama left the mess prematurely don't you? Bush wasn't President in 2009.

No I mean, Bush cut the deal in December 2008, you know, that forced US troops out of Iraq's cities by June.

Bush wasn't President in 2009 thank god, nor McCain, but the aforementioned restrictions on US troop positioning outside of Iraq's cities while sectarian violence continued to rage at high levels, is the sorry and sordid continuation of the Bush legacy of his needless and wanton invasion of Iraq in 2003.

You can't pin the Bush/Maliki 2008 SOFA on Obama because Obama was not President until near the end of January 2009.

 

[deltex1]

Like I said this morning Obabble was the weak dick on our end of the sofa...no way to get around that, Foo.

 

[FA_Q2]

You won nothing. Iraq was the deadliest country on earth in 2009 when Bush left his Maliki mess behind.

You do mean when Obama left the mess prematurely don't you? Bush wasn't President in 2009.

Obama stayed the course of the scheduled withdrawl of US troops per the agreement signed by GWB. Obama didn't pull the troops prematurely, he did it right on schedule.
But keep on rewriting history and making shit up.
Iraq War ends on Bush’s schedule, not Obama’s
Iraq War ends on Bush s schedule not Obama s RedState

So all that time that the liberals were constantly pointing out that Obama was so damn wonderful because he ended the war in Iraq they were talking out of their collective asses.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

We have to fight another war to win back what we won in 2008...

Do you consider still-fragile security gains to be a 'won war'? Do you know what 'fragile' means?


According to Petraeus in April 2008:

JUDY WOODRUFF: Petraeus outlined the military’s plans to draw down the current number of troops, about 160,000, to pre-surge levels by July.

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: Upon the withdrawal of the last surge brigade combat team in July, we undertake a 45-day period of consolidation and evaluation. At the end of that period, we will commence a process of assessment to examine the conditions on the ground and over time determine when we can make recommendations for further reductions.

This process will be continuous, with recommendations for further reductions made as conditions permit. This approach does not allow establishment of a set withdrawal timetable.

However, it does provide the flexibility those of us on the ground need to preserve the still-fragile security gains our troopers have fought so hard and sacrificed so much to achieve.

And here's another use of the word 'fragile'.

RYAN CROCKER, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq: Last September, I said that the cumulative trajectory of political, economic and diplomatic developments in Iraq was upwards, although the slope of that line was not steep. Developments over the last seven months have strengthened my sense of a positive trend.
Immense challenges remain, and progress is uneven and often frustratingly slow, but there is progress.
Almost everything about Iraq is hard. It will continue to be hard as Iraqis struggle with the damage and trauma inflicted by 35 years of totalitarian Baathist rule. But hard does not mean hopeless, and the political and economic progress of the past few months is significant.

These gains are fragile, however, and they are reversible. Americans have invested a great deal in Iraq in blood, as well as treasure, and they have the right to ask whether this is worth it, whether it is now time to walk away and let the Iraqis fend for themselves.

Petraeus Crocker Deliver Iraq Status Report to Congress PBS NewsHour


Even Senator McCain admits in April 2008 that the US could not 'rebuild' Iraq .

Much, much more needs to be done. And Iraq's leaders need to know that we expect them to show the necessary leadership to rebuild their country, for only they can.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/us/politics/08text-mccain1.html


So whatever you think was 'won' at the end of Bush's term in office to end the Iraq War, the win was 'fragile and reversible'. And that was with 140,000 US ground combat troops still there.

Where do you get that Bush 'won' the war in Iraq at the end of 2008?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9836004

So all that time that the liberals were constantly pointing out that Obama was so damn wonderful because he ended the war in Iraq they were talking out of their collective asses.

No one said Obama 'ended the war in Iraq' ... Obama oversaw the end of the US combat role in Iraq. There is a difference. The war never ended as the amount of violence went down from the peak in 2006 but it never 'ended'. That's the problem. Saying the sectarian strife was ended in 2008 was a lie. The US 'won' nothing but the chance to leave what it should have never entered in the first place. What Obama called it before Bush did it.... a dumb war.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You won nothing. Iraq was the deadliest country on earth in 2009 when Bush left his Maliki mess behind.

