CDZ Facts About the Iraq War

[Coyote]

Patriotism may be the refuge of the scoundrel, but word mincing is the refuge of the disingenuous. Rather then disputing FACTS, which should be judged by their TRUTH or FALSITY, they play around the edges of logic with half-truths and deliberate omissions. For example:

"6. Obama hurriedly pulled (all) our troops out of Iraq and allowed its government to collapse." Rather than address its salient points (underlined), they pose a false analogy that Bush intended to withdraw some troops at some time after a stable Iraqi government was functioning.

You're posting opinion and half-truths as facts and using them to build a thesis that is less than sound.

U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. combat forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.[1] The pact required criminal charges for holding prisoners over 24 hours, and required a warrant for searches of homes and buildings that were not related to combat.[1] U.S. contractors working for U.S. forces would have been subject to Iraqi criminal law, while contractors working for the State Department and other U.S. agencies would retain their immunity. If U.S. forces committed still undecided "major premeditated felonies" while off-duty and off-base, they would have been subjected to an undecided procedures laid out by a joint U.S.-Iraq committee if the U.S. certified the forces were off-duty.[2][3][1][4]


The agreement expired at midnight on December 31, 2011, even though the United States completed its final withdrawal of troops from Iraq on December 16, 2011. The symbolic ceremony in Baghdad officially "cased" (retired) the flag of U.S. forces in Iraq, according to army tradition.[5]​

Obama followed the agreement already in place. As for "allowing" the government to collapse - it's not clear that the collapse could have been prevented given the corrupt and weak nature of that entity.

"10. Obama's nuclear deal with Iran guarantees this eventuality (Iranian hegemony)." Rather than dispute this fact, they quibble that the words "guarantee" and "hegemony" are not actually contained in the referenced document. By that reasoning, Chamberlain's agreement with Hitler had nothing to do with the fate of Czechoslovakia because it didn't contain the word "invasion."

While it is theoretically true that we can't know the future, lighting the fuse to a stick of dynamite is as near a certainty of an explosion as we are likely to get.

What, if anything, would guarantee Iranian hegemony is the loss of Iraq as a counterbalance to Iran. The nuclear deal may or may not effect this. This is your opinion, not a stated fact, just as it is my opinion, not a stated fact.

 

[jwoodie]

Patriotism may be the refuge of the scoundrel, but word mincing is the refuge of the disingenuous. Rather then disputing FACTS, which should be judged by their TRUTH or FALSITY, they play around the edges of logic with half-truths and deliberate omissions. For example:

"6. Obama hurriedly pulled (all) our troops out of Iraq and allowed its government to collapse." Rather than address its salient points (underlined), they pose a false analogy that Bush intended to withdraw some troops at some time after a stable Iraqi government was functioning.

You're posting opinion and half-truths as facts and using them to build a thesis that is less than sound.

U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. combat forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.[1] The pact required criminal charges for holding prisoners over 24 hours, and required a warrant for searches of homes and buildings that were not related to combat.[1] U.S. contractors working for U.S. forces would have been subject to Iraqi criminal law, while contractors working for the State Department and other U.S. agencies would retain their immunity. If U.S. forces committed still undecided "major premeditated felonies" while off-duty and off-base, they would have been subjected to an undecided procedures laid out by a joint U.S.-Iraq committee if the U.S. certified the forces were off-duty.[2][3][1][4]


The agreement expired at midnight on December 31, 2011, even though the United States completed its final withdrawal of troops from Iraq on December 16, 2011. The symbolic ceremony in Baghdad officially "cased" (retired) the flag of U.S. forces in Iraq, according to army tradition.[5]​

Obama followed the agreement already in place. As for "allowing" the government to collapse - it's not clear that the collapse could have been prevented given the corrupt and weak nature of that entity.

"10. Obama's nuclear deal with Iran guarantees this eventuality (Iranian hegemony)." Rather than dispute this fact, they quibble that the words "guarantee" and "hegemony" are not actually contained in the referenced document. By that reasoning, Chamberlain's agreement with Hitler had nothing to do with the fate of Czechoslovakia because it didn't contain the word "invasion."

