Isis: In Iraq Because Of Obama

[Jroc]

Obama was offered the opportunity to work out a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq...but really didn't want to leave the 10,000 troops that Maliki wanted in place.

You can decide if the reason was to support ISIS or some other reason....

But he could have avoided these barbarians taking over....




Who says so?

General Barbero, on CNN yesterday:


"BLITZER: The president's military plan to dismantle and ultimately destroy the terror group, ISIS, involves sending, at least for now, another 475 U.S. military advisors to Iraq, launching air strikes in Iraq and Syria, arming and training moderate Syrian rebels. Let's discuss. Joining me, retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Michael Barbaro. General, thanks very much for coming in.

LT. GEN. MICHAEL BARBERO, U.S. ARMY, RETIRED: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: I want to get to that. But you were there. You were on active duty in Iraq, 2010, 2011 when they were trying to negotiate that Status of Forces -

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: -- Agreement that would have left a residual force, 5,000 or 10,000 U.S. troops, but you couldn't get immunity from Nuri al Maliki's government. Take us behind the scenes, clarify, who's right, John McCain or Jay Carney, in this debate.

BARBERO: Well, in the summer of 2010, prepared a briefing, I was responsible for Iraqi security forces, and took it to all the Iraqi leaders, Maliki, the other Shia leaders, the Sunnis, the Kurds, and said here is going to be the status of your security forces, what they cannot do, what they will be able to do, when we're schedule to leave. And to a man they said, well, general, you must stay. And my response was, you must make it easy for us. So I think Maliki did not make it easy for us and we did not try hard enough. So it's a -- both views. I think it could have been done though.

BLITZER: Because the U.S. -- the Pentagon position was, 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. troops staying -

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: For an indefinite amount of time.

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: But you wanted immunity from prosecution as part of the status of forces agreement. What happened then because the White House says Nuri al Maliki wouldn't give that immunity to any residual U.S. force.

BARBERO: I think we could have worked it and kept it from going through the parliament. I think we could have - we have immunity today, it didn't go through the parliament. So I think it could have been worked if we had tried harder.

BLITZER: You don't think the administration tried hard enough to get it?

BARBERO: I don't think so.

BLITZER: That's the McCain position, that could have been done but the White House didn't want it to be done. They wanted all U.S. troops.

BARBERO: I don't think we tried hard enough.

BLITZER: You think it was - it was definitely doable.

BARBERO: I think it was. BLITZER: There was another argument that the Pentagon wanted 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. troops to remain.

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: The White House said maybe 1,000 or 2,000 for a year and the Iraqis said well that's not good enough.

BARBERO: Right. No, and -

BLITZER: Was - is that true?

BARBERO: That is true. And we wanted them pulled back on these training sites where we're fielding military equipment to train the Iraqi, not in any kind of combat role at all."
CNN.com - Transcripts



Obama arranged for the field to be left open for ISIS.

You decide why.

Politicalchick,
You're wrong. ISIS is really In Iraq because Bush got rid of Hussain. Also, ISIS exists because Obama didn't want to support the Assad regeme. Do you remember when that ISIS guy cut off a reporter's head? This may be a little hard for you to comprehend. But you did it! Not directly of course. But ultimately, through a long chain of events, you and everybody else who supports the U.S. government is responsible. I don't know how old you are, but your parents are responsible for flying the planes into the World Trade Center buildings. Again, not directly. But guilty all the same. You can talk about this and that. But it is all a load of nonsence. If you really want things to be different, get down to the nitty gritty. Be a Fascist!

Says the guy with the Adolf Hitler avi get lost loon

 

[Jroc]

Obama was offered the opportunity to work out a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq...but really didn't want to leave the 10,000 troops that Maliki wanted in place.

You're leaving out a rather important detail. He didn't want to leave 10,000 troops without a SOFA. And Maliki refused. There's no indication from the Iraqi parliament that they would have been more open to a SOFA with the US than Maliki was. If you believe otherwise, quote the leaders of the Iraqi parliament indicating as much.

