Obama Declares Victory And Leaves In Defeat

[francoHFW]

It was never going to be any better or different. Stupidest war EVAH!! For OILMEN it was about oil. Pub Morons! As always...

 

[mudwhistle]

Yes, just like the decision to invade was done by the troops.......OOops......that decision was made by Bush. So was the decision to ignore the advice of his commanders and not put sufficient troops on the ground

The result was an unnecessary invasion, eight year occupation and 4000 dead US soldiers not to mention an estimated 100,000 dead Iraqis.

All to satisfy Bushs vendetta against Iraq

Are you seriously trying to pretend that the decision by a president is synonymous with the actions by the troops?
Seriously?
I've got better things to do than argue that fallacious kind of mindset.

Synonymous?

Do you understand what Commander in Chief is?

How much did the NFL Commissioner have to do with Green Bay winning the Super Bowl last year.

That's how much Obama has to do with any victory we may or may not have on the ground. Obama can only give them the opportunity to win or lose. It's up to them. He cannot do it by himself.

Problem is there is no victory here......but that never stopped this prick from trying to take credit for something that the libs here admit was a deadline set by Bush.

The failure is our complete pullout which was never part of the Deadline.

Sycophants may want to give Obama credit for some kind of victory but it doesn't exist.

It's like losing by 30 points in a football game and claiming you won just because you left the field alive.

 

[francoHFW]

We'll see. And it would have been like this with Bush too. The Iraqis are sick to death of us...

 

[mudwhistle]

Obama is claiming victory.

I joined Attackwatch.com and this is what I received today in my email:

Friend --

I'm James Kvaal, the new policy director for President Obama's 2012 campaign. You'll be hearing from me occasionally about the President's policies and those of our opponents, and how we can all help bring about change for our country.

Yesterday, we accomplished one major change when President Obama announced that all American troops in Iraq will be home before the holidays.

With that action, the Iraq war will end. And one of the President's central promises will have been kept.

Both as Americans and as supporters of President Obama, this is something for us to reflect on, and be proud of.

Watch the video of the President's announcement -- then please pass this on:

All Hail Barrack Obama......

 

[The T]

Obama is claiming victory.

I joined Attackwatch.com and this is what I received today in my email:

Friend --

I'm James Kvaal, the new policy director for President Obama's 2012 campaign. You'll be hearing from me occasionally about the President's policies and those of our opponents, and how we can all help bring about change for our country.

Yesterday, we accomplished one major change when President Obama announced that all American troops in Iraq will be home before the holidays.

With that action, the Iraq war will end. And one of the President's central promises will have been kept.

Both as Americans and as supporters of President Obama, this is something for us to reflect on, and be proud of.

Watch the video of the President's announcement -- then please pass this on:

All Hail Barrack Obama......

Was there any doubt how CHEAP the O really is?

 

[The T]

I suppose that is the million dollar question.

In war, the losers declare the victor at the point they no longer have the will or means to fight and/or resist.
I haven't heard anybody say "I give up", 'cept our president.

He promised "he would get us out"...but isn't it a damned shame that the agreement for the event came before the O was ever immacculated?

And note the shameful use of it? (As he send others into harm's way in Uganda)?

Shameful in that both he and the media pretend it was his plan.

VP Biteme and the O claimed credit in February 2009...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_IOgcwav7E]Biden and Obama Try to Steal Bush's Iraq Victory Legacy - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Jackson]

We'll see. And it would have been like this with Bush too. The Iraqis are sick to death of us...

Now that we gave them freedom, a road to democracy and have built their infrastructure...

Nevermind the cost in lives and our economy.

We have to get out of Uganda! Shame on our "CIC."

 

[alan1]

Yes, just like the decision to invade was done by the troops.......OOops......that decision was made by Bush. So was the decision to ignore the advice of his commanders and not put sufficient troops on the ground

The result was an unnecessary invasion, eight year occupation and 4000 dead US soldiers not to mention an estimated 100,000 dead Iraqis.

All to satisfy Bushs vendetta against Iraq

Are you seriously trying to pretend that the decision by a president is synonymous with the actions by the troops?
Seriously?
I've got better things to do than argue that fallacious kind of mindset.

Synonymous?

Do you understand what Commander in Chief is?

Yes.

I answered your question,
Care to answer my questions?
Or
Should I just chalk you up as another person that cannot or will not do so?