While it is theoretically true that we can't know the future, lighting the fuse to a stick of dynamite is as near a certainty of an explosion as we are likely to get.

What, if anything, would guarantee Iranian hegemony is the loss of Iraq as a counterbalance to Iran. The nuclear deal may or may not effect this. This is your opinion, not a stated fact, just as it is my opinion, not a stated fact.

You forgot to include this:

Negotiations between the U.S. and Iraq for a new SOFA began in fall 2010. There were late-night meetings at the fortified compound of then Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, and in video conferences between Baghdad and Washington. In June 2011, diplomats and Iraqi officials said that President Obama had told Prime Minister Maliki that he was prepared to leave up to 10,000 soldiers to continue training and equipping the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF). Mr. Maliki agreed, but said he needed time to line up political allies. Eventually, he gained authorization to continue talks with the U.S. on keeping troops in Iraq.[68] The Iraqi parliament returned from a recess in late November 2011 (shortly before the year-end withdrawal date) because of a concern that remaining U.S. troops would not be granted immunity by Iraqi courts. American field commanders were concerned about the Sadrist response if the troops remained and about Iraqi readiness for a transfer of power.[69]
In August 2011, after debates between the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House, the U.S. settled on the 3,000 to 5,000 troop number. An American official said intelligence assessments stated that Iraq was not at great risk of slipping into chaos in the absence of American forces, which was a factor in the decision.[68]
In October 2011, American officials pressed Iraqi leadership to meet again at President Talabani’s compound to discuss the issue. This time the U.S. asked Iraq to take a stand on the question of immunity for troops, hoping to remove what had always been the biggest challenge. However, they misread Iraqi politics and the Iraqi public. Having watched the Arab Spring sweep across the region and still haunted by the traumas of this and previous wars, the Iraqis were unwilling to accept anything that infringed on their sovereignty.[68]
Iraqi leadership picked up on that sentiment quickly. As a result, they publicly said they would not support legal immunity for any American troops. Some American officials have privately said that pushing for that meeting — in essence forcing the Iraqis to take a public stand on such a controversial matter before working out the politics of presenting it to their constituents and to Parliament — was a severe tactical mistake that ended any possibility of keeping American troops past December 2011.[6

The FACT is that we could have kept troops there as long as WE wanted, but Obama wanted to characterize the Iraq War as Bush's folly by removing ALL of our troops as soon as possible (and to hell with the consequences, which could still be blamed on Bush).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement#cite_note-nytimes.com-68

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement#cite_note-nytimes.com-68

 

[Coyote]

Patriotism may be the refuge of the scoundrel, but word mincing is the refuge of the disingenuous. Rather then disputing FACTS, which should be judged by their TRUTH or FALSITY, they play around the edges of logic with half-truths and deliberate omissions. For example:

"6. Obama hurriedly pulled (all) our troops out of Iraq and allowed its government to collapse." Rather than address its salient points (underlined), they pose a false analogy that Bush intended to withdraw some troops at some time after a stable Iraqi government was functioning.

You're posting opinion and half-truths as facts and using them to build a thesis that is less than sound.

U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. combat forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.[1] The pact required criminal charges for holding prisoners over 24 hours, and required a warrant for searches of homes and buildings that were not related to combat.[1] U.S. contractors working for U.S. forces would have been subject to Iraqi criminal law, while contractors working for the State Department and other U.S. agencies would retain their immunity. If U.S. forces committed still undecided "major premeditated felonies" while off-duty and off-base, they would have been subjected to an undecided procedures laid out by a joint U.S.-Iraq committee if the U.S. certified the forces were off-duty.[2][3][1][4]


The agreement expired at midnight on December 31, 2011, even though the United States completed its final withdrawal of troops from Iraq on December 16, 2011. The symbolic ceremony in Baghdad officially "cased" (retired) the flag of U.S. forces in Iraq, according to army tradition.[5]​

Obama followed the agreement already in place. As for "allowing" the government to collapse - it's not clear that the collapse could have been prevented given the corrupt and weak nature of that entity.