Iraqi Parliament? who cares? We could and should have stayed without any approval from the "Iraqi Parliament" We fought and died there, we stay there to support the Iraqi military with an airbase and logistics until the Generals it's ok to leave, not some political hack like Obama, who left for purely political reasons. I'll bet the so-called Iraqi Parliament wishes we were still there since half the country has now been taken overrun by the islamonazis

Oh of course, an occupation against the will of the Iraqi people. What could possibly go wrong there?

We see what went wrong without it

 

[dilloduck]

If Bush and Cheney don't destabilize Iraq by invading and destroying it, Saddam wipes his ass with ISIS.

Yet now Obama thinks it's smart to do the same thing in Syria ?

Well right or wrong he's not putting a hundred thousand troops into Syria, so you're stretching that comparison quite a bit. Let's be fair.

To be fair, Obama is destabilizing Syria with no plan to deal with the power vacuum left behind. Why ?

Actually, Obama isn't targetting Assad. He's targetting ISIS in Syria. And defeating them, Assad would presumably regain control.

Garbage----Obama has been targeting Assad for over a year unless he wants to claim that he doesn't know what the CIA and the neocons are doing. The aim is to take out Assad just as it was to take out Saddam. Lebanon will be next.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Most of this has been debunked on the following thread. Why did PoliticalChic start a new one?

9629859

Iraq's government and Bush set the deadline for withdrawal of all combat troops before January 1 2012. That cannot be refuted by anyone. Iraq's government decided it would not extend it with the immunity for combat troops that the US requires. <> Since Iraq's political leadership would not extend the deadline with immunity, Obama had no legal or satisfactory options to keep troops in Iraq.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Obama was offered the opportunity to work out a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq...but really didn't want to leave the 10,000 troops that Maliki wanted in place.

Who says so?

General Barbero, on CNN yesterday:


"BLITZER: The president's military plan to dismantle and ultimately destroy the terror group, ISIS, involves sending, at least for now, another 475 U.S. military advisors to Iraq, launching air strikes in Iraq and Syria, arming and training moderate Syrian rebels. Let's discuss. Joining me, retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Michael Barbaro. General, thanks very much for coming in.

LT. GEN. MICHAEL BARBERO, U.S. ARMY, RETIRED: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: -- <> Take us behind the scenes, clarify, who's right, John McCain or Jay Carney, in this debate.

BARBERO: I think Maliki did not make it easy for us and we did not try hard enough. So it's a -- both views. I think it could have been done though.

BARBERO: I think we could have worked it and kept it from going through the parliament. I think we could have - we have immunity today, it didn't go through the parliament. So I think it could have been worked if we had tried harder.


CNN.com - Transcripts

BARBERO says 'Both Views' are right. Wow! That's a powerful endorsement of the false claims in the OP.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9790849

Obama was offered the opportunity to work out a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq...but really didn't want to leave the 10,000 troops that Maliki wanted in place.

NFBW: Here is proof that Obama Hating Conservatives/Republicans /Pundits/ Retired Generals / Message Board Hacks will argue points 180 degrees apart with the only criteria being that they think it will damage the US President, with no regard for whether it will damage the nation.


9615810

From the Right-wing Weekly SubStandard no less!

Obama Claims to Have Ended 'Decade of War,' But Wanted Troops to Stay in Iraq Longer | The Weekly Standard

Obama Claims to Have Ended 'Decade of War,' But Wanted Troops to Stay in Iraq Longer

7:59 PM, Oct 22, 2012 BY DANIEL HALPER <> But the truth is, Obama himself wanted troops to stay longer in Iraq. It was, in fact, the Iraqis who would not allow American troops to stay.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9608161

How many times on these threads have USMB right wingers said "Obama's decision to leave blah blah blah......"? How many times have we posted links with Maliki telling us keeping troops in Iraq was NOT an option????
What is it that Right wingers don't get?

