How many more threads on this lie?
It was BUSH who lost Iraq - long before Obama was elected.
Yes, it was dat BOOSH! BOOSH achieved every objective set for the US at the outset of the war, despite downright traitorous behavior in Congress. When BOOOSH left Iraq was a relatively stable democracy. That somehow translates in libspeak as failure.
Obama fucked up the SOFA, refused to exert leverage to insure troops staying, ignored advice of trusted advisors and is now reaping the results and somehow he's blameless.
The Kool Aid is thick with this one.
With 150,000 troops still deployed in the field when he left, yeah, it was relatively stable. But President Bush Signs the SOFA where he obligated the country to remove all our troops by 2012 and somehow that is President Obama's fault? Republican logic at it's finest. Ignoring the fact that it was Iraq's call, not the Presidents trusted advisers, who made the decision to block all offers for a residual force. He is guilty of supporting the PM after the Bush Bug Out, well after Maliki's intentions of excluding the Sunnis was known.
Well, I think Panetta (and Gates) would have wanted us to retain more a presence to influence al-ah-mucky. But, imo, that's more of woulda coulda shudda. We had no influence over the man. He wasn't even the neocons' choice. He was the shiaa politician who maneuvered the various militia (including his own) to form a confederation of sorts, and won the most votes. Obama saw it, and wanted no part of it. I don't see the criticism of Obama who was the one who saw this entire debacle clearly from the very first day our troops crossed into Iraq.
Al-ah-mucky wanted the US Army gone, because so long as we were the biggest baddest boots on the ground, we could keep him from terrorizing the minorities. And, once we were gone, he then acted to marginalize the minorities of sunni and kurds in the very fragile inclusive govt, and in the end got total shiaa control of the govt. sunni and kurd maj areas eventually re-armed. And the shiaa army was totally incompetent. Of course, if we stayed, even if al-ah-mucky somehow agreed, we change nothing but propping up the shiaa army.
It's sort of 1975 all over again. Oh damn, this is not the outcome we wanted. Well, no shite. Back in 67 people were telling LBJ this was a very bad idea. Panetta and Gates were late to the game, after we'd crossed the Rubicon.
Welfare Queen wants a solution. I could say 'why the fck weren't you calling out bushii in the spring of 03?' but I won't. But, I'm not gonna wring my hands about Obama not bombing Syria back in the day. I'm not even sure why we oppose Assad. Putin is not totally nuts in thinking the US is running amuck with nuclear weapons and a huge military financed by debt. On one hand, Obama is trying to put the neocon genie back in the bottle, and on the other hand dealing with very dangerous fanatics who have spung up amidst third world, non-democratic, authoritarian and religiously intolerant places.
My first suggestion is go back to what Gore was advocating in 2002. Collaborate with countries like the UAE to build a internet education available for free, and give people laptops. Non-bs/political education in basic science/math. The Saudis manage to convey basic biology to women without offending most people.