"10. Obama's nuclear deal with Iran guarantees this eventuality (Iranian hegemony)." Rather than dispute this fact, they quibble that the words "guarantee" and "hegemony" are not actually contained in the referenced document. By that reasoning, Chamberlain's agreement with Hitler had nothing to do with the fate of Czechoslovakia because it didn't contain the word "invasion."

While it is theoretically true that we can't know the future, lighting the fuse to a stick of dynamite is as near a certainty of an explosion as we are likely to get.

What, if anything, would guarantee Iranian hegemony is the loss of Iraq as a counterbalance to Iran. The nuclear deal may or may not effect this. This is your opinion, not a stated fact, just as it is my opinion, not a stated fact.

You forgot to include this:

Negotiations between the U.S. and Iraq for a new SOFA began in fall 2010. There were late-night meetings at the fortified compound of then Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, and in video conferences between Baghdad and Washington. In June 2011, diplomats and Iraqi officials said that President Obama had told Prime Minister Maliki that he was prepared to leave up to 10,000 soldiers to continue training and equipping the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF). Mr. Maliki agreed, but said he needed time to line up political allies. Eventually, he gained authorization to continue talks with the U.S. on keeping troops in Iraq.[68] The Iraqi parliament returned from a recess in late November 2011 (shortly before the year-end withdrawal date) because of a concern that remaining U.S. troops would not be granted immunity by Iraqi courts. American field commanders were concerned about the Sadrist response if the troops remained and about Iraqi readiness for a transfer of power.[69]
In August 2011, after debates between the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House, the U.S. settled on the 3,000 to 5,000 troop number. An American official said intelligence assessments stated that Iraq was not at great risk of slipping into chaos in the absence of American forces, which was a factor in the decision.[68]
In October 2011, American officials pressed Iraqi leadership to meet again at President Talabani’s compound to discuss the issue. This time the U.S. asked Iraq to take a stand on the question of immunity for troops, hoping to remove what had always been the biggest challenge. However, they misread Iraqi politics and the Iraqi public. Having watched the Arab Spring sweep across the region and still haunted by the traumas of this and previous wars, the Iraqis were unwilling to accept anything that infringed on their sovereignty.[68]
Iraqi leadership picked up on that sentiment quickly. As a result, they publicly said they would not support legal immunity for any American troops. Some American officials have privately said that pushing for that meeting — in essence forcing the Iraqis to take a public stand on such a controversial matter before working out the politics of presenting it to their constituents and to Parliament — was a severe tactical mistake that ended any possibility of keeping American troops past December 2011.[6

The FACT is that we could have kept troops there as long as WE wanted, but Obama wanted to characterize the Iraq War as Bush's folly by removing ALL of our troops as soon as possible (and to hell with the consequences, which could still be blamed on Bush).

No...that is not a fact, not unless we waived immunity for our troops and we would never do that. That was always the deal breaker.

 

[jwoodie]

The FACT is that we could have kept troops there as long as WE wanted.

Who would or could have stopped us?

(Just because you don't like the answer doesn't disprove this FACT.)

 

[andrewjbo]

Yoir information is flawed

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[oldsoul]

No, I think you got all the basics. Anything else would be in the details.

"Anything else would be in the details."

Yeah, little details like the neocons lusting after Saddam's head for decades. That despite their obsession with Iraq they had no idea what that country was about or what effect toppling the dictator would have. They had no post invasion plans, despite the fact that the whole point of the exercise was to control what happened afterwards. They concentrated entirely on the military aspect, then, when they had blown the place to hell, they stood there looking at each other, saying, "what now?".

De-Ba'athification was a perfect example of what fumbling idiots these people were. Obama inherited a ridiculous mess where a "pseudo-peace" was being maintained by bribing the most extreme insurgents, who were glad to take the money, since the period of "time-out" was literally the blink of an eye to these people. They'd been fighting for centuries, what did a time out of a few months matter?

The Bush administration were fools who decided to kick a hornet's nest to find out what would happen. They found out. Obama had zero chance of fixing what they broke.

