Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
On August 22, 2014 at 09:24 PMObama belatedly made good on His promise to get American troops out of Iraq. Of course He tied their hands while there and turned the country over to ISIS but, hey that IS "change".
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/iraq-war-on-terror/losing-iraq/david-petraeus-isiss-rise-in-iraq-isnt-a-surprise/No one knows ]whether forces there would have given us an influence. That’s the question for the ages. They were out of combat, out of the cities and out of the advising.
So you have to ask what the mission would have been. And again, without knowing what mission Prime Minister Maliki would have allowed them to do, it’s hard to say how much influence they might have achieved, again noting that there was a quite a robust security assistance force and that did not seem to translate.
As I said, I would have loved to have seen a force remain on the ground. I would have loved it even more if I knew that they were going to have a mission that would allow them to continue to contribute to the sustainment of the progress that was so hard fought and for which so many sacrificed so much during the surge and beyond
Do you know of any Democrats besides Joe Lieberman who decided to kick the inspectors out of Iraq, end peaceful disarmament, and send US troops into combat unprepared for what was to come in Iraq following the regime change.
That was the Decider who decided that and no one else. What on earth should Democrats be on the hook for?
In opposition to the war back in March 2003 would you have preferred if Bush allowed the inspectors a few more months to finish or do you think like Republicans that the UN is worthless in the weapons inspection and monitoring business?
Today at 3:37 PM 08/22Then the Democrats lied and said he was right. Then you lied and said they didn't lie. Maybe you could be the first to stop the cycle of lies.
You don't follow these posts very well do you? Yesterday at 11:16 PM I wrote in response to U2EDGE, "Then Bush Lied to you on March 17, 2003 because Bush definitely said that Iraq was hiding WMD from UN inspectors at that time and that is why he decided to attack the people of Iraq. If the 'goal' was as you say, then Bush lied because you say below that Bush would have been stupid to wait until Saddam re-acquired his prior WMD capacity."
I wrote that because U2EDGE wrote on Jul 8, 2014 at 12:31 AM this, "This totally misses the point that the goal was to PREVENT Saddam from ever having any WMD capability again! It would have been stupid to wait to launch an invasion until Saddam had re-acquired his prior WMD capacity. ... . Given that the sanctions and weapons embargo regimes were falling apart, it was only a matter of time before Saddam would have rebuilt his prior capabilities. It was important to act early, before SADDAM had rebuilt any of his prior capabilities in the WMD field. To wait until such capabilities developed would have resulted in far heavier casualties for both military forces and civilians in the region." -end of quote.
So you have obligated yourself to find a quote where Democrats on March 17, 2003 said they agreed with Bush that Iraq was 'concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised' from UN inspectors. You have declared that I lied. But what on earth do you have as a basis for that false charge?
On August 22, 2014 at 09:24 PM
How is it that you think you know more than Petraeus? Petraeus was recently asked: "Would it have happened if we had had 25,000 troops still on the ground?"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/iraq-war-on-terror/losing-iraq/david-petraeus-isiss-rise-in-iraq-isnt-a-surprise/
They should have never voted for it, we should not have gone in.
Surprised me there! Would never have guessed you would ever have even heard of the general!
I did approve of the invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power since nothing else was going to accomplish that goal set by Clinton in 1998.
Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Lied people Diedddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd
You've got that right. Pretty low class of you to be joking about it.
There is no evidence Bush lied. But you keep pedaling THAT lie.
Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Lied people Diedddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd
You've got that right. Pretty low class of you to be joking about it.
There is no evidence Bush lied. But you keep pedaling THAT lie.
When you are president, you don't have the luxury of "guessing". Before you send tens of thousands of Americans off to die and be maimed for life, you have to "know". It's an unspoken requirement. And anyone who doesn't understand that isn't smart. They just aren't. In fact, I would call them "stupid".
August 22, 2014 at 09:24 PM..Obama belatedly made good on His promise to get American troops out of Iraq. Of course He tied their hands while there and turned the country over to ISIS but, hey that IS "change".
9672706August 22, 2014 at 09:24 PM..Obama belatedly made good on His promise to get American troops out of Iraq. Of course He tied their hands while there and turned the country over to ISIS but, hey that IS "change".
Its amazing how much ignorance the right wingers are willing to display on a public forum. It was clear that Obama did not 'tie the hands' of our troops that were serving in Iraq under the Bush/Maliki 2008 SOFA. That tied the hands of our troops specifically that they had to be out of Iraq's cities by June 2009. And Bush agreed in that SOFA to give Maliki the authority to sign off on all combat operations. The Bush/Maliki agreement was appropriate at the time and it served its purpose well. It ended the Bush fiasco that he launched in 2003. Why are you right-wingers disavowing the Bush Maliki SOFA - when it led to an end to US military casualties in Iraq and an end to all that spending of borrowed money?
There is no evidence Bush lied. But you keep pedaling THAT lie.
