Isis: In Iraq Because Of Obama

[NYcarbineer]

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 ?

Maybe he's caved to conservative pressure.

 

[1776]

Let's see.....AQI was pushed out of Iraq by the US military and the Iraqi military during Bush's time.

AQI reformed in Syria as ISIL and grew in numbers and powers under Obama's nose.

ISIL decided to move back to Iraq as ISIS right under Obama's nose and he did nothing until a couple beheadings, slaughter of innocents around Iraq, etc....

Yeah, it must be Bush's fault according to the fucked up liberals.

 

[healthmyths]

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

I am know now you suffer from ADD. Is that short enough for you?

 

[healthmyths]

If Bush and Cheney don't destabilize Iraq by invading and destroying it, Saddam wipes his ass with ISIS.

And if Saddam lovers like you had your way Saddam would have starved another 1,265,000 children because he wouldn't CERTIFY he had destroyed his WMDs!

Although Iraq earned billions in revenue under the Oil-for-Food program in 2000,
only about 33 percent was spent on food and 2 percent on medical supplies.
In five years 576,000 children starved BECAUSE SADDAM refused to certify WMD destruction!
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - New York Times

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

I am know now you suffer from ADD. Is that short enough for you?

Nah....he read it and it skewered him.....he lies.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

I am know now you suffer from ADD. Is that short enough for you?

You're the guy who put 100 threads about the 46 million uninsured. Do you know what disorder that represents.

 

[healthmyths]

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

I am know now you suffer from ADD. Is that short enough for you?

You're the guy who put 100 threads about the 46 million uninsured. Do you know what disorder that represents.

Doesn't alter the FACTS that ignorant people like you ignore!
Doesn't alter the FACT idiots like you can't do simple math i.e.
1) Census says 10 million of the 46 million counted as "uninsured" are NOT CITIZENS.. leaves 36 million.
2) Census says they undercounted 14 million qualified for SCHIP/Medicaid..leaves 22 million.
3) 18 million of uninsured DON"T want or NEED insurance... leaves 4 million!
Simple math yet the majority of idiots like you can't seem to grasp the fact of this gigantic gross distortion.
Obviously if you can't subtract 42 million from 46 million how can you grasp more complicated issues?

 

[BillyP]

Let's see.....AQI was pushed out of Iraq by the US military and the Iraqi military during Bush's time.

AQI reformed in Syria as ISIL and grew in numbers and powers under Obama's nose.

ISIL decided to move back to Iraq as ISIS right under Obama's nose and he did nothing until a couple beheadings, slaughter of innocents around Iraq, etc....

Yeah, it must be Bush's fault according to the fucked up liberals.

If Bush doesn't attack Iraq for no reason, saddam mops the floor with ISIS, Al-Q, ISIS, ...

 

[BillyP]

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 ?

US had nothing to do with Syria destabilizing itself. Please try again.

 

[healthmyths]

Let's see.....AQI was pushed out of Iraq by the US military and the Iraqi military during Bush's time.

AQI reformed in Syria as ISIL and grew in numbers and powers under Obama's nose.

ISIL decided to move back to Iraq as ISIS right under Obama's nose and he did nothing until a couple beheadings, slaughter of innocents around Iraq, etc....

Yeah, it must be Bush's fault according to the fucked up liberals.

If Bush doesn't attack Iraq for no reason, saddam mops the floor with ISIS, Al-Q, ISIS, ...

Right and if Saddam were still in power 1.2 million more kids would have starved all because Saddam would NOT CERTIFY HE HAD DESTROYED WMDs!
Why would a sane man allow 500,000 children to starve if he didn't have WMDs?
In five years 576,000 children starved BECAUSE SADDAM refused to certify WMD destruction!
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - New York Times

But of course NONE of these REALITIES are mentioned by you Saddam lovers..you people that
would love to have SADDAM's sons using pliers and power drills cutting out tongues, severing genitals.
The 28 million people remember what Saddam did.

 

[BillyP]

Let's see.....AQI was pushed out of Iraq by the US military and the Iraqi military during Bush's time.

AQI reformed in Syria as ISIL and grew in numbers and powers under Obama's nose.

ISIL decided to move back to Iraq as ISIS right under Obama's nose and he did nothing until a couple beheadings, slaughter of innocents around Iraq, etc....

Yeah, it must be Bush's fault according to the fucked up liberals.

If Bush doesn't attack Iraq for no reason, saddam mops the floor with ISIS, Al-Q, ISIS, ...

Right and if Saddam were still in power 1.2 million more kids would have starved all because Saddam would NOT CERTIFY HE HAD DESTROYED WMDs!
Why would a sane man allow 500,000 children to starve if he didn't have WMDs?
In five years 576,000 children starved BECAUSE SADDAM refused to certify WMD destruction!
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - New York Times

But of course NONE of these REALITIES are mentioned by you Saddam lovers..you people that
would love to have SADDAM's sons using pliers and power drills cutting out tongues, severing genitals.
The 28 million people remember what Saddam did.

I don't care how many iraqi children starve to death from UN sanctions. The UN just had to lift the sanctions, so it's not even saddam's fault. He didn't have any WMD, and had UN inspectors there for a decade or so before the war, and they found exactly nothing.

 

[dilloduck]

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 ?

US had nothing to do with Syria destabilizing itself. Please try again.

You don't think training forces that are rebelling against Assad is destabilizing ? How about YOU try again

 

[Siete]

Saddam, a Sunni was removed and his government along with him. THAT left the door open for WHOEVER AND WHATEVER CAME ALONG TO FIGHT FOR CONTROL OF IRAQ.

Obama didn't oust Saddam. PC is an idiot.

 

[BillyP]

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 ?

US had nothing to do with Syria destabilizing itself. Please try again.

You don't think training forces that are rebelling against Assad is destabilizing ? How about YOU try again

The Arab spring was probably helped along by the CIA, but nothing major in Syria, in fact the Syrian rebels were begging us for weapons.

 

[AquaAthena]

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.

Yes, his way of handling a Crisil.....

 

[dilloduck]

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 ?

US had nothing to do with Syria destabilizing itself. Please try again.

You don't think training forces that are rebelling against Assad is destabilizing ? How about YOU try again

The Arab spring was probably helped along by the CIA, but nothing major in Syria, in fact the Syrian rebels were begging us for weapons.

"(Reuters) - Jordan, where the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency has been covertly training Syrian rebels for more than a year, is reluctant to host an expanded rebel instruction program, U.S. officials said."
Exclusive Jordan reluctant to host U.S.-led Syria rebel training - officials Reuters

 

[PoliticalChic]

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 ?

US had nothing to do with Syria destabilizing itself. Please try again.

You don't think training forces that are rebelling against Assad is destabilizing ? How about YOU try again

The Arab spring was probably helped along by the CIA, but nothing major in Syria, in fact the Syrian rebels were begging us for weapons.

"(Reuters) - Jordan, where the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency has been covertly training Syrian rebels for more than a year, is reluctant to host an expanded rebel instruction program, U.S. officials said."
Exclusive Jordan reluctant to host U.S.-led Syria rebel training - officials Reuters

And working out the details of supplying weapons by way of Turkey was the mission of Ambassador Stevens the night he was killed.




"MILITARY & DEFENSEMore: Military Defense Syria Turkey
How US Ambassador Chris Stevens May Have Been Linked To Jihadist Rebels In Syria

The official position is that the U.S. has refused to allow heavy weapons into Syria.


But there's growing evidence that U.S. agents — particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens — were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels.

In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group — a group that has now disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack that took Stevens' life.

...head of the Tripoli Military Council, "met with Free Syrian Army [FSA] leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey" in an effort by the new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria.

Last month The Times of London reported that a Libyan ship "carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria … has docked in Turkey."
Read more:How US Ambassador Chris Stevens May Have Been Linked To Jihadist Rebels In Syria - Business Insider

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

If Bush and Cheney don't destabilize Iraq by invading and destroying it, Saddam wipes his ass with ISIS.

Wonderful. Lefty always the champion of strong-man totalitarianism. The hell with justice.

Excerpt:

Both you and eagle are seriously wrong about this. The artificial unification of three incompatible sectarian factions in a single-state Iraq cannot be maintained without a totalitarian strong man. That's the stability you're talking about, and nothing else but that! That's not a just or sustainable solution, and certainly the Kurds are not going to allow that to be imposed on them ever again and rightly so! Further, the current chaos is precisely due to the fact that a single-state solution is a balkanized monstrosity exacerbated by the rampage of ISIS/ISIL. Obama should have never armed the factious Syrian rebels. As for the Iraqi Shias and Sunnis let them kill each other if that's the best they can do with this historic opportunity. I say we back a western-friendly, independent Kurdistan and let the Iraqi Shias and Sunnis, who will never be reliable friends or allies, fend for themselves.​

Also:

. . . what I do know is that the neocons and—come on, Gary!—the leftist establishment as well are wrong about imposing a single-state solution on the Iraqi people. Clearly, the Obama Administration is aggressively advocating the very same single-state doctrine as that of the Bush Administration. It's an unjust relic of post-WWI colonialism. It simply will not work without strong-man totalitarianism.

As for the Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis, it would be wonderful if they could work out their differences in a peaceful fashion with regard to their respective regional concerns, including an equitable division of oil reserves, but frankly Islam is a disease. I wish them well. Truly. But I don't know what we can possibly do for them if they cannot get past their sectarian differences and realize an accord that serves their mutual interests. Of course, the biggest hurdle is that the major oil deposits are in the Kurdish and Shiite regions of Iraq.​

So why did Obama arm Syrian rebels? Among other things, he wants to impose a single-state solution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If Bush and Cheney don't destabilize Iraq by invading and destroying it, Saddam wipes his ass with ISIS.

Wonderful. Lefty always the champion of strong-man totalitarianism. The hell with justice.

Excerpt:

Both you and eagle are seriously wrong about this. The artificial unification of three incompatible sectarian factions in a single-state Iraq cannot be maintained without a totalitarian strong man. That's the stability you're talking about, and nothing else but that! That's not a just or sustainable solution, and certainly the Kurds are not going to allow that to be imposed on them ever again and rightly so! Further, the current chaos is precisely due to the fact that a single-state solution is a balkanized monstrosity exacerbated by the rampage of ISIS/ISIL. Obama should have never armed the factious Syrian rebels. As for the Iraqi Shias and Sunnis let them kill each other if that's the best they can do with this historic opportunity. I say we back a western-friendly, independent Kurdistan and let the Iraqi Shias and Sunnis, who will never be reliable friends or allies, fend for themselves.​

Also:

. . . what I do know is that the neocons and—come on, Gary!—the leftist establishment as well are wrong about imposing a single-state solution on the Iraqi people. Clearly, the Obama Administration is aggressively advocating the very same single-state doctrine as that of the Bush Administration. It's an unjust relic of post-WWI colonialism. It simply will not work without strong-man totalitarianism.

As for the Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis, it would be wonderful if they could work out their differences in a peaceful fashion with regard to their respective regional concerns, including an equitable division of oil reserves, but frankly Islam is a disease. I wish them well. Truly. But I don't know what we can possibly do for them if they cannot get past their sectarian differences and realize an accord that serves their mutual interests. Of course, the biggest hurdle is that the major oil deposits are in the Kurdish and Shiite regions of Iraq.​

So why did Obama arm Syrian rebels? Among other things, he wants to impose a single-state solution.

"...he wants to impose a single-state solution."

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

 

[kiwiman127]

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.

It's amusing that the right got so pissed off when Obama wrongfully took the credit for the troops being completely out of Iraq.
Iraq War ends on Bush’s schedule, not Obama’s
Iraq War ends on Bush s schedule not Obama s RedState
Funny how history is now being re-written by ideologues.
Moving on:
The OP intentionally ignores the entire picture because the OP is 100% an ideologue.
GWB was warned prior to the invasion by two intelligence agencies that displacing Saddam could lead to a civil war between the Shiites and Sunni.
Once Malaki took the reins of the Iraqi government the Sunni became marginalized and were basically persecuted. Malaki's action certainly swelled the ISIS with disenchanted Iraqi Sunni. That is not just the US government's opinion, it is also the Iranian government's opinion, who happens to also be a huge ally of the Malaki government. Malaki erred so much that Iran thought Iraq was better off without their ally.
I also think Obama ignored the growing problem with Maliki's actions of alienation the Sunni, which simply strengthened the ISIS.
The above is what is called looking at the entire picture, not just a portion of the picture that enhances one's ideology position why ignoring the real fucking world.