BREAKING: Army General Exposes Barack Obama in a BIG WAY After Resigning Read more: http://www.thep

[nat4900]

Folks, when dealing with moronic right wingers, you have to simplify the questions that go beyond their blatant hatred of Obama...Therefore:

1. Which president negotiated and signed the accord for US troops to be out of Iraq by 2011? Was it Bush or was it Obama?

2. Which president vowed that we were not into "nation-building" and then, on pick-n-choose shady "evidence", did just that?

3. Did the Maliki government "beg" Bush to keep U.S. troops in Iraq beyond 2011 and make Iraq into another South Korea?

4. How did that promise by Rumsfeld and Cheney that the war would be fully paid by Iraq's oil, turn out?

 

[Camp]

Big surprise, the General who was tasked with training the Iraqi's to defend themselves after we pulled out is blaming someone else for his failure. His command will probably be recorded as one of America's greatest military failures. But it wasn't his fault he says.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

. How about Afghanistan, was that a smart war?

. The attacks on September 11 2001 did serve as a justifiable cause under the internationally accepted retaliatory "inherent right to self defence" to remove the Taliban regime and destroy Al Qaeda that had made safe-haven and planned the WRC and Pentagon attacks from there. I do not prefer to use the term 'good war' because no war is is sensually good for way too many people and their property. The AfPak long war was at least justifiable in terms of our own national security. After the 9/11 attacks it was necessary to remove the Taliban and also to put an end to the major terrorist controlled region on both sides of the AfPak border. Pakistan ( a nuclear armed nation) was said to be vulnerable to falling under Taliban and other terrorist's control if
nothing was done. It was a justified act of war and a 'good' military act to enter Pakistan's sovereign space in order to kill Bin Ladin.

But in reference to Bush diverting military assets, personell and resources to Iraq thereby abandoning the justified AfPak War; yes it was wise for Obama to point out that Bush would be ******* up big time in AfPak to start a dumb war in Iraq as he most certainly did. The U.S. Military focus should have remained on AfPak in 2002 and let the UN Inspectors do the job diplomatically and peacefully of verifying that Iraq was being disarmed of WMD. There was no reason to start another war where no terrorists were operating or being sheltered specifically because SH had openly decided in November 2002 to allow the return of UN inspectors to complete the WMD disarmament process as he had never ever done at anytime before. The invasion of Iraq was a very dumb war and I will conclude also by pointing out that AFPak is and was a NATO war - an attack upon one is an attack upon all. It was and still is justified . It's that the 2003 invasion of Iraq prolonged it and caused the 90 percent support it once had to erode. I supported it when it began and I continue to support the Afghan people and our military who continue to take the fight to the Taliban as ruthless and as brutal as they are. I did not cut and run from my original support of our troops fighting in Afghanistan under Bush's dire and pathetic command as so many right wingers did when Obama became President and surfed a tripling of US troop over there.

It is smart to keep our troops out of direct engagement with the enemy on the ground. The struggle goes on over there with 2 U.S. lives lost in hostile action this year. Our support for the good Afghan people must remain strong.

 

[rightwinger]

The thing to recognize here is that The Left's President is an enemy insurgent, operating in the President of the United States.

Once you come to understand that, then everything obama has done, is doing and will predictably do... makes perfect sense.

You guys always appear so intelligent when you say things like that

 

[nat4900]

The thing to recognize here is that The Left's President is an enemy insurgent, operating in the President of the United States.

Once you come to understand that, then everything obama has done, is doing and will predictably do... makes perfect sense.

You guys always appear so intelligent when you say things like that

Indeed, when you re such "brilliant" opinions by right wingers, don't they make you just want to run out and sign up to the republican party...shouting, "I too want to belong to the party of idiots".?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Folks, when dealing with moronic right wingers, you have to simplify the questions that go beyond their blatant hatred of Obama...Therefore:

1. Which...

Your queries are irrelevant....

1- Who failed to leave sufficient forces to sustain the peaceful sovereignty of the Iraqi Nation?

___obama_____

2- Who armed, funded and trained ISIS, thus stands as the Founder of ISIS?

___obama____

With regard to HOW Iraq got to where it is today, THOSE are the only two questions that are relevant.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

. How about Afghanistan, was that a smart war?

. The attacks on September 11 2001 did serve as a justifiable cause under the internationally accepted retaliatory "inherent right to self defence" to remove the Taliban regime and destroy Al Qaeda that had made safe-haven and planned the WRC and Pentagon attacks from there. I do not prefer to use the term 'good war' because no war is is sensually good for way too many people and their property. The AfPak long war was at least justifiable in terms of our own national security. After the 9/11 attacks it was necessary to remove the Taliban and also to put an end to the major terrorist controlled region on both sides of the AfPak border. Pakistan ( a nuclear armed nation) was said to be vulnerable to falling under Taliban and other terrorist's control if
nothing was done. It was a justified act of war and a 'good' military act to enter Pakistan's sovereign space in order to kill Bin Ladin.

But in reference to Bush diverting military assets, personell and resources to Iraq thereby abandoning the justified AfPak War; yes it was wise for Obama to point out that Bush would be ******* up big time in AfPak to start a dumb war in Iraq as he most certainly did. The U.S. Military focus should have remained on AfPak in 2002 and let the UN Inspectors do the job diplomatically and peacefully of verifying that Iraq was being disarmed of WMD. There was no reason to start another war where no terrorists were operating or being sheltered specifically because SH had openly decided in November 2002 to allow the return of UN inspectors to complete the WMD disarmament process as he had never ever done at anytime before. The invasion of Iraq was a very dumb war and I will conclude also by pointing out that AFPak is and was a NATO war - an attack upon one is an attack upon all. It was and still is justified . It's that the 2003 invasion of Iraq prolonged it and caused the 90 percent support it once had to erode. I supported it when it began and I continue to support the Afghan people and our military who continue to take the fight to the Taliban as ruthless and as brutal as they are. I did not cut and run from my original support of our troops fighting in Afghanistan under Bush's dire and pathetic command as so many right wingers did when Obama became President and surfed a tripling of US troop over there.

It is smart to keep our troops out of direct engagement with the enemy on the ground. The struggle goes on over there with 2 U.S. lives lost in hostile action this year. Our support for the good Afghan people must remain strong.

Bush didn't divert Troops from Afghanistan. Bush did not want a large military presence in Afghanistan.

Bush used troops available to him to crush President Hussein and remove him and his cronies from power.

OH! If he were only of a mind to do so today.

MAN! That would really save us a lot... .

 

[nat4900]

Your queries are irrelevant....

1- Who failed to leave sufficient forces to sustain the peaceful sovereignty of the Iraqi Nation?

___obama_____

2- Who armed, funded and trained ISIS, thus stands as the Founder of ISIS?

___obama____

With regard to HOW Iraq got to where it is today, THOSE are the only two questions that are relevant.

Well, Keys......with the above, you're either a very funny guy or an idiot...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama switched sides. It's so obvious he decided to support his brothers in Jihad

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Big surprise, the General who was tasked with training the Iraqi's to defend themselves after we pulled out is blaming someone else for his failure. His command will probably be recorded as one of America's greatest military failures. But it wasn't his fault he says.

ROFL!

He might as well have been tasked with training goats to defend Iraq. Iraq's military, along with Iran's military were two feckless hordes of bodies caught between the true believers each respective sides preventing them from running.

They'll 'Fight' for anyone who promises not to kill them today...

Understand that Islam, like the Ideological Left rests entirely upon Relativism. "Truth to them is whatever the guy standing upon their neck today, says the truth is.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Your queries are irrelevant....

1- Who failed to leave sufficient forces to sustain the peaceful sovereignty of the Iraqi Nation?

___obama_____

2- Who armed, funded and trained ISIS, thus stands as the Founder of ISIS?

___obama____

With regard to HOW Iraq got to where it is today, THOSE are the only two questions that are relevant.

Well, Keys......with the above, you're either a very funny guy or an idiot...

And your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

(Again Reader, the KEY to defeating Leftists in debate rests upon two fundamental elements:

1- Find a Leftist

2- Get them to speak.)

 

[bedowin62]

The assertion that President Obama’s hands were tied and he was forced to abide by the conditions of the SoFA on account of President Bush is baloney. The Administration did try to negotiate- but too little, too late; and frankly, I don’t believe President Obama’s heart was truly into it. In my humble opinion for what it’s worth, Iraq is merely a distraction from his focus on the domestic front.
The claim that Iraqis wanted us out is also not quite the whole story. A number of officials have stated that, off the record, Iraqi politicians may not have boldly stated it publicly, but a number of Iraqis wanted U.S. forces to remain in Iraq for the sake of security and stability.