 

[JoeB131]

Obama gave the order to carry out the mission. He was told by his advisers that there was a 50/50 chance that Osama was in the compound. He could have said not to go in (like Bush did in 2003[?] in Tora Bora). Therefore, Obama gave the order that lead to the death of Bin Laden. Is that hard to understand?

Please get your facts right about Tora Bora...
The battle of Tora Bora happened in December 2001. Bush gave the order to go in, and Bin Laden slipped away, just barely.

What Bush didn't authorize was mining the passes leading to Pakistan with GATOR mines. Perhaps a mistake, but land mines are politically controversial to start with. he also wrongly assumed Pakistan was guarding its own border effectively.

Now, I give Obama kudos for ordering the mission, but it wasn't like it was a big risk politically for him. By that point, Bin Laden was a broken man, not even in charge of the organization, possibly betrayed by one of his own wives. It was kind of like shooting a pathetic, mangy dog at that point.

 

[CMike]

Now the Al Qaida forces can wait it out until the end of the year.

Then with Iranian help they can get control of the government , and once again Iraq can become a haven for terrorists.


Great work Obama

what part of we were scheduled to leave regardless of who was in office now do you not understand?

Are you stupid or something? ( rhetorical)

You are literally ignoring reality so it looks like you have a point. Your chair at the adult table has been revoked.

Obama even said on his web-site before he was elected that he understood 50,000 troops would remain for at least 10 years.

Did you ever consider why he would say that?

Because Iraq has strategic value in the war on terror. Now we've lost it because Obama pissed off the Iraqis. Now we have to leave. Once we leave, Iran doesn't have to worry about a Democracy peeking over it's shoulder. Iran doesn't have to worry about about Predator drones or attacks from our aircraft if they step out of line.

Thanks to Obama one of the major reasons we were in Iraq is trashed.

Mudwhistle, I happen to think that you are on a bash-Obama-mission without dealing with the facts.

Iraq Demands 'Clear Timeline' for U.S. Troop Withdrawal

Read more: Iraq Demands 'Clear Timeline' for U.S. Troop Withdrawal - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com

And GWB granted their wish and signed an agreement to be out by December 31, 2011 which also coincides with the date of the UN Mandate.

Obama tried to get an extension on the timeline but Iraq was serious when they signed the agreement with the US and they are still serious. Iraq obviously have thought for quite awhile, that they wanted to control their own independence and destiny.
The US liberated them, we helped set up their democratic elections and now we shouldn't honor a democratic sovereign country's wish that we leave? And it's Obama's fault? Try something else that deals with the real world.

 

[CMike]

Surrender is not a victory.

Umm...the ACA (what you refer to as 'Obamacare') was a legislative victory, and therefore, an accomplishment. Do you seriously disagree?

You want to talk about the stimulus? The one that kept us from sliding into a depression? The one that, according to the CBO, saved/created 3 million jobs (about the same amount of jobs that Bush 'created' during his 8 years in office)? I'm sure it'll be more fantasy on your part, but hey, knock yourself out.

Such an accomplishment over half of the states filed suit. the legislation was already adjusted due to pressure and now another section placed on hold because the lies are to transparent in relation to cost.

So if lying was the objective..then yes it is an accomplishment.

Call it what you wish, but it was a legislative victory. Republicans pulled out all of the stops and they couldn't stop it. It's a victory.

Then with the Jobs BS I can claim anything when I am not required to show proof. Between 1.3 and 3 Generous margin of error.

Hey, talk to the CBO. They said 3 million. Do you have access to data that they didn't?

 

[kiwiman127]

Now the Al Qaida forces can wait it out until the end of the year.

Then with Iranian help they can get control of the government , and once again Iraq can become a haven for terrorists.


Great work Obama

Obama even said on his web-site before he was elected that he understood 50,000 troops would remain for at least 10 years.

Did you ever consider why he would say that?

Because Iraq has strategic value in the war on terror. Now we've lost it because Obama pissed off the Iraqis. Now we have to leave. Once we leave, Iran doesn't have to worry about a Democracy peeking over it's shoulder. Iran doesn't have to worry about about Predator drones or attacks from our aircraft if they step out of line.

Thanks to Obama one of the major reasons we were in Iraq is trashed.

Mudwhistle, I happen to think that you are on a bash-Obama-mission without dealing with the facts.