Such as:

9608298

Mr. Maliki played down Iraq's need for any major help from the U.S. military, even while acknowledging serious deficiencies in areas including control of airspace and borders. He said the days when ethnic or sectarian-based militias roamed the streets of Iraq and operated above the law were over. "Not a single militia or gang can confront Iraqi forces and take over a street or a house," said Mr. Maliki. "This is finished; we are comfortable about that."

And here's the WSJ:

9608460

Geez, even the Right-wing Wall Street Journal said Iraq wants us out! <> Iraqi Prime Minister Says U.S. Forces Must Leave On Time - WSJ <> Iraq Wants the U.S. Out <> Prime Minister, in Interview, Says Troops Must Leave Next Year as Planned <> 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.

So is it possible to read a bigger untrue statement than this one on this topic?

9790849

Obama was offered the opportunity to work out a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq...but really didn't want to leave the 10,000 troops that Maliki wanted in place.

Very Well Debunked here too:

No Obama Didn t Lose Iraq - Colin H. Kahl - POLITICO Magazine

 

[Jroc]

9608161

How many times on these threads have USMB right wingers said "Obama's decision to leave blah blah blah......"? How many times have we posted links with Maliki telling us keeping troops in Iraq was NOT an option????
What is it that Right wingers don't get?

Such as:

9608298

Mr. Maliki played down Iraq's need for any major help from the U.S. military, even while acknowledging serious deficiencies in areas including control of airspace and borders. He said the days when ethnic or sectarian-based militias roamed the streets of Iraq and operated above the law were over. "Not a single militia or gang can confront Iraqi forces and take over a street or a house," said Mr. Maliki. "This is finished; we are comfortable about that."

And here's the WSJ:

9608460

Geez, even the Right-wing Wall Street Journal said Iraq wants us out! <> Iraqi Prime Minister Says U.S. Forces Must Leave On Time - WSJ <> Iraq Wants the U.S. Out <> Prime Minister, in Interview, Says Troops Must Leave Next Year as Planned <> 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.

So is it possible to read a bigger untrue statement than this one on this topic?

9790849

Obama was offered the opportunity to work out a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq...but really didn't want to leave the 10,000 troops that Maliki wanted in place.

Very Well Debunked here too:

No Obama Didn t Lose Iraq - Colin H. Kahl - POLITICO Magazine

The Iranian backed Shite majority government didn't want the U.S. to stay. That makes sense, they agreed with Obama, he didn't want them to stay either. It was a mutual thing, i say fuck them, we could have stayed anyway and should have a base there right now.


Here from your link...

Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, told U.S. negotiators that he was willing to sign an executive memorandum of understanding that included these legal protections. But for any agreement to be binding under the Iraqi constitution, it had to be approved by the Iraqi parliament. This was the judgment of every senior administration lawyer and Maliki’s own legal adviser, and no senior U.S. military commander made the case that we should leave forces behind without these protections. Even Sen. John McCain, perhaps the administration’s harshest Iraq critic, admitted in a December 2011 speech discussing the withdrawal that the president’s demand for binding legal immunities “was a matter of vital importance.” Moreover, because the 2008 security agreement had been approved by the Iraqi parliament, it seemed both unrealistic and politically unsustainable to apply a lower standard this time around.

Apparently Jon McCain disaggres with the authors acessesment. Not that I'm a big John McCain fan, but he's right on Iraq

 

[rdean]

Obama was offered the opportunity to work out a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq...but really didn't want to leave the 10,000 troops that Maliki wanted in place.

You can decide if the reason was to support ISIS or some other reason....

But he could have avoided these barbarians taking over....




Who says so?

General Barbero, on CNN yesterday:


"BLITZER: The president's military plan to dismantle and ultimately destroy the terror group, ISIS, involves sending, at least for now, another 475 U.S. military advisors to Iraq, launching air strikes in Iraq and Syria, arming and training moderate Syrian rebels. Let's discuss. Joining me, retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Michael Barbaro. General, thanks very much for coming in.