 

[bedowin62]

Then Hillary Rodham Clinton declared during the book tour for her memoir that Obama’s “failure” to arm and train Free Syrian Army rebels “left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled.”
Now comes Leon Panetta with a new memoir, “Worthy Fights,” in which he lays responsibility for the withdrawal of U.S. forces and the rise of the Islamic State where it belongs — directly at Obama’s feet.
Panetta writes that he warned Obama of the danger of withdrawing all U.S. troops from Iraq: “My fear, as I voiced to the President and others was that if the country split apart or slid back into the violence that we’d seen in the years immediately following the U.S. invasion, it could become a new haven for terrorists to plot attacks against the U.S.” But when he and Obama’s military commanders recommended keeping 24,000 troops, “the President’s team at the White House pushed back, and the differences occasionally became heated.” The White House, Panetta says, was “so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests.” Now, “the ISIS offensive in 2014 greatly increases the risk that Iraq will become al-Qaeda’s next safe haven. That is exactly what it had in Afghanistan pre-9/11.”



FROM TWO OF OBAMA'S OWN PEOPE NO LESS



libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[bedowin62]

Leon Panetta’s Worthy Fights, page 392-4:
When President Obama announced the end of our combat mission in August 2010, he’d acknowledged that we would maintain troops for a while. As he put it, “Going forward, a transitional force of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq with a different mission: advising and assisting Iraq’s security forces; supporting Iraqi troops in targeted counterterrorism missions; and protecting our civilians. Consistent with our agreement with the Iraqi government, all U.S. troops will leave by the end of next year.” Now that the deadline was upon us, however, it was clear to me- and many others- that withdrawing all our forces would endanger the fragile stability then barely holding Iraq together.



libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Obama switched sides. It's so obvious he decided to support his brothers in Jihad

Switched?

LOL!

I can see where one could reasonably come to that conclusion. But obama has never been 'with us'.

obama is an enemy insurgent, who in a freakishly lucky circumstance, found himself elected to the office of the President of the United States.

It's likely that no one was more shocked that he was.

So since then, his job has been to assist Islam's war on non-Islam, in every way possible, without giving away who and what he is.

Ask yourself this: IF obama is not a Muslim Insurgent using the Presidency as a means to promote the interests of Islam in its jihad, then what would a jihadi in the Office of the President look like... and HOW WOULD THAT DIFFER FROM ... obama?

 

[bedowin62]

We had leverage.
~~~
My fear, as I voiced to the president and others, was that if the country split apart or slid back into the pervasive violence that we’d experienced in the years immediately following the U.S. invasion,it could become a new haven for terrorists to plot attacks against the United States. Iraqi’s stability thus, in my view, was not only ini raqS’ interest but ours. With that in mind, I privately and publicly advocated leaving behind a residual force that could provide training and security for Iraq’s military.
Michele Flournoy did her best to press that position, which reflected not just my views but also those of the military commanders in the region and the Joint Chiefs. But the president’s team at the White House pushed back, and the differences occasionally became heated. Flournoy argued our case, and those on our side of the debate viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests.

 

[bedowin62]

We debated with Maliki even as we debated among ourselves, with time running out. The clock wound down in December, and Ash Carter continued to argue our case, extending the deadline for the Iraqis to act, hoping that we might pull out a last-minute agreement and recognizing that once our forces left it would be essentially impossible for them to turn around and return. To my frustration, the White House coordinated the negotiations but never really led them. Officials there seemed content to endorse an agreement if State and Defense could reach one, but without the president’s active advocacy, Mailiki was allowed to slip away. The deal never materialized. To this day, I believe that a small, focused U.S. troop presence in Iraq could have effectively advised the Iraqi military on how to deal with Al Qaeda’s resurgence and the sectarian violence that has engulfed the country.
Over the course of the following two and a half years, the situation in Iraq slowly deteriorated.\



EXCERPTS FROM OBAMA CIA DIRECTOR AND SECRETARY OF DEFENSES' BOOK

 

[bedowin62]

Also on page 392 in Panetta’s book, is the following observation:
Privately, the various leadership factions in Iraq all confided that they wanted some U.S. forces to remain as a bulwark against sectarian violence. But none were willing to take that position publicly,
One of the excuses given by those defending President Obama’s failure to renegotiate the SoFA is that the Iraqis wanted us out. But there have been a number of officials who have made mention that in private confidence, Iraqis and Iraqi officials expressed the desire for U.S. forces to remain in Iraq for the sake of security.

 

[bedowin62]

LIBS ARE LOSERS

who lie to themselves

 

[bedowin62]

Oh, my….this next part:
Iraqi leaders are divided over the US election. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (whose party is a member of the Socialist International) sees Obama as “a man of the Left” – who, once elected, might change his opposition to Iraq’s liberation. Indeed, say Talabani’s advisers, a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success.
Maliki’s advisers have persuaded him that Obama will win – but the prime minister worries about the senator’s “political debt to the anti-war lobby” – which is determined to transform Iraq into a disaster to prove that toppling Saddam Hussein was “the biggest strategic blunder in US history.”