Iraq Demands 'Clear Timeline' for U.S. Troop Withdrawal

Read more: Iraq Demands 'Clear Timeline' for U.S. Troop Withdrawal - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com

And GWB granted their wish and signed an agreement to be out by December 31, 2011 which also coincides with the date of the UN Mandate.

Obama tried to get an extension on the timeline but Iraq was serious when they signed the agreement with the US and they are still serious. Iraq obviously have thought for quite awhile, that they wanted to control their own independence and destiny.
The US liberated them, we helped set up their democratic elections and now we shouldn't honor a democratic sovereign country's wish that we leave? And it's Obama's fault? Try something else that deals with the real world.

You seem to be missing the point Mike.
As the article I posted within the post you quoted, it states the it was GWB who actually set the date of December 31, 2011 in an agreement by his administration and the Iraqi government. The Iraqi government insisted and GWB agreed. In other words, back in 2008 the Iraqi government wanted the US gone. Fast forward to 2011. The agreed upon timetable conclusion date is approaching, the Obama Administration tries to get an extension but the Iraqis say no. It's December 31st in the agreement signed in 2008 and there is no turning back on that agreement by the Iraqis. They wanted the US gone in 2008 and they still want the US gone. But for some ill-informed posters, it's Obama's fault. It makes no sense and defies factual history.
Not that I support Obama, the guy actually claimed that he kept his 2008 campaign pledge. He had nothing to do with the US troops finally leaving Iraq and he is basically lying about his part. This event was the result of the efforts of the Bush Administration and the Iraqi government, period.

 

[kiwiman127]

Now the Al Qaida forces can wait it out until the end of the year.

Then with Iranian help they can get control of the government , and once again Iraq can become a haven for terrorists.


Great work Obama

Mudwhistle, I happen to think that you are on a bash-Obama-mission without dealing with the facts.

Iraq Demands 'Clear Timeline' for U.S. Troop Withdrawal

Read more: Iraq Demands 'Clear Timeline' for U.S. Troop Withdrawal - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com

And GWB granted their wish and signed an agreement to be out by December 31, 2011 which also coincides with the date of the UN Mandate.

Obama tried to get an extension on the timeline but Iraq was serious when they signed the agreement with the US and they are still serious. Iraq obviously have thought for quite awhile, that they wanted to control their own independence and destiny.
The US liberated them, we helped set up their democratic elections and now we shouldn't honor a democratic sovereign country's wish that we leave? And it's Obama's fault? Try something else that deals with the real world.

why do you hate freedom?

I think it has to do with the fact that Dumbo was my favorite cartoon character when I was a little kid.

 

[Lakhota]

I think many are missing the point as to why U.S. troops are leaving Iraq by December 31, 2011:

Obama announces U.S. troops leaving Iraq by year's end

The Associated Press
Date: Fri. Oct. 21 2011

In recent months, Washington had been discussing with Iraqi leaders the possibility of several thousand American troops remaining to continue training Iraqi security forces.

Throughout the discussions, Iraqi leaders refused to give U.S. troops immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts, and the Americans refused to stay without that guarantee.

Moreover, Iraq's leadership has been split on whether it wanted American forces to stay.

When the 2008 agreement requiring all U.S. forces to leave Iraq was passed, many U.S. officials assumed it would inevitably be renegotiated so that Americans could stay longer.

The U.S. said repeatedly this year it would entertain an offer from the Iraqis to have a small force stay behind, and the Iraqis said they would like American military help. But as the year wore on and the number of American troops that Washington was suggesting could stay behind dropped, it became increasingly clear that a U.S. troop presence was not a sure thing.

The issue of legal protection for the Americans was the deal-breaker.

More: Obama announces U.S. troops leaving Iraq by year's end - CTV News

As I understand it, Obama could have left troops in Iraq past year-end - but because Iraqi leaders refused to give U.S. troops immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts - Obama is pulling them out. Thank you, Mr. President.

 

[mudwhistle]

I think many are missing the point as to why U.S. troops are leaving Iraq by December 31, 2011:

Obama announces U.S. troops leaving Iraq by year's end

The Associated Press
Date: Fri. Oct. 21 2011

In recent months, Washington had been discussing with Iraqi leaders the possibility of several thousand American troops remaining to continue training Iraqi security forces.

Throughout the discussions, Iraqi leaders refused to give U.S. troops immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts, and the Americans refused to stay without that guarantee.

Moreover, Iraq's leadership has been split on whether it wanted American forces to stay.