I seem to recall you referring to him as Betrayus back in the day Foo...stop the bullshit.Surprised me there! Would never have guessed you would ever have even heard of the general!
What is surprizing? I have admired Petraeus since 2007 when he convinced Bush that we had to negotiate with the Shiite militia leaders that had US soldier's blood on their hands in order to get out of the quagmire that Bush got us into.
I admire Pertaeus for his talents being used in Afghanistan after Obama wisely sent him there to turn the Bush years of 'endless drift' in Afghanistsn. Which of course he did.
I seem to recall you referring to him as Betrayus back in the day Foo...stop the bullshit.
2010 September 03 (PM) at 01:28 (Msg Id: 529805:877787) NotfooooldbyW: Actually the exact time of beginning to change my viewpoint on Petraeus came exactly three years ago this month. Here I referred to Petraeus as the good general during a dialogue with none other than Shirley I. Spin itself. It is here that I began to point out that Petraeus was not like Bush and Cheney. Petraeus was looking to get us out of Iraq even if it meant negotiating our way out [with so-called terrorists].
Sir, I don't know actually know.. September 11 2007 (PM) at 07:18 (Msg Id: 522007:264376)
Shirley I. Spin wrote: Do you even think before you open your mouths? If the General was a stooge of the administration, like so many of you morons say, he would have simply answered "yes, winning the war against these extremists does make us safer". I echo what Geez said, when he eloquently told you to go fuck yerself.
2007 September 12 (PM) at 10:09 (Msg Id 522007 264660) by NotfooooldbyW: Perhaps it is because deep in his heart he knows that we are no longer "winning the war" against extremists and terrorists. We are negotiating deals and coddling the extremists who've killed more U.S. Soldiers than all who died on 9/11.
Perhaps the good general knows we won't be safer unless we negotiate with what "bush" used to call terrorists. You know, that's what Hoo and Spin used to believe until the new talking points came out that Lil Dub revised 'winning' once again to giving in.
But Libs should also be glad to know that at last, the Bush Administration is an equal opportunity giver-inner. Shiite and Sunni alike.
U.S. seeks pact with Shiite militia
The military is in talks with elements of cleric Sadr's powerful group, which is accused of attacks against soldiers but which holds sway in much of Baghdad and parts of Iraq. By Ned Parker, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer September 12, 2007
BAGHDAD -- -- U.S. diplomats and military officers have been in talks with members of the armed movement loyal to Muqtada Sadr, {{*1> a sharp reversal of policy and a grudging recognition that the radical Shiite cleric holds a dominant position in much of Baghdad and other parts of Iraq. <*1}}
The {{*1> secret dialogue <*1}}has been going on since at least{{*1> early 2006, <*1}} but appeared to yield a tangible result only in the last week -- with relative calm in an area of west Baghdad that has been among the capital's most dangerous sections.
The discussions have been complicated by divisions within Sadr's movement as well as the cleric's public vow never to meet with Iraq's occupiers. Underlying the issue's sensitivity, Sadrists publicly deny any contact with the Americans or British -- fully aware the price of acknowledging such meetings would be banishment from the movement or worse.
The dialogue {{*1> represents a drastic turnaround in the U.S. approach to Sadr and his militia, <*1}}the Mahdi Army. The military hopes to negotiate the same kind of marriage of convenience it has reached in other parts of Iraq with former insurgent groups, many Saddam Hussein loyalists, and the Sunni tribes that supported them. Both efforts are examples of how U.S. officials have sought to end violence by cooperating with groups they once considered intractable enemies.
In 2004, U.S. officials branded Sadr an outlaw and demanded his arrest, sparking two major Shiite revolts in Baghdad and in the southern shrine city of Najaf that left more than a thousand dead. Last year, as the Bush administration developed its "surge" strategy, military planners said the campaign would a so target Shiite militias involved in sectarian killings. U.S. commanders later accused Iranian-backed elements of the Mahdi Army of carrying out deadly bomb attacks against U.S. forces and spearheading sectarian violence.
{{*1> U.S. officials now feel they have no choice but to talk to the militia. <*1}} Despite its internal rifts, the Sadr movement is widely seen as the most powerful force in Baghdad. The Mahdi Army's grip is absolute on most of the capital's Shiite neighborhoods, where it sells fuel and electricity and rents houses, and it has reached deep inside the army and police. U.S. soldiers have marveled at the movement's ability to generate new leaders to replace almost every fighter they lock up.
U.S. officials fear that failure to reach a political compromise with the Sadrists could have severe consequences once U.S. forces begin to pull back from their current high levels.
"If there are no American troops and there is no American deal, the Mahdi Army seizes control of Baghdad. That's the vision. It's not a pleasant vision. It's a really bad vision. In situations like this, the most extreme elements tend to predominate," said a U.S. diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity.
In his testimony to Congress on Monday, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, underscored the importance of reaching out to the Mahdi Army, deflecting a suggestion that the U.S. declare the movement a terrorist group.
"You're not going to kill or capture all of the Sadr militia anymore than we are going to kill or capture all the insurgents in Iraq," Petraeus said. "Some of this is a little bit distasteful. It's not easy sitting across the table, let's say, or drinking tea with someone whose tribal members may have shot at our forces or in fact drawn the blood -- killed our forces."
The White House is keen for a breakthrough. "There's a part of the Sadrist camp that is extremist and dedicated to killing us, and we need to kill them instead. But there are others who we think we might be able to work with," said an administration official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity.
Officials point to their negotiations with Sunni insurgents as a model. The Sunnis, however, cooperated in large part because they had split with Al Qaeda in Iraq militants and needed U.S. help to battle them. By contrast, the Sadrists have yet to decide that they want a clear break from their more radical and lawless elements.
Contacts with Sadr's followers have included clandestine meetings with U.S. Embassy officials in the fortified Green Zone and encounters on the street between low-level militia commanders and U.S. captains.
This month's breakthrough came when Lt. Col. Patrick Frank, responsible for west Baghdad's dangerous Bayaa, Jihad and Amal neighborhoods, met Sept. 3 with tribal leaders belonging to the Mahdi Army at Camp Falcon, a sprawling U.S. base.
To preserve the movement's posture of not negotiating with Americans, the tribal leaders did not discuss their affiliation, but their identity was well known. "The organization we are extending our hand to is the Jaish al Mahdi," Frank said, using the group's Arabic name. A Sadr follower in west Baghdad confirmed that Shiite and Sunni tribal leaders were in negotiations with the Americans for a truce in the area.
The session, which brought together commanders, community officials and mostly Shiite leaders, was the fruit of talks initiated by the Sadrists in late July, Frank said in an interview.
Moderate Sadrists involved in the Mahdi Army's social service network contacted U.S. forces through intermediaries, Frank said. The region was largely Sunni until the Mahdi Army began driving out residents and replacing them with Shiites last year.
Since then, residents had grown unhappy that their neighborhood was the stage for shootouts and bombings. Some Sadr loyalists started passing tips to the Americans on militants.
An opening for wider talks came with Sadr's announcement nearly two weeks ago that his militia would halt operations for six months to give it time to weed out alleged rogue elements. That call was in response to fighting between Sadr's followers and another Shiite militia in the holy city of Karbala that left 52 dead.
"Once Muqtada Sadr issued his call for six months of nonviolence, we thought that went hand in hand with the initiative we were attempting to start," Frank said. "It did give us an opportunity that was very helpful to the discussion effort." (Msg Id: 529805:877787)
It is amazing how two faced the left can be. When Obama withdrew our troops there was no mention of SOFA, no mention of Bush, just cut and run. Of course there was an election to be won. What Obama didn't say is we would be back in two years and bombing the crap out of Syria.
If pulling troops was a bad idea at the time then why didn't Obama even try to extend their stay? Who is Milaki to throw out the US? Real leaders do what is right not what is politically expedient.
Iraq Wants the U.S. Out
Prime Minister, in Interview, Says Troops Must Leave Next Year as Planned
By Sam Dagher Updated Dec. 28, 2010 12:01 a.m. ET
BAGHDAD—Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ruled out the presence of any U.S. troops in Iraq after the end of 2011, saying his new government and the country's security forces were capable of confronting any remaining threats to Iraq's security, sovereignty and unity.
In his first media interview since the Iraqi Parliament confirmed his new cabinet in December, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki sat down for an exclusive conversation with The Wall Street Journal's Sam Dagher. Here are some excerpts.
Mr. Maliki spoke with The Wall Street Journal in a two-hour interview, his first since Iraq ended nine months of stalemate and seated a new government after an inconclusive election, allowing Mr. Maliki to begin a second term as premier.
A majority of Iraqis—and some Iraqi and U.S. officials—have assumed the U.S. troop presence would eventually be extended, especially after the long government limbo. But Mr. Maliki was eager to draw a line in his most definitive remarks on the subject. "The last American soldier will leave Iraq" as agreed, he said, speaking at his office in a leafy section of Baghdad's protected Green Zone. "This agreement is not subject to extension, not subject to alteration. It is sealed."
[ /QUOTE]
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...0001424052970204685004576045700275218580.html
Surprised me there! Would never have guessed you would ever have even heard of the general!
What is surprizing? I have admired Petraeus since 2007 when he convinced Bush that we had to negotiate with the Shiite militia leaders that had US soldier's blood on their hands in order to get out of the quagmire that Bush got us into.
I admire Pertaeus for his talents being used in Afghanistan after Obama wisely sent him there to turn the Bush years of 'endless drift' in Afghanistsn. Which of course he did.
What do you think when OBABBLE tells us this is a "generational war"...when last year he was telling us he had vanquished AQ?