All Bush's fault. so predictable.

NO. Lord almighty, I cannot stand these hyper-partisan comments. I do not see the world through this ridiculous distorting lens. Bush did not make Arab culture primitive. Bush did not sit down with Churchill to devise the countries of the Middle East. He did what he did. He thoughtlessly invaded a country based on what in retrospect could only be considered crackpot theories. He is responsible for that, and for that alone, and believe me, that's plenty.

This thread seems to be attempting, dishonestly, to assign equal blame to Bush and Obama for the current mess in Iraq and Syria. Obama's done nothing positive, but he didn't thoughtlessly destabilize the region. Bush did.

I seriously doubt Bush's actions where from a lack of thought. Hindsight is 20/20, and we do not have all the information that was available to Bush at the time of his decision. Unless and until, you have ALL the same info/intel, you have no basis on which to assert such a claim.
Did his actions, directly or indirectly, destablize the region? Yes. Should he have acted differently? I cannot assess wheather or not he made the best decision, until I have all the same info/intel he had at that time.
Is Obama's actions, or inaction, further destablizing the region? I would argue, yes. I would argue that the only realistic path to re-stablizing the region is to eliminate ISIS. It is not the end, but it is a start.

"I seriously doubt Bush's actions where from a lack of thought."
Everything they did was based on pet theories, and these pet theories were revealed, when put into action, to be incredibly poorly thought out. Regime change, as a method of force feeding democracy to a bunch of primitives, was a theory. Paul Wolfowitz worked on this nonsense for 20 years. It's astounding to me, after twenty years of obsessing, that the neocons weren't better prepared. The gap between theory and practice in this case was given a name. The name is ISIS.

Rumsfeld had his pet theories too. Limited war, or as it has been described "just enough troops to lose". The reason there was so much chaos in the aftermath of the actual fighting. Why funds and important figures slipped the noose.

If you think the Bush Administration's administration of the Iraq war was thoughtful, OK. I can't say I understand why though. The premise of this thread is simple, let's try to get Bush off the hook and blame Obama. Bush won the war, they argue, and Obama snatched defeat from the jaws of victory! Nonsense. Who deserves the greatest blame? Eisenhower? He's the one who thoughtlessly destabilized Iran in the first place, out of fear of the commies and at the behest of British petroleum interests. How about the Mongols and the crusades and the black death? Those are the forces which turned a once vibrant culture into a backwards, tribal, cultural dead zone.

Did Obama contribute his own stupidity to the region? Yes. Was his contribution in any way comparable to Bush's. No. The main difference, imo, is that Obama foolishly believed he could help coax the democracy eaglet called the Arab Spring from its shell. He didn't invent the Arab Spring. Bush, OTOH, used an actual event, 911, to attack the wrong enemy. I also believe he did so on the basis of falsified intel. I cannot prove that, but either Richard Clark is telling the truth or the Bush admin is. I believe Clark.

It is clear tome that we will have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[alang1216]

Patriotism may be the refuge of the scoundrel, but word mincing is the refuge of the disingenuous. Rather then disputing FACTS, which should be judged by their TRUTH or FALSITY, they play around the edges of logic with half-truths and deliberate omissions. For example:

"6. Obama hurriedly pulled (all) our troops out of Iraq and allowed its government to collapse." Rather than address its salient points (underlined), they pose a false analogy that Bush intended to withdraw some troops at some time after a stable Iraqi government was functioning.

"10. Obama's nuclear deal with Iran guarantees this eventuality (Iranian hegemony)." Rather than dispute this fact, they quibble that the words "guarantee" and "hegemony" are not actually contained in the referenced document. By that reasoning, Chamberlain's agreement with Hitler had nothing to do with the fate of Czechoslovakia because it didn't contain the word "invasion."

While it is theoretically true that we can't know the future, lighting the fuse to a stick of dynamite is as near a certainty of an explosion as we are likely to get.

