Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
EC 9905339 regarding BD 9905292. We handed over a relatively stable Iraq to Obama.
Relatively stable compared to 2006 at peak violence. But not relative to march 17, 2003 prior to the US invasion. What you refer to as relatively stable in 2009 amounted to nearly 20,000 dead Iraqis that year. You also failed to handover progress toward genuine political reconciliation between the three major sects.
And according to Petraeus just recently
no one knows if a continued presence of US troops would have made a difference. I don't apologize for trusting Petraeus' judgment and opinion on that over your vulgar political cheap shots at the current Admin.
EC 9905339 regarding BD 9905292. We handed over a relatively stable Iraq to Obama.
If you wish to use non-precise language when trying to make a factual argument you should be willing to accept that in terms of civilian casualties on a monthly basis combined with the transfer of power from Maliki to the new government last month Iraq is 'relatively' as stable today as it was in 2006. And the significant fact about today's stability is that there are 150,000 fewer US military there now than there were on 2010.
Based on that final fact , it should be safe to state that Iraq is more independently stable today than when you handed the mess over in 2009 to Obama.
Do you see how it works when all factors are included when viewing the relative status in Iraq with respect to violence affecting the general population?
Good point/sGreat Story thus far from EconChick's link:
Page 2 Para 11On June 30, 2009, Maliki gave a speech to announce a major development in the U.S.-Iraqi Security Agreement. The occasion was the anniversary of the 2003 assassination of the Iraqi Shia leader Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim. After a few words in memory of the fallen ayatollah, Maliki shifted gears to describe the moment that U.S. forces would withdraw from populated areas as a great victory for the Iraqi people, which did not sit well with those who had backed the war effort. After all, Maliki was suggesting that what had happened was the U.S. forces had in effect been ordered to retreat.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/how-the-obama-administration-disowned-iraq-111565_Page2.html#ixzz3FELaAdak
Key statement: "After all, Maliki was suggesting that what had happened was the U.S. forces had in effect been ordered to retreat." So Maliki was right. Why did Bush agree to put U.S. forces into retreat? Surely in June 2009, Obama cannot be blamed for the US Military retreat in Iraq. Bush signed that deal with the honorable Prime Minister of Iraq just six months earlier.
Some Partner Bush handed over to the Obama Administrtion.
^ thatEC001 9903363Here's another great article to read from Ambassador Chris Hill: How the Obama Administration Ignored Iraq - Christopher R. Hill - POLITICO Magazine
How the Obama Administration Ignored Iraq One ambassador's story of an exit strategy gone wrong.
Here's more from EconChick's link:
In the end it was increasingly clear that Iraq remained the military’s problem, not the State Department’s. It is not to say that Iraq was not on people’s minds in Washington. But it was increasingly a legacy issue, a matter of keeping faith with our troops rather than seeing Iraq as a strategic issue in the region.
Key Statement is kind of in opposition to the chosen Headline at Politico. What's up with that? "It is not to say that Iraq was not on people’s minds in Washington. But it was increasingly a legacy issue, a matter of keeping faith with our troops rather than seeing Iraq as a strategic issue in the region. and of course this: "Iraq remained the military’s problem, not the State Department’s"
So what I see Amb Chris Hill as stating is that the Obama Administration 'ignored' Iraq as a strategic issue in the region. And that is because of the Shiite dominated government was not conducive to the US overall strategy in the region. And Maliki made matters worse. He was a bad partner.
^ thatEC001 9903363Here's another great article to read from Ambassador Chris Hill: How the Obama Administration Ignored Iraq - Christopher R. Hill - POLITICO Magazine
How the Obama Administration Ignored Iraq One ambassador's story of an exit strategy gone wrong.
Here's more from EconChick's link:
In the end it was increasingly clear that Iraq remained the military’s problem, not the State Department’s. It is not to say that Iraq was not on people’s minds in Washington. But it was increasingly a legacy issue, a matter of keeping faith with our troops rather than seeing Iraq as a strategic issue in the region.
Key Statement is kind of in opposition to the chosen Headline at Politico. What's up with that? "It is not to say that Iraq was not on people’s minds in Washington. But it was increasingly a legacy issue, a matter of keeping faith with our troops rather than seeing Iraq as a strategic issue in the region. and of course this: "Iraq remained the military’s problem, not the State Department’s"
So what I see Amb Chris Hill as stating is that the Obama Administration 'ignored' Iraq as a strategic issue in the region. And that is because of the Shiite dominated government was not conducive to the US overall strategy in the region. And Maliki made matters worse. He was a bad partner.
And the Bu$h II Admin kept supporting that guy.
U joined the board in feb 14, and expect ME to believe U that in spring of 03 U thought bushii was full of bs and this thing was gonna blow up in our face? I don't think so chickeeboobooYou seem like an expert in the field of the uninformed and ridiculous. Relatively stable? Their military wasn't even trained and that was the goal. For them to become capable of taking over for themselves.I personally think that everyone of us who wanted Bushii out in 2004 were totally shocked when Iraq went into the shitter. Seriously, not a mother's son of us saw that one coming. (sarcasm)
Your sarcasm is as uninformed as it is silly.