It was the deadliest country before Bush ever took office. Saddam Hussein was gassing people left and right. Naturally when you take a genocidal maniac and hang him, naturally you leave a mess behind. The government was stable when our troops were there, as soon as the stabilizing force was gone, so did the government destabilize. See how that works? Bush wasn't wrong, he predicted the foolishness the incoming administration would undertake.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9835736

Like I said this morning Obabble was the weak dick on our end of the sofa...no way to get around that, Foo.

Bush was weak in 2007 when Maliki set up the need for a SOFA after 2008. Did you know that Maliki forced the need for a SOFA at the end of 2008 when Bush was in office? Why did Bush allow Maliki to push him around like that? Why was Bush so weak in the first place? Why did Bush allow the Iraqis tell him where US troops could go and where they couldn't go in Iraq in 2009?

 

[TemplarKormac]

9836004

So all that time that the liberals were constantly pointing out that Obama was so damn wonderful because he ended the war in Iraq they were talking out of their collective asses.

No one said Obama 'ended the war in Iraq' ... Obama oversaw the end of the US combat role in Iraq. There is a difference. The war never ended as the amount of violence went down from the peak in 2006 but it never 'ended'. That's the problem. Saying the sectarian strife was ended in 2008 was a lie. The US 'won' nothing but the chance to leave what it should have never entered in the first place. What Obama called it before Bush did it.... a dumb war.

So, if Obama had started this war, would you be chanting this same mantra? Your hypocrisy is written all over you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

9835736

Like I said this morning Obabble was the weak dick on our end of the sofa...no way to get around that, Foo.

Bush was weak in 2007 when Maliki set up the need for a SOFA after 2008. Did you know that Maliki forced the need for a SOFA at the end of 2008 when Bush was in office? Why did Bush allow Maliki to push him around like that? Why was Bush so weak in the first place? Why did Bush allow the Iraqis tell him where US troops could go and where they couldn't go in Iraq in 2009?

You know, it's funny how you call Bush weak and mock how Maliki 'pushed him around' when folks like Bashir Assad and Vladimir Putin have been pushing Obama around quite a bit. Yeah, and Obama's foreign policy is a joke, too.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What Bush did was sweep the room, what Obama did amounted to dumping the dust pan on the clean floor. Now you have to sweep the entire room again.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And I also couldn't help but notice your moniker. Bush isn't president anymore. He stopped being president all of 6 years ago. What is with this obsession you have with him?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It was the deadliest country before Bush ever took office. .

There were no mass deaths or genocide in Iraq from about the mid-nineties to the point that Bush decided to kick inspectors out and start a war by bombing and invading Iraq. In fact the first three months of 2003 were the most peaceful ever with the presence of 200 UN Inspectors doing the work of disarming Iraq peacefully. Nobody was killing anybody in Iraq when Bush decided to end that 'peace' and start a war that ended up getting 4584 US soldiers killed and ten times that seriously wounded. And Bush took office in 2000. Provide some stats that shows that Iraq was deadlier that year than 2009... or every year from 2003 to the present. You can't. You a fact-less.

Bush wasn't wrong, he predicted the foolishness the incoming administration would undertake.

Know he didn't. Here's what Bush said:

9747402

President Bush warned that if we pulled out of Iraq too soon, it would be dangerous for Iraq, the region and the United States; it would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda.

We all know that Obama pulled troops out of Iraq no faster than Bush's own timeline for withdrawal.

We all know that Iraq is not even close to "surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda".

So can you explain in common language just how exactly Bush was correct to make that prediction way back in 2007?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9836069

And I also couldn't help but notice your moniker. Bush isn't president anymore. He stopped being president all of 6 years ago. What is with this obsession you have with him?

What's that have to do with the discussion. What are you running from by use of a meaningless and frivolous distraction?


Nevertheless the damage Bush did when he was in office still affects lives to the detriment of way too many all around the world. The world does not blink with all its history instantly erased from the broad spectacle of cause and effect every time a US President goes out and a new one comes in.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9836065

What Bush did was sweep the room, what Obama did amounted to dumping the dust pan on the clean floor. Now you have to sweep the entire room again.

According to pertinent information from my post regarding Crocker and Petraeus' April 2008 statements that security gains in Iraq were fragile; the better analogy would be that Bush dirtied the floor.. no 'bloodied' the floor ... ramped the bloodshed up through three years of mismanaged occupation, then the floor was cleaned up somewhat, but then the source that bloodies the floor was never dealt with by the time Bush left office.