LT. GEN. MICHAEL BARBERO, U.S. ARMY, RETIRED: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: I want to get to that. But you were there. You were on active duty in Iraq, 2010, 2011 when they were trying to negotiate that Status of Forces -

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: -- Agreement that would have left a residual force, 5,000 or 10,000 U.S. troops, but you couldn't get immunity from Nuri al Maliki's government. Take us behind the scenes, clarify, who's right, John McCain or Jay Carney, in this debate.

BARBERO: Well, in the summer of 2010, prepared a briefing, I was responsible for Iraqi security forces, and took it to all the Iraqi leaders, Maliki, the other Shia leaders, the Sunnis, the Kurds, and said here is going to be the status of your security forces, what they cannot do, what they will be able to do, when we're schedule to leave. And to a man they said, well, general, you must stay. And my response was, you must make it easy for us. So I think Maliki did not make it easy for us and we did not try hard enough. So it's a -- both views. I think it could have been done though.

BLITZER: Because the U.S. -- the Pentagon position was, 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. troops staying -

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: For an indefinite amount of time.

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: But you wanted immunity from prosecution as part of the status of forces agreement. What happened then because the White House says Nuri al Maliki wouldn't give that immunity to any residual U.S. force.

BARBERO: I think we could have worked it and kept it from going through the parliament. I think we could have - we have immunity today, it didn't go through the parliament. So I think it could have been worked if we had tried harder.

BLITZER: You don't think the administration tried hard enough to get it?

BARBERO: I don't think so.

BLITZER: That's the McCain position, that could have been done but the White House didn't want it to be done. They wanted all U.S. troops.

BARBERO: I don't think we tried hard enough.

BLITZER: You think it was - it was definitely doable.

BARBERO: I think it was. BLITZER: There was another argument that the Pentagon wanted 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. troops to remain.

BARBERO: Right.

BLITZER: The White House said maybe 1,000 or 2,000 for a year and the Iraqis said well that's not good enough.

BARBERO: Right. No, and -

BLITZER: Was - is that true?

BARBERO: That is true. And we wanted them pulled back on these training sites where we're fielding military equipment to train the Iraqi, not in any kind of combat role at all."
CNN.com - Transcripts



Obama arranged for the field to be left open for ISIS.

You decide why.

I think it could have

if we have to beg them to stay, then is it worth it? And when does "if we tried harder" becomes outright coercion?

And pissheads are trying so hard to blame something on Obama.

 

[Clementine]

Obama arranged for the field to be left open for ISIS.

You decide why.

...because he so desperately wanted to see his foreign policy approval rating plummet and take his party down with it?

That was his grand scheme?

Do you people EVER think before you post?

Are you saying it was just sheer ignorance on Obama's part? Is he stupid or did he want to see radical Muslims succeed? Which is it?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9797945

The Iranian backed Shite majority government didn't want the U.S. to stay. That makes sense, they agreed with Obama, he didn't want them to stay either. It was a mutual thing, i say fuck them, we could have stayed anyway and should have a base there right now.


Here from your link...

Apparently Jon McCain disaggres with the authors acessesment. Not that I'm a big John McCain fan, but he's right on Iraq

You make no sense. MaCain is agreeing with Obama and contradiction what he's currently saying to Jay Carney. McCain is practically senile. He didn't know the difference between Sunni and Shia in a news conference. Joe Liebermann had to whisper in his ear.

We can't stay. Maliki made sure of that in 2007 when Bush was in charge.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9798060

Are you saying it was just sheer ignorance on Obama's part? Is he stupid or did he want to see radical Muslims succeed? Which is it?

Its Obama's opponents who want terrorists to succeed. The ignorance comes from those same opponents that can't recognize that the best option was to hold back on direct US military action in Iraq as long as Maliki was not willing to contribute to resolving the Sunni and Kurd problems with his Shiite driven government. It turns out that Obama's policy of not becoming Maliki's Shiite Air Force has turned out to be the best option available.

So as it turns out - it was no problem for Obama to withdraw all US troops by Jan 1 2012 according to the Bush Maliki 2008 SOFA . The assistance being sent in has nothing to do with the previous war over WMD which is over.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama arranged for the field to be left open for ISIS.

You decide why.

...because he so desperately wanted to see his foreign policy approval rating plummet and take his party down with it?

That was his grand scheme?

Do you people EVER think before you post?

Are you saying it was just sheer ignorance on Obama's part? Is he stupid or did he want to see radical Muslims succeed? Which is it?

Presidents are not psychic magicians.

 

[BillyP]

If Bush and Cheney don't destabilize Iraq by invading and destroying it, Saddam wipes his ass with ISIS.

Yet now Obama thinks it's smart to do the same thing in Syria ?

Well right or wrong he's not putting a hundred thousand troops into Syria, so you're stretching that comparison quite a bit. Let's be fair.

To be fair, Obama is destabilizing Syria with no plan to deal with the power vacuum left behind. Why ?

Actually, Obama isn't targetting Assad. He's targetting ISIS in Syria. And defeating them, Assad would presumably regain control.

We haven't intervened in Syria because because it's a big stew of crazy muslims who hate each other, and we'll just maybe have to sort out anyone's who's left. Had ISIS stayed is Syria, nobody would have given a fuck, but the US has a moral obligation now towards Iraq, you know, after invading and destroying it for no fucking reason.

 

[Jroc]

Obama arranged for the field to be left open for ISIS.

You decide why.

...because he so desperately wanted to see his foreign policy approval rating plummet and take his party down with it?

That was his grand scheme?

Do you people EVER think before you post?

Are you saying it was just sheer ignorance on Obama's part? Is he stupid or did he want to see radical Muslims succeed? Which is it?

Presidents are not psychic magicians.

This idiot president got what he wanted no troops and a Irianian

9798060

Are you saying it was just sheer ignorance on Obama's part? Is he stupid or did he want to see radical Muslims succeed? Which is it?

Its Obama's opponents who want terrorists to succeed. The ignorance comes from those same opponents that can't recognize that the best option was to hold back on direct US military action in Iraq as long as Maliki was not willing to contribute to resolving the Sunni and Kurd problems with his Shiite driven government. It turns out that Obama's policy of not becoming Maliki's Shiite Air Force has turned out to be the best option available.

So as it turns out - it was no problem for Obama to withdraw all US troops by Jan 1 2012 according to the Bush Maliki 2008 SOFA . The assistance being sent in has nothing to do with the previous war over WMD which is over.

Sunni, Kurd problem? its a Sunni, Shia problem, always has been. What Obama didn't have a problem with is a Iranian Shia influenced Iraq. He wanted it, just like he wanted us out. We should have had a base there. We fought and died there. if we want a base we get it. We don't wait for Iran to say no. We have bases in Japan, bases in Germany bases in Korea ect.. We build a useless, massive, embassy there but no military, air base? Stupid

 

[Freewill]

If Bush and Cheney don't destabilize Iraq by invading and destroying it, Saddam wipes his ass with ISIS.

That has to be the lamest of apologies coming out the DNC I have ever heard. Saddam was so 10 years ago. ISIS didn't form in Iraq. Saddam was a sadistic dictator with sadistic sons. The one thing he may have done is use WMD against ISIS which he did against the Kurds. Maybe that behavior is what the liberals want. But a world without the butcher of Baghdan is a better world. Now all we need do is for a real coalition and destroy ISIS. I think it is good they formed up, better target.

But one thing we don't need is trying to raise Saddam to anything more then the sadistic killer he was. We have business to take care of we don't need excuses.

 

[Freewill]

If Bush and Cheney don't destabilize Iraq by invading and destroying it, Saddam wipes his ass with ISIS.

Yet now Obama thinks it's smart to do the same thing in Syria ?

Well right or wrong he's not putting a hundred thousand troops into Syria, so you're stretching that comparison quite a bit. Let's be fair.

To be fair, Obama is destabilizing Syria with no plan to deal with the power vacuum left behind. Why ?

Actually, Obama isn't targetting Assad. He's targetting ISIS in Syria. And defeating them, Assad would presumably regain control.

We haven't intervened in Syria because because it's a big stew of crazy muslims who hate each other, and we'll just maybe have to sort out anyone's who's left. Had ISIS stayed is Syria, nobody would have given a fuck, but the US has a moral obligation now towards Iraq, you know, after invading and destroying it for no fucking reason.

Exactly like we did in Serbia? Just because you don't think there was a reason certainly doesn't make it so. Congress had all the evidence available and made an informed decision. Even the new left wing love child Hillary fully supported the war. But internet bloggers, they know better.

 

[Jroc]

If Bush and Cheney don't destabilize Iraq by invading and destroying it, Saddam wipes his ass with ISIS.

That has to be the lamest of apologies coming out the DNC I have ever heard. Saddam was so 10 years ago. ISIS didn't form in Iraq. Saddam was a sadistic dictator with sadistic sons. The one thing he may have done is use WMD against ISIS which he did against the Kurds. Maybe that behavior is what the liberals want. But a world without the butcher of Baghdan is a better world. Now all we need do is for a real coalition and destroy ISIS. I think it is good they formed up, better target.

But one thing we don't need is trying to raise Saddam to anything more then the sadistic killer he was. We have business to take care of we don't need excuses.

We are not going to get it with Obama as president. He cant be trusted. So why would any country risk allying themselves with such a person?

 

[Freewill]

If Bush and Cheney don't destabilize Iraq by invading and destroying it, Saddam wipes his ass with ISIS.

That has to be the lamest of apologies coming out the DNC I have ever heard. Saddam was so 10 years ago. ISIS didn't form in Iraq. Saddam was a sadistic dictator with sadistic sons. The one thing he may have done is use WMD against ISIS which he did against the Kurds. Maybe that behavior is what the liberals want. But a world without the butcher of Baghdan is a better world. Now all we need do is for a real coalition and destroy ISIS. I think it is good they formed up, better target.

But one thing we don't need is trying to raise Saddam to anything more then the sadistic killer he was. We have business to take care of we don't need excuses.

We are not going to get it with Obama as president. He cant be trusted. So why would any country risk allying themselves with such a person?

For one reason, even though Obama has tried his hardest we are still the big dog. May not last for long but until the destruction Obama and the democrats have brought to America takes full effect we still are the number 1 power in the world. I rather join with the world against evil then to do what the liberals are doing and raising Saddam to hero status.

 

[Jroc]

If Bush and Cheney don't destabilize Iraq by invading and destroying it, Saddam wipes his ass with ISIS.

That has to be the lamest of apologies coming out the DNC I have ever heard. Saddam was so 10 years ago. ISIS didn't form in Iraq. Saddam was a sadistic dictator with sadistic sons. The one thing he may have done is use WMD against ISIS which he did against the Kurds. Maybe that behavior is what the liberals want. But a world without the butcher of Baghdan is a better world. Now all we need do is for a real coalition and destroy ISIS. I think it is good they formed up, better target.

But one thing we don't need is trying to raise Saddam to anything more then the sadistic killer he was. We have business to take care of we don't need excuses.

We are not going to get it with Obama as president. He cant be trusted. So why would any country risk allying themselves with such a person?

For one reason, even though Obama has tried his hardest we are still the big dog. May not last for long but until the destruction Obama and the democrats have brought to America takes full effect we still are the number 1 power in the world. I rather join with the world against evil then to do what the liberals are doing and raising Saddam to hero status.

We'll see how that works out. Obama doesn't really believe in the mission himself