6. Facts can not be disputed, they just are. What can be disputed are opinions such as your interpretation of facts. Fact: Obama withdrew US troops from Iraq. Opinion: it was hurried by Obama as opposed to being done on the schedule that Bush signed. As I recall, Iraq has the same gov't it had before the withdrawal, though the leadership changed, so the fact is that the gov't did not collapse.

10. Fact is we can't know the future. It is merely your opinion that you have come up with a valid analogy. You might as well have said that pouring water on a stick of dynamite will prevent it from exploding, at until it dries out. Then someone new would have to relight the fuse.

If you want to deceive, confuse, or obfuscate just come up with a straw man argument. Redefining words to change their meaning will also work.

 

[jwoodie]

6. Facts can not be disputed, they just are. What can be disputed are opinions such as your interpretation of facts. Fact: Obama withdrew US troops from Iraq. Opinion: it was hurried by Obama as opposed to being done on the schedule that Bush signed. As I recall, Iraq has the same gov't it had before the withdrawal, though the leadership changed, so the fact is that the gov't did not collapse.

So your pathetically weak objection is based on the word "hurried?" As usual, you completely ignore the FACT that OBAMA did not insist on a new SOFA in view of deteriorating conditions in Iraq. I assume this omission is deliberate, since you refuse to answer my question about who could or would have forced us to remove all of our troops from Iraq.

In addition, your objection to describing the Iraqi government's "collapse" is comical, akin to arguing that a person who jumps off a tall building hasn't committed suicide until he lands on the pavement.

Or do you still consider ISIS to be a JV team?

 

[alang1216]

the FACT that OBAMA did not insist on a new SOFA in view of deteriorating conditions in Iraq. I assume this omission is deliberate, since you refuse to answer my question about who could or would have forced us to remove all of our troops from Iraq.

In addition, your objection to describing the Iraqi government's "collapse" is comical, akin to arguing that a person who jumps off a tall building hasn't committed suicide until he lands on the pavement.

Or do you still consider ISIS to be a JV team?

Could or should Obama have insisted on a new SOFA over the objections of the legitimate Iraqi gov't? I don't believe he was in a position to insist on anything since the Iranians wanted us out and were likely encouraging the Iraqi Shiites to stand firm against any agreement to keep us there.

As to who could or would have forced us to remove all of our troops from Iraq the answer is any of a number of players. Who forced us out of Vietnam or Lebanon? Who forced the British and then the Russians from Afghanistan.

Did the Iraqi gov't collapse or did it democratically change? Bush's gov't didn't collapse, he wasn't ousted by Obama.

As to ISIS, they are not an existential threat to us. They are savage ideologues, a most dangerous combination, and most unpleasant to their neighbors, but not an existential threat to us. They aren't JV, more like the professional rugby league in England, important locally but only a mosquito bite to us here.

 

[oldsoul]

As to ISIS, they are not an existential threat to us. They are savage ideologues, a most dangerous combination, and most unpleasant to their neighbors, but not an existential threat to us. They aren't JV, more like the professional rugby league in England, important locally but only a mosquito bite to us here.

Tell that to the families of the Paris attack's victims. I dare you. Do it in person, and video tape it. I want to see the reaction.

Not an existential threat to us? What fantasy world are you living in? Are you aware of the nuclear material stolen in Iraq? Did you know that some suspect that ISIS may have it? Will you consider them an existential threat if they where to detonate a bomb on US soil using that material?

 

[alang1216]

As to ISIS, they are not an existential threat to us. They are savage ideologues, a most dangerous combination, and most unpleasant to their neighbors, but not an existential threat to us. They aren't JV, more like the professional rugby league in England, important locally but only a mosquito bite to us here.

Tell that to the families of the Paris attack's victims. I dare you. Do it in person, and video tape it. I want to see the reaction.

Not an existential threat to us? What fantasy world are you living in? Are you aware of the nuclear material stolen in Iraq? Did you know that some suspect that ISIS may have it? Will you consider them an existential threat if they where to detonate a bomb on US soil using that material?

