- Thread starter
- #41
The order of responsibility imo. Bush, Maliki, Obama.
Don't be shy....the first on the list should be Obama voters.
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.
The order of responsibility imo. Bush, Maliki, Obama.
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.
The order of responsibility imo. Bush, Maliki, Obama.
Don't be shy....the first on the list should be Obama voters.
As with so much of your posting.....it is untrue.
Bush left with a agreement that ended well into Obama's term....2012.
Here, from Time magazine, a verbal pie in your kisser:
"In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government thatset the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate."
Iraq 8217 s Government Not Obama Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence TIME.com
And, having rectitude on my side, I felt no necessity to use your vulgar language.
As with so much of your posting.....it is untrue.
Bush left with a agreement that ended well into Obama's term....2012.
Here, from Time magazine, a verbal pie in your kisser:
"In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government thatset the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate."
Iraq 8217 s Government Not Obama Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence TIME.com
And, having rectitude on my side, I felt no necessity to use your vulgar language.
But the Iraqi Parliament didn't want to give our troops immunity from the Iraqi judicial system. There was no way the Shiite majority in the Iraqi Parliament were going to pass giving the immunity to the US troops. (Well, that was until the ISIS became a major threat to their power.) It wasn't just Obama who wanted the troops to have immunity, both sides of the aisle felt the same way in the US.
So, in your OP you support bypassing the Iraqi Parliament and letting Maliki decide. Isn't that something like favoring an Executive Order by Maliki? There is no problem with Executive Orders when someone other than Obama issues them? Let's have some honesty and consistency here.
Isis: In Iraq Because Of Obama
This is a lie, which is no surprise considering the fact that the OP is a proven liar.
“What should Obama do? Aside from “stay the hell out,” I don’t know, and neither does anybody else. But at least conservatives ought to have the humility to refrain from blaming him from a situation that was inevitable, arguably from the moment Bush ordered the attack on Iraq, but certainly after the Bush administration signed off on disbanding the Iraqi Army. Obama has a hell of a mess to clean up, and I am certain that no Republican critic of his would have done any better.”
The Iraq Mess Is Not Obama 8217 s Fault The American Conservative
Or maybe because after the US had maimed, murdered, incarcerated, and displaced millions of Iraqi civilians an overwhelming majority of survivors wanted to end the illegal US invasion/occupation ASAP.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?
Why would Obama intentionally act in ways directly adverse to his own political fortunes, not to mention his party's??
Or maybe because after the US had maimed, murdered, incarcerated, and displaced millions of Iraqi civilians an overwhelming majority of survivors wanted to end the illegal US invasion/occupation ASAP.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?
Obama, boths Bushes, and Clintons are simply following a plan set in motion before most of them were born:
"The Red Line Agreement had been 'part of a network of agreements made in the 1920s to restrict supply of petroleum and ensure that the major [mostly American] companies ... could control oil prices on world markets'.
"[6] The Red Line agreement governed the development of Middle East oil for the next two decades.
"The Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement of 1944 was based on negotiations between the United States and Britain over the control of Middle Eastern oil. Below is shown what the American President Franklin D. Roosevelt had in mind for to a British Ambassador in 1944:
"Persian oil ... is yours. We share the oil of Iraq and Kuwait. As for Saudi Arabian oil, it's ours.[7]
United States foreign policy in the Middle East - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
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.
To be fair, Obama is destabilizing Syria with no plan to deal with the power vacuum left behind. Why ?Yet now Obama thinks it's smart to do the same thing in Syria ?If Bush and Cheney don't destabilize Iraq by invading and destroying it, Saddam wipes his ass with ISIS.
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.
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're leaving out a rather important detail. He didn't want to leave 10,000 troops without a SOFA. And Maliki refused. There's no indication from the Iraqi parliament that they would have been more open to a SOFA with the US than Maliki was. If you believe otherwise, quote the leaders of the Iraqi parliament indicating as much.
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're leaving out a rather important detail. He didn't want to leave 10,000 troops without a SOFA. And Maliki refused. There's no indication from the Iraqi parliament that they would have been more open to a SOFA with the US than Maliki was. If you believe otherwise, quote the leaders of the Iraqi parliament indicating as much.
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're leaving out a rather important detail. He didn't want to leave 10,000 troops without a SOFA. And Maliki refused. There's no indication from the Iraqi parliament that they would have been more open to a SOFA with the US than Maliki was. If you believe otherwise, quote the leaders of the Iraqi parliament indicating as much.
Iraqi Parliament? who cares? We could and should have stayed without any approval from the "Iraqi Parliament" We fought and died there, we stay there to support the Iraqi military with an airbase and logistics until the Generals it's ok to leave, not some political hack like Obama, who left for purely political reasons. I'll bet the so-called Iraqi Parliament wishes we were still there since half the country has now been taken overrun by the islamonazis
Politicalchick,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.
Excellent post post sweetie...Obama "dithered" around he didn't really start negotiating until late in the game, then sends that idiot Biden over there to screw it up. He never wanted any troops left there and his liberal base wouldn't have it.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're leaving out a rather important detail. He didn't want to leave 10,000 troops without a SOFA. And Maliki refused. There's no indication from the Iraqi parliament that they would have been more open to a SOFA with the US than Maliki was. If you believe otherwise, quote the leaders of the Iraqi parliament indicating as much.
Wrong.
"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 in Politico Magazine that 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.
Now....why do you suppose that Obama gave entrée to ISIS?
And error of omission.....
....or a plan of commission?
^ that...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?
^ thatIf Bush and Cheney don't destabilize Iraq by invading and destroying it, Saddam wipes his ass with ISIS.
sigh.....im not even going to bother with this.