I spent a lot of time in Iraq. I was there before, during, and after the surge.
We handed over a relatively stable Iraq to Obama. He admitted so himself.
So excuse me if I find your post uninformed and ridiculous.
You're silly whoever you are now.
LOL, sorry blondie, I was there before, during, and after the surge. You were there when??
That's what I thought.
You do realize those reading these threads who have still not made up their minds see how much credibility one side has and how little the other side has, don't ya?
Ummmm, that was you......
U joined the board in feb 14, and expect ME to believe U that in spring of 03 U thought bushii was full of bs and this thing was gonna blow up in our face? I don't think so chickeeboobooYou seem like an expert in the field of the uninformed and ridiculous. Relatively stable? Their military wasn't even trained and that was the goal. For them to become capable of taking over for themselves.I personally think that everyone of us who wanted Bushii out in 2004 were totally shocked when Iraq went into the shitter. Seriously, not a mother's son of us saw that one coming. (sarcasm)
Your sarcasm is as uninformed as it is silly.
I spent a lot of time in Iraq. I was there before, during, and after the surge.
We handed over a relatively stable Iraq to Obama. He admitted so himself.
So excuse me if I find your post uninformed and ridiculous.
You're silly whoever you are now.
LOL, sorry blondie, I was there before, during, and after the surge. You were there when??
That's what I thought.
You do realize those reading these threads who have still not made up their minds see how much credibility one side has and how little the other side has, don't ya?
Ummmm, that was you......
AN 9915724 regarding NF 9915708, DD 9915333You REALLY believe this? Can you tell me how our munitions are actually sighted on their targets?
Do you know for a fact that Americans are in actual combat with IS terrorists - or if Americans have engaged the enemy directly while laser guiding bombs to targets or giving coordinates?
Do we need combat troops on the ground to bomb an oil refinery or fuel storage tanks? Do we need on ground targeting systems to hit a moving military vehicle loaded with, weapons and IS terrorist killers on it?
What do you think you know that rest of us don't know?
Do you think there are US troops on the ground in the lawless regions of Pakistan where Taliban an Al Qaeda killers are bombed on a weekly basis?
Panetta is a hilda beast stooge, he is trying for a cabinet position if she wins in 2016Wow, Panetta now adding more fuel to fire
So stable it was being inspected and sanctioned by the UN? What are you smoking?Relatively stable compared to 2006 at peak violence. But not relative to march 17, 2003 prior to the US invasion.
She handed the mess to obama? WTF? You have a toggle switch for a brain. Iraq is anything but stable, check the news. That was NOT the case when the troops were there, no matter how badly you want it to be that way.If you wish to use non-precise language when trying to make a factual argument you should be willing to accept that in terms of civilian casualties on a monthly basis combined with the transfer of power from Maliki to the new government last month Iraq is 'relatively' as stable today as it was in 2006. And the significant fact about today's stability is that there are 150,000 fewer US military there now than there were on 2010.
Based on that final fact , it should be safe to state that Iraq is more independently stable today than when you handed the mess over in 2009 to Obama.
HTey were fine with Obama taking credit for leaving. Now that that decision looks like a huge mistake suddenly it's all Bush's fault. Or Churchill's/ Or someones.
. So stable it was being inspected and sanctioned by the UN? What are you smoking?
IW 9922551 regarding NF 9919651,. So stable it was being inspected and sanctioned by the UN? What are you smoking?
Yes. UN inspections were possible because Iraq at that time was not experiencing the kind of violence that it has experienced ever since the US invaded and the sectarian slaughter began. And it did not stop at the end if 2008 when Bush left the ness he created to his successor.
And have you forgotten that Iraq did not have the WMD that Bush started the war over. So all the violence that Iraq has seen for the past 11 years has its roots directly in the foreign invasion of Iraq. What Obama called the dumb war. And he was ever so right about that.
Put the crack pipe down. We inspected more thoroughly when troops were there. Sorry if reality doesn't fit your worldview. Most Dems voted for it too, including those privy to the intel. You need to get some air.IW 9922551 regarding NF 9919651,. So stable it was being inspected and sanctioned by the UN? What are you smoking?
Yes. UN inspections were possible because Iraq at that time was not experiencing the kind of violence that it has experienced ever since the US invaded and the sectarian slaughter began. And it did not stop at the end if 2008 when Bush left the ness he created to his successor.
And have you forgotten that Iraq did not have the WMD that Bush started the war over. So all the violence that Iraq has seen for the past 11 years has its roots directly in the foreign invasion of Iraq. What Obama called the dumb war. And he was ever so right about that.
I've already explained WMD to you.
I don't want your loopy explanations. I want some solid indisputable facts.Besides, I've also explained sarin gas in Syria IS WMD.