"An existential threat is one that would deprive the United States of its sovereignty under the Constitution, would threaten the territorial integrity of the United States or the safety within U.S. borders of large numbers of Americans, or would pose a manifest challenge to U.S. core interests abroad in a way that would compel an undesired and unwelcome change in our freely chosen ways of life at home," said Ted Bromund, a foreign policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation.
ISIS is a serious threat to international security -- but even in the wake of the Paris attacks, does not qualify as an existential threat to the United States.
from PolitiFact

Ammon Bundy may be a bigger threat to the USA.

 

[oldsoul]

would pose a manifest challenge to U.S. core interests abroad in a way that would compel an undesired and unwelcome change in our freely chosen ways of life at home,

Cue Patriot Act, Frisking of Grandmothers and searching Babies. Nuff said.

 

[Dot Com]

"Hurriedly pulled the troops out"? Seriously? 13 years and 4450 casualties later is "hurriedly"?

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk

 

[jwoodie]

As to who could or would have forced us to remove all of our troops from Iraq the answer is any of a number of players. Who forced us out of Vietnam or Lebanon? Who forced the British and then the Russians from Afghanistan.

WE/THEY ALL LEFT OF THEIR OWN ACCORD. Why is this such a difficult concept for you?

Our troops weren't ordered to leave by the Iraqis; they were ordered to leave by OUR Commander-in-Chief at that time: Guess who that was?

 

[alang1216]

Are you saying that Ho Che Minh ordered our troops out and not Nixon. Or did they just all decide on their own in the middle of the night.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[jwoodie]

Are you saying that Ho Che Minh ordered our troops out and not Nixon

Just the opposite. Reread my post.

 

[alang1216]

Your post makes no sense. Who was it that orders our troops out if not the commander in chief at the time?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[alpine]

OK, let's cut the BS and acknowledge some FACTS about the Iraq War:

1. Saddam Hussein had used poison gas against the Kurds and Iranians.

2. He refused to comply with UN inspections regarding WMDs.

3. Bush used this and the 9/11 attacks to get rid of Saddam and install a democracy in Iraq.

4. Bush hoped this would change the Arab-Israeli equation in the Middle East.

5. Bush won the war but allowed a weak, corrupt government to take power in Iraq.

6. Obama hurriedly pulled our troops out of Iraq and allowed its government to collapse.

7. Age-old religious rivalries then tore Iraq apart and allowed ISIS to establish a foothold in Iraq.

8. ISIS has spread to other countries and sponsors worldwide terrorism.

9. Iran was emboldened by Iraq's collaspe and seeks hegemony over the Middle East.

10. Obama's nuclear deal with Iran guarantees this eventuality.

Have I missed anything?

The sorting is wrong;

W invaded a country with age-old rivalries with the hope of uniting them and bringing democracy
("7. Age-old religious rivalries then tore Iraq apart and allowed ISIS to establish a foothold in Iraq.")

Obama realized this would never happen, and pulled out, saving American lives
("6. Obama hurriedly pulled our troops out of Iraq and allowed its government to collapse.")


Partisanship is a bitch, makes you see history upside down....

 

[Luddly Neddite]

OK, let's cut the BS and acknowledge some FACTS about the Iraq War:

1. Saddam Hussein had used poison gas against the Kurds and Iranians.

2. He refused to comply with UN inspections regarding WMDs.

3. Bush used this and the 9/11 attacks to get rid of Saddam and install a democracy in Iraq.

4. Bush hoped this would change the Arab-Israeli equation in the Middle East.

5. Bush won the war but allowed a weak, corrupt government to take power in Iraq.

6. Obama hurriedly pulled our troops out of Iraq and allowed its government to collapse.

7. Age-old religious rivalries then tore Iraq apart and allowed ISIS to establish a foothold in Iraq.

8. ISIS has spread to other countries and sponsors worldwide terrorism.

9. Iran was emboldened by Iraq's collaspe and seeks hegemony over the Middle East.

10. Obama's nuclear deal with Iran guarantees this eventuality.

Have I missed anything?

Quite a lot of fiction there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Your post makes no sense. Who was it that orders our troops out if not the commander in chief at the time?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

W


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk