Isis: In Iraq Because Of Obama

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,863
60,200
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
Obama was offered the opportunity to work out a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq...but really didn't want to leave the 10,000 troops that Maliki wanted in place.

You can decide if the reason was to support ISIS or some other reason....

But he could have avoided these barbarians taking over....




Who says so?

General Barbero, on CNN yesterday:


"BLITZER: The president's military plan to dismantle and ultimately destroy the terror group, ISIS, involves sending, at least for now, another 475 U.S. military advisors to Iraq, launching air strikes in Iraq and Syria, arming and training moderate Syrian rebels. Let's discuss. Joining me, retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Michael Barbaro. General, thanks very much for coming in.

LT. GEN. MICHAEL BARBERO, U.S. ARMY, RETIRED: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: I want to get to that. But you were there. You were on active duty in Iraq, 2010, 2011 when they were trying to negotiate that Status of Forces -

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: -- Agreement that would have left a residual force, 5,000 or 10,000 U.S. troops, but you couldn't get immunity from Nuri al Maliki's government. Take us behind the scenes, clarify, who's right, John McCain or Jay Carney, in this debate.

BARBERO: Well, in the summer of 2010, prepared a briefing, I was responsible for Iraqi security forces, and took it to all the Iraqi leaders, Maliki, the other Shia leaders, the Sunnis, the Kurds, and said here is going to be the status of your security forces, what they cannot do, what they will be able to do, when we're schedule to leave. And to a man they said, well, general, you must stay. And my response was, you must make it easy for us. So I think Maliki did not make it easy for us and we did not try hard enough. So it's a -- both views. I think it could have been done though.

BLITZER: Because the U.S. -- the Pentagon position was, 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. troops staying -

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: For an indefinite amount of time.

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: But you wanted immunity from prosecution as part of the status of forces agreement. What happened then because the White House says Nuri al Maliki wouldn't give that immunity to any residual U.S. force.

BARBERO: I think we could have worked it and kept it from going through the parliament. I think we could have - we have immunity today, it didn't go through the parliament. So I think it could have been worked if we had tried harder.

BLITZER: You don't think the administration tried hard enough to get it?

BARBERO: I don't think so.

BLITZER: That's the McCain position, that could have been done but the White House didn't want it to be done. They wanted all U.S. troops.

BARBERO: I don't think we tried hard enough.

BLITZER: You think it was - it was definitely doable.

BARBERO: I think it was. BLITZER: There was another argument that the Pentagon wanted 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. troops to remain.

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: The White House said maybe 1,000 or 2,000 for a year and the Iraqis said well that's not good enough.

BARBERO: Right. No, and -

BLITZER: Was - is that true?

BARBERO: That is true. And we wanted them pulled back on these training sites where we're fielding military equipment to train the Iraqi, not in any kind of combat role at all."
CNN.com - Transcripts



Obama arranged for the field to be left open for ISIS.

You decide why.
 
If Bush and Cheney don't destabilize Iraq by invading and destroying it, Saddam wipes his ass with ISIS.
 
Obama arranged for the field to be left open for ISIS.

You decide why.

...because he so desperately wanted to see his foreign policy approval rating plummet and take his party down with it?

That was his grand scheme?

Do you people EVER think before you post?





Foreign policy, domestic policy....nothing but failures.

Very much like yourself.



His two most significant foreign policy achievements will be a nuclear Iran, and the restoration of the Islamic caliphate.
 
sigh.....im not even going to bother with this.

If Bush and Cheney don't destabilize Iraq by invading and destroying it, Saddam wipes his ass with ISIS.
Obama arranged for the field to be left open for ISIS.

You decide why.

...because he so desperately wanted to see his foreign policy approval rating plummet and take his party down with it?

That was his grand scheme?

Do you people EVER think before you post?





Foreign policy, domestic policy....nothing but failures.

Very much like yourself.



His two most significant foreign policy achievements will be a nuclear Iran, and the restoration of the Islamic caliphate.



In the Big Book of Rightwing Mythology, maybe.

Why would Obama intentionally act in ways directly adverse to his own political fortunes, not to mention his party's?

Can youi quote someone with an opinion on that?
 
5000 troops in Iraq would only have meant that the slippery slope to getting once more up to our ears in a needless ME war would have been much more slippery.
 
sigh.....im not even going to bother with this.

If Bush and Cheney don't destabilize Iraq by invading and destroying it, Saddam wipes his ass with ISIS.
Obama arranged for the field to be left open for ISIS.

You decide why.

...because he so desperately wanted to see his foreign policy approval rating plummet and take his party down with it?

That was his grand scheme?

Do you people EVER think before you post?





Foreign policy, domestic policy....nothing but failures.

Very much like yourself.



His two most significant foreign policy achievements will be a nuclear Iran, and the restoration of the Islamic caliphate.



In the Big Book of Rightwing Mythology, maybe.

Why would Obama intentionally act in ways directly adverse to his own political fortunes, not to mention his party's?

Can youi quote someone with an opinion on that?




"In the Big Book of Rightwing Mythology, maybe."

1. "(CNSNews.com) – White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Monday the Obama administration’s foreign policies in a number of areas have enhanced the world’s “tranquility” – a word that raised eyebrows as reporters pointed to situations in Gaza, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Ukraine and the South China Sea." WH We ve Substantially Improved the Tranquility of the Global Community CNS News


2. "Leaders of the five BRICS nations plan to create a development bank in a direct challenge to the World Bank that they accuse of Western bias. The bank would use $50 billion of seed capital shared equally between Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa but would undoubtedly be dominated by China. It would be the first institution of the informal forum started in 2009 amid the economic meltdown to chart a new and more equitable world economic order."
Watch Out World Bank Here Comes the BRICS Bank

a. "When Barack Obama took office, he pledged a new overture to the world’s emerging powers. Today each of the Brics – Brazil, Russia, India,Chinaand South Africa – is at loggerheads with America, or worse." http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6077675c-c4c4-11e3-8dd4-00144feabdc0.html#axzz37ecJQGho



3. [August 18, 2011].... [Obama} called Thursday for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to resign, after months of his violent crackdown on protesters. The rhetorical escalation was backed by new U.S. sanctions designed to undermine Assad’s ability to finance his military operation..... culminated months of calibrated diplomacy that has included three rounds of sanctions and a gradual policy shift toward regime change in a nation long at odds with U.S. policy in the Middle East." Assad must go Obama says - The Washington Post

4. "Russia 'to reopen Cold War Cuban listening post used to spy on America' Moscow-based daily Kommersant claimed Russia and Cuba have struck a deal 'in principle' after President Vladimir Putin visited the island last week.

Citing several sources within Russian authorities, the respected daily wrote: 'The agreements were finalised while President Vladimir Putin visited Havana last Friday."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2694468/Russia-reopen-Cold-War-Cuban-listening-post-used-spy-America.html#ixzz37gIcOgZu


5. When the Egyptian people declined to be governed by the 7th century savages, the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama had a fit:
"The U.S. government has decided privately to act as if the military takeover of Egypt was a coup, temporarily suspending most forms of military aid, despite deciding not to announce publicly a coup determination one way or the other, according to a leading U.S. senator.
In the latest example of its poorly understood Egypt policy, the Obama administration has decided to temporarily suspend the disbursement of most direct military aid, the delivery of weapons to the Egyptian military, and some forms of economic aid to the Egyptiangovernment while it conducts a broad review of the relationship."
Senator: Obama Administration Secretly Suspended Military Aid to Egypt - The Daily Beast



6. "Putin Poised to Retaliate Against Obama by Trashing Iran Deal

Now that the U.S.-Russia relationship has broken down, Moscow could throw a wrench into the teetering nuclear negotiations with Iran.

But if Putin decides that retaliating against the U.S. and ruining Obama’s foreign policy legacy is more important than sealing a pact with Iran, the whole thing could unravel.... Yet this time around, Obama is willing to accept an agreement from Iraq’s foreign ministry on U.S. forces in Iraq without a vote of Iraq’s parliament. .... We basically need a piece of paper from them,” another U.S. official involved in the negotiations told The Daily Beast. The official didn’t explain why the parliamentary vote, so crucial three years ago, was no longer needed.." Putin Poised to Retaliate Against Obama by Trashing Iran Deal - The Daily Beast



7. "ANKARA, Turkey (AP) — Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said he no longer holds "direct" telephone conversations with U.S. President Barak Obama, suggesting a rift between the leaders who were once close." Turkish PM says he Obama no longer talk directly - Yahoo News

8. Underestimated the "Islamic State, IS" "The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant,”Obama told the New Yorker, referring to ISIS.
“I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.”


9. Obama made another huge mistake in refusing to negotiate an agreement to leave US troops in Iraq.
This is the source of the problem with ISIS: they're there because we weren't.
"Obama's 2012 Debate Boast: I Didn't Want to Leave Any Troops in Iraq

Obama then denied that he ever supported a status of forces agreement that would have left troops in Iraq:

MR. ROMNEY: [W]ith regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should have been a status of forces agreement. Did you —

PRESIDENT OBAMA: That's not true.

MR. ROMNEY: Oh, you didn't — you didn't want a status of forces agreement?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: No, but what I — what I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.

"Here's one thing I've learned as commander in chief," Obama said at the end of the exchange. "You've got to be clear, both to our allies and our enemies, about where you stand and what you mean

Obama s 2012 Debate Boast I Didn t Want to Leave Any Troops in Iraq The Weekly Standard

a. "This month, Colin Kahl, the senior Pentagon official in charge of Iraq policy at the time, explained why the White House insisted on Iraq’s parliament approving the changes to the SOFA.

He wrote inPolitico Magazinethat in 2011 Iraq’s prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, “told U.S. negotiators that he was willing to sign an executive memorandum of understanding that included these legal protections.

Yet this time around, Obama is willing to accept an agreement from Iraq’s foreign ministry on U.S. forces in Iraq without a vote of Iraq’s parliament. “We believe we need a separate set of assurances from the Iraqis,” one senior U.S. defense official told The Daily Beast on Sunday. This official said this would likely be an agreement or exchange of diplomatic notes from the Iraq’s foreign ministry. “We basically need a piece of paper from them,” another U.S. official involved in the negotiations told The Daily Beast. The official didn’t explain why the parliamentary vote, so crucial three years ago, was no longer needed.”

Obama Does a U-Turn on Immunity for U.S. Troops in Iraq - The Daily Beast

Obama rejected it.




10. "Turkey will refuse to allow a US-led coalition to attack jihadists in neighbouring Iraq and Syria from its air bases, nor will it take part in combat operations against militants, a government official told AFP" Thursdayhttp://Breaking TURKEY REFUSES OBAMA REQUEST to Use Its Airbases to Fight ISIS The Gateway Pundit




So.....once again....I'm correct, Obama and you are failures.

Another custard pie in your face!
 
If Bush and Cheney don't destabilize Iraq by invading and destroying it, Saddam wipes his ass with ISIS.
Yet now Obama thinks it's smart to do the same thing in Syria ?

Well right or wrong he's not putting a hundred thousand troops into Syria, so you're stretching that comparison quite a bit. Let's be fair.




Stretching?

"We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10 thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves." - Lyndon B. Johnson ...

Ooops!
 
Obama arranged for the field to be left open for ISIS.

You decide why.

...because he so desperately wanted to see his foreign policy approval rating plummet and take his party down with it?

That was his grand scheme?

Do you people EVER think before you post?

Of course Obama didn't want his policy rating go down! JUST the fu...king opposite YOU idiot!
He was against our military from the getgo!
Obama ACCUSED our military in Iraq of methodically, daily, all the time "air raiding villages, KILLING CIVILIANS!!!"
So Obama appealing to his idiot base wanted the USA out of Iraq ASAP and he did EVERYTHING including NOT negotiating in good faith the SOFA!
So don't you think for a moment Obama was listening to his political advisers FIRST and foremost and they put politics above national safety and so Obama as the above shows practiced traitor actions for which NOW we have ISIS!

The Iraqis were happy that the USA was there!
This conclusion is based on a Media Research Center study of broadcast network news coverage of the Iraq war so far this year. MRC analysts reviewed all 1,388 Iraq stories broadcast on ABC’s World News Tonight, the CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News from January 1 through September 30. (In 2006, the MRC will release a similar analysis of cable news coverage of Iraq.) Among the key findings:

* Network coverage has been overwhelmingly pessimistic. More than half of all stories (848, or 61%) focused on negative topics or presented a pessimistic analysis of the situation, four times as many as featured U.S. or Iraqi achievements or offered an optimistic assessment (just 211 stories, or 15%).

* News about the war has grown increasingly negative. In January and February, about a fifth of all network stories (21%) struck a hopeful note,while just over half presented a negative slant on the situation. By August and September, positive stories had fallen to a measly seven percent and the percentage of bad news stories swelled to 73 percent of all Iraq news, a ten-to-one disparity.

* Terrorist attacks are the centerpiece of TV’s war news. Two out of every five network evening news stories (564) featured car bombings, assassinations, kidnappings or other attacks launched by the terrorists against the Iraqi people or coalition forces, more than any other topic.

* Even coverage of the Iraqi political process has been negative. More stories (124) focused on shortcomings in Iraq’s political process — the danger of bloodshed during the January elections, political infighting among politicians, and fears that the new Iraqi constitution might spur more civil strife —
than found optimism in the Iraqi people’s historic march to democracy (92 stories).

One-third of those optimistic stories (32) appeared on just two nights — January 30 and 31, just after Iraq’s first successful elections.

* Few stories focused on the heroism or generous actions of American soldiers.
In contrast, 79 stories focused on allegations of combat mistakes or outright misconduct on the part of U.S. military personnel.

People... do you understand that the MSM and the Democrats WANTED Iraq to fail and "reported" and praised successes of the terrorists while telling the world and Americans our troops were the bad guys!
When our own representatives help the terrorists by saying:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

3]"So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.
"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ... Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves. Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq. And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein -- the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it; and the fault for all that has gone wrong is ultimately with Iraqis themselves: It's a remarkable point of view to encounter in June 2013.
10 Years After the Fall of Saddam How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War - The Atlantic
 
If Bush and Cheney don't destabilize Iraq by invading and destroying it, Saddam wipes his ass with ISIS.
Yet now Obama thinks it's smart to do the same thing in Syria ?

Well right or wrong he's not putting a hundred thousand troops into Syria, so you're stretching that comparison quite a bit. Let's be fair.




Stretching?

"We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10 thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves." - Lyndon B. Johnson ...

Ooops!

So you think we were wrong to try to stop the spread of communism in Vietnam? That's not exactly consistent with your other demented positions.
 
Obama arranged for the field to be left open for ISIS.

You decide why.

...because he so desperately wanted to see his foreign policy approval rating plummet and take his party down with it?

That was his grand scheme?

Do you people EVER think before you post?

Of course Obama didn't want his policy rating go down! JUST the fu...king opposite YOU idiot!
He was against our military from the getgo!
Obama ACCUSED our military in Iraq of methodically, daily, all the time "air raiding villages, KILLING CIVILIANS!!!"
So Obama appealing to his idiot base wanted the USA out of Iraq ASAP and he did EVERYTHING including NOT negotiating in good faith the SOFA!
So don't you think for a moment Obama was listening to his political advisers FIRST and foremost and they put politics above national safety and so Obama as the above shows practiced traitor actions for which NOW we have ISIS!

The Iraqis were happy that the USA was there!
This conclusion is based on a Media Research Center study of broadcast network news coverage of the Iraq war so far this year. MRC analysts reviewed all 1,388 Iraq stories broadcast on ABC’s World News Tonight, the CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News from January 1 through September 30. (In 2006, the MRC will release a similar analysis of cable news coverage of Iraq.) Among the key findings:

* Network coverage has been overwhelmingly pessimistic. More than half of all stories (848, or 61%) focused on negative topics or presented a pessimistic analysis of the situation, four times as many as featured U.S. or Iraqi achievements or offered an optimistic assessment (just 211 stories, or 15%).

* News about the war has grown increasingly negative. In January and February, about a fifth of all network stories (21%) struck a hopeful note,while just over half presented a negative slant on the situation. By August and September, positive stories had fallen to a measly seven percent and the percentage of bad news stories swelled to 73 percent of all Iraq news, a ten-to-one disparity.

* Terrorist attacks are the centerpiece of TV’s war news. Two out of every five network evening news stories (564) featured car bombings, assassinations, kidnappings or other attacks launched by the terrorists against the Iraqi people or coalition forces, more than any other topic.

* Even coverage of the Iraqi political process has been negative. More stories (124) focused on shortcomings in Iraq’s political process — the danger of bloodshed during the January elections, political infighting among politicians, and fears that the new Iraqi constitution might spur more civil strife —
than found optimism in the Iraqi people’s historic march to democracy (92 stories).

One-third of those optimistic stories (32) appeared on just two nights — January 30 and 31, just after Iraq’s first successful elections.

* Few stories focused on the heroism or generous actions of American soldiers.
In contrast, 79 stories focused on allegations of combat mistakes or outright misconduct on the part of U.S. military personnel.

People... do you understand that the MSM and the Democrats WANTED Iraq to fail and "reported" and praised successes of the terrorists while telling the world and Americans our troops were the bad guys!
When our own representatives help the terrorists by saying:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

3]"So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.
"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ... Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves. Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq. And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein -- the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it; and the fault for all that has gone wrong is ultimately with Iraqis themselves: It's a remarkable point of view to encounter in June 2013.
10 Years After the Fall of Saddam How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War - The Atlantic

You would have to pay me to read that long a post.

lol
 
If Bush and Cheney don't destabilize Iraq by invading and destroying it, Saddam wipes his ass with ISIS.
Yet now Obama thinks it's smart to do the same thing in Syria ?

Well right or wrong he's not putting a hundred thousand troops into Syria, so you're stretching that comparison quite a bit. Let's be fair.
To be fair, Obama is destabilizing Syria with no plan to deal with the power vacuum left behind. Why ?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top