When the 2008 agreement requiring all U.S. forces to leave Iraq was passed, many U.S. officials assumed it would inevitably be renegotiated so that Americans could stay longer.

The U.S. said repeatedly this year it would entertain an offer from the Iraqis to have a small force stay behind, and the Iraqis said they would like American military help. But as the year wore on and the number of American troops that Washington was suggesting could stay behind dropped, it became increasingly clear that a U.S. troop presence was not a sure thing.

The issue of legal protection for the Americans was the deal-breaker.

More: Obama announces U.S. troops leaving Iraq by year's end - CTV News

As I understand it, Obama could have left troops in Iraq past year-end - but because Iraqi leaders refused to give U.S. troops immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts - Obama is pulling them out. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you for screwing the pooch. This is a major foreign policy disaster. We're leaving with our tails tucked between our legs.

I just heard David Gregory and Andrea Mitchell call this a victory on Meet The Depressed.

Hillary gave Bush credit because she said he is the one who should get credit along with Obama simply because Obama followed the agreement.

If you remember, the Iraqi foreign minister at the time dropped a dime on Obama and said that the President-Elect attempted to prevent them from signing the agreement with Bush. Obama is in all respects attempting to take credit anyway now.

You seem to have a really short memory.

Report: Obama attempted to delay Iraq withdrawal

Did candidate try to manipulate policy to later claim credit for ending war?
Posted: September 15, 2008
9:13 pm Eastern

© 2011 WND


While touring Iraq in July and publicly calling for troop withdrawal, Sen. Barack Obama was reportedly trying in private to delay plans for an American draw-down until after the next president took office.

New York Post columnist Amir Taheri writes that he interviewed Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, who confirmed the Democratic presidential candidate met with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad to demand delay in the withdrawal of American forces.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the U.S. elections and the formation of a new administration," Zebari reportedly said.

The column states that Obama insisted it was in Iraq's best interest to avoid an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

Such a position in private negotiations would be a stark contrast with Obama's public record on the issue.

Report: Obama attempted to delay Iraq withdrawal

 

[auditor0007]

Can't see a big problem here.

We want to get out.

The Iraqis want us to leave.

Frankly, I'd prefer that to something like Korea, where we are keeping a whole division on standby to defend the third richest country in Asia from the poorest country in Asia from a war that ended 60 years ago.

On a larger note, perhaps it is time for us to stop trying to be the world's policeman. We have troops in over 100 countries, and we are broke! The world doesn't seem to appreciate our efforts all that much. You get the lazy socialist states of Europe who spend less than 1% of GDP defending their own countries while we spend 6% of GDP protecting the whole world.

At the very least, we should actually charge for the service.

Agree 100%. If all these countries want our continued protection, then let them pay for it, because we cannot afford it as a free handout any longer.

 

[The T]

I think many are missing the point as to why U.S. troops are leaving Iraq by December 31, 2011:

Obama announces U.S. troops leaving Iraq by year's end

The Associated Press
Date: Fri. Oct. 21 2011

In recent months, Washington had been discussing with Iraqi leaders the possibility of several thousand American troops remaining to continue training Iraqi security forces.

Throughout the discussions, Iraqi leaders refused to give U.S. troops immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts, and the Americans refused to stay without that guarantee.

Moreover, Iraq's leadership has been split on whether it wanted American forces to stay.

When the 2008 agreement requiring all U.S. forces to leave Iraq was passed, many U.S. officials assumed it would inevitably be renegotiated so that Americans could stay longer.

The U.S. said repeatedly this year it would entertain an offer from the Iraqis to have a small force stay behind, and the Iraqis said they would like American military help. But as the year wore on and the number of American troops that Washington was suggesting could stay behind dropped, it became increasingly clear that a U.S. troop presence was not a sure thing.

The issue of legal protection for the Americans was the deal-breaker.

More: Obama announces U.S. troops leaving Iraq by year's end - CTV News

As I understand it, Obama could have left troops in Iraq past year-end - but because Iraqi leaders refused to give U.S. troops immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts - Obama is pulling them out. Thank you, Mr. President.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_IOgcwav7E]Biden and Obama Try to Steal Bush's Iraq Victory Legacy - YouTube[/ame]

 

[The T]

I think many are missing the point as to why U.S. troops are leaving Iraq by December 31, 2011:

Obama announces U.S. troops leaving Iraq by year's end

The Associated Press
Date: Fri. Oct. 21 2011

In recent months, Washington had been discussing with Iraqi leaders the possibility of several thousand American troops remaining to continue training Iraqi security forces.

Throughout the discussions, Iraqi leaders refused to give U.S. troops immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts, and the Americans refused to stay without that guarantee.

Moreover, Iraq's leadership has been split on whether it wanted American forces to stay.

When the 2008 agreement requiring all U.S. forces to leave Iraq was passed, many U.S. officials assumed it would inevitably be renegotiated so that Americans could stay longer.

The U.S. said repeatedly this year it would entertain an offer from the Iraqis to have a small force stay behind, and the Iraqis said they would like American military help. But as the year wore on and the number of American troops that Washington was suggesting could stay behind dropped, it became increasingly clear that a U.S. troop presence was not a sure thing.

The issue of legal protection for the Americans was the deal-breaker.

More: Obama announces U.S. troops leaving Iraq by year's end - CTV News

As I understand it, Obama could have left troops in Iraq past year-end - but because Iraqi leaders refused to give U.S. troops immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts - Obama is pulling them out. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you for screwing the pooch. This is a major foreign policy disaster. We're leaving with our tails tucked between our legs.

I just heard David Gregory and Andrea Mitchell call this a victory on Meet The Depressed.

Hillary gave Bush credit because she said he is the one who should get credit along with Obama simply because Obama followed the agreement.

If you remember, the Iraqi President at the time dropped a dime on Obama and said that the President-Elect attempted to prevent them from signing the agreement with Bush. Obama is in all respects attempting to take credit anyway now.

You seem to have a really short memory.

Will Obama and his bots ever make up thier minds? They blame him on one hand and take credit for his deeds on the other. Is that what it is to live in an alternate universe?

 

[mudwhistle]

I think many are missing the point as to why U.S. troops are leaving Iraq by December 31, 2011:



More: Obama announces U.S. troops leaving Iraq by year's end - CTV News

As I understand it, Obama could have left troops in Iraq past year-end - but because Iraqi leaders refused to give U.S. troops immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts - Obama is pulling them out. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you for screwing the pooch. This is a major foreign policy disaster. We're leaving with our tails tucked between our legs.

I just heard David Gregory and Andrea Mitchell call this a victory on Meet The Depressed.

Hillary gave Bush credit because she said he is the one who should get credit along with Obama simply because Obama followed the agreement.

If you remember, the Iraqi President at the time dropped a dime on Obama and said that the President-Elect attempted to prevent them from signing the agreement with Bush. Obama is in all respects attempting to take credit anyway now.

You seem to have a really short memory.

Will Obama and his bots ever make up thier minds? They blame him on one hand and take credit for his deeds on the other. Is that what it is to live in an alternate universe?

When you support a person like Obama you have to lie to others and to yourself to swallow all of the garbage this guy is constantly shoveling to them.

 

[J.E.D]

Obama gave the order to carry out the mission. He was told by his advisers that there was a 50/50 chance that Osama was in the compound. He could have said not to go in (like Bush did in 2003[?] in Tora Bora). Therefore, Obama gave the order that lead to the death of Bin Laden. Is that hard to understand?

Please get your facts right about Tora Bora...
The battle of Tora Bora happened in December 2001. Bush gave the order to go in, and Bin Laden slipped away, just barely.

What Bush didn't authorize was mining the passes leading to Pakistan with GATOR mines. Perhaps a mistake, but land mines are politically controversial to start with. he also wrongly assumed Pakistan was guarding its own border effectively.

Now, I give Obama kudos for ordering the mission, but it wasn't like it was a big risk politically for him. By that point, Bin Laden was a broken man, not even in charge of the organization, possibly betrayed by one of his own wives. It was kind of like shooting a pathetic, mangy dog at that point.

Looks like I wasn't too far off. Like I said, Bush let Bin Laden go. Thanks for confirming that.

Your assessment of the mission that killed Bin Laden is laughable. It damn sure was an important mission. Bin Laden was the most wanted and dangerous man in the world - not iquivelant to a mangy dog like you so ridiculously portayed him. The mission was definitely a political risk for Obama. Obama and everybody else in that room knew that if the mission were a failure - especially if US troops were killed - Obama would take ALL of the blame (remember Carter and his botched rescue mission?). You're being either naive or disingenuous to pretend otherwise.