Obama actually did lose Iraq, Graham explains the negotiations.

[NYcarbineer]

The Egyptians expended less effort building the pyramids than the neocons will ultimately expend in their effort to construct a myth that will somehow exonerate them in the disaster of Iraq.

the democrats, who began undermine the war before the first boot touched Iraqi soil, and whose President pulled out our troops and told the terrorists the exact day we would do it...yeah, they didn't cause the problem...considering if anyone knew about the facts on the ground as he was getting ready to pull out the troops it was Obama, you know, the guy in charge....he knew Isis was there and an actual threat and he didn't care....he pulled out our troops before Iraq was ready and the blood is on his hands.

lol, you and circle of nutty friends can believe anything you want. Your propaganda is tedious and predictable.

 

[occupied]

The Egyptians expended less effort building the pyramids than the neocons will ultimately expend in their effort to construct a myth that will somehow exonerate them in the disaster of Iraq.

the democrats, who began undermine the war before the first boot touched Iraqi soil, and whose President pulled out our troops and told the terrorists the exact day we would do it...yeah, they didn't cause the problem...considering if anyone knew about the facts on the ground as he was getting ready to pull out the troops it was Obama, you know, the guy in charge....he knew Isis was there and an actual threat and he didn't care....he pulled out our troops before Iraq was ready and the blood is on his hands.

So how many more dead solders and trillions would make the cost too high for you? I'm sure you have a figure but for rational people the cost was already too high, especially since you consider that the military was exhausted from multiple deployments and we had been fighting the war on the deficit since day one. You guys were against extending unemployment benefits for out of work Americans but were more than willing to pump unlimited cash into that hellhole, that's ******* sick.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Never should have been there in the first place, they lied to get us there and we could have easily spent another twenty years unsuccessfully trying to pacify the place. I'm sure the pentagon would have enjoyed fighting a war for a generation but America was sick of feeding it's young men and women to that futile wood-chipper. We should also remember that Lindsey never met a wasteful military program he would not be willing to double the budget on.

None of this disputes the OP.

Pure deflection

The American people, the Iraqi people, and the Iraqi government did not want us to keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq.

If Obama had somehow forced that on Iraq, i.e., staying there,

the rightwing propaganda machine would be at the head of the line to attack him for doing so.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Iraq was never any of our business going all the way back to 1990 when Bush Sr. tragically decided that blood for oil was worth meddling in what was essentially a regional problem.

 

[2aguy]

The Egyptians expended less effort building the pyramids than the neocons will ultimately expend in their effort to construct a myth that will somehow exonerate them in the disaster of Iraq.

the democrats, who began undermine the war before the first boot touched Iraqi soil, and whose President pulled out our troops and told the terrorists the exact day we would do it...yeah, they didn't cause the problem...considering if anyone knew about the facts on the ground as he was getting ready to pull out the troops it was Obama, you know, the guy in charge....he knew Isis was there and an actual threat and he didn't care....he pulled out our troops before Iraq was ready and the blood is on his hands.

So how many more dead solders and trillions would make the cost too high for you? I'm sure you have a figure but for rational people the cost was already too high, especially since you consider that the military was exhausted from multiple deployments and we had been fighting the war on the deficit since day one. You guys were against extending unemployment benefits for out of work Americans but were more than willing to pump unlimited cash into that hellhole, that's ******* sick.

Yeah...because if you don't deal with them over there, they start flying jets into buildings over here.......do you think once isis or iran consolidates it's power over there they will simply leave us alone....?

 

[2aguy]

Never should have been there in the first place, they lied to get us there and we could have easily spent another twenty years unsuccessfully trying to pacify the place. I'm sure the pentagon would have enjoyed fighting a war for a generation but America was sick of feeding it's young men and women to that futile wood-chipper. We should also remember that Lindsey never met a wasteful military program he would not be willing to double the budget on.

None of this disputes the OP.

Pure deflection

The American people, the Iraqi people, and the Iraqi government did not want us to keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq.

If Obama had somehow forced that on Iraq, i.e., staying there,

the rightwing propaganda machine would be at the head of the line to attack him for doing so.

Yeah...right.....keep telling yourself that but sell it somewhere else....to your leftard buddies, they will believe anything.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The failed, illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will forever be GWB's failed, illegal wars, where he will likewise forever be responsible for the consequences of those failed, illegal wars, regardless the current administration, democratic or republican.

And the American people know this to be the truth, they won't be fooled by the ridiculous lies propagated by the OP and others on the reprehensible right.

 

[occupied]

The Egyptians expended less effort building the pyramids than the neocons will ultimately expend in their effort to construct a myth that will somehow exonerate them in the disaster of Iraq.

the democrats, who began undermine the war before the first boot touched Iraqi soil, and whose President pulled out our troops and told the terrorists the exact day we would do it...yeah, they didn't cause the problem...considering if anyone knew about the facts on the ground as he was getting ready to pull out the troops it was Obama, you know, the guy in charge....he knew Isis was there and an actual threat and he didn't care....he pulled out our troops before Iraq was ready and the blood is on his hands.

So how many more dead solders and trillions would make the cost too high for you? I'm sure you have a figure but for rational people the cost was already too high, especially since you consider that the military was exhausted from multiple deployments and we had been fighting the war on the deficit since day one. You guys were against extending unemployment benefits for out of work Americans but were more than willing to pump unlimited cash into that hellhole, that's ******* sick.

Yeah...because if you don't deal with them over there, they start flying jets into buildings over here.......do you think once isis or iran consolidates it's power over there they will simply leave us alone....?

ISIS will never be defeated by the US on their home turf. It is the job of countries in the region to deal with them with our limited support,not run in there with masses of soldiers to provide ready American targets and hostages for them. As long as the strife is confined to the area let them fight it out until they are sick of it, there is nothing constructive we can do getting in the middle of that shit.

 

[Bfgrn]

Does Hewitt or Graham tell you that they would be willing to do what Obama wouldn't do? Leave American troops in Iraq without immunity to Iraqi prosecution?

Yeah....like they wouldn't have gotten that if obama had wanted that...moron.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Really? Bush didn't get it in the SOFA he signed in 2008.

U.S. Security Agreements and Iraq
Updated: December 23, 2008

A Contentious Accord
Opposition leaders in Iraq and legal scholars in the United States have been critical of the way Washington has characterized the SOFA, and some Iraqi hard-liners kept up their opposition following parliamentary voting in November 2008. Anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who called on Shiite followers to protest the agreement, denounced the cabinet's approval and urged supporters to take up arms against Americans. But other opponents of the pact appear to have softened their position. Maliki succeeded in building support for the pact among Shiite and Kurdish leaders. Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who objected to previous versions of the accord, did not publicly oppose the version passed by the cabinet.

Questions about what the U.S. side has given up could linger. Yale's Hathaway says the SOFA, as discussed publicly, appears to go beyond agreements negotiated with past allies. "The SOFA is a misnomer here; it's a SOFA-plus. And it's the 'plus' that's controversial." Hathaway says a so-called right-to-fight clause--the legal authority to conduct military missions after the UN mandate expires--is the "linchpin" of the debate. Other experts say the provision requiring U.S. troops to leave Iraqi cities by the summer of 2009 could render them powerless in containing future violence. Among the most discussed changes outlined by the security deal--in addition to withdrawal from cities by mid-2009 and total withdrawal by the end of 2011--are requirements that U.S. combat troops coordinate missions with the Iraqi government; hand over prisoners to Iraqi authorities; relinquish control of the Green Zone; and give Iraqi authorities the lead in monitoring Iraqi airspace. The agreement also allows for nonmilitary contractors to be subject to Iraqi law, a change contracting advocates fear will open civilians up to unfair prosecution.

http://www.cfr.org/iraq/us-security-agreements-iraq/p16448#p5

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

However amusing the OP's ignorance, stupidity, and blind partisanism might be, there is nonetheless an important theme to recognize: the right's failed attempts at revisionist history illustrates their propensity to start failed, illegal wars, such as in Iraq, where a republican administration has a considerable likelihood of seeking to start a war with Iran.

The fact is republicans simply can't be trusted or believed – including that of a republican administration.

 

[2aguy]

Does Hewitt or Graham tell you that they would be willing to do what Obama wouldn't do? Leave American troops in Iraq without immunity to Iraqi prosecution?

Yeah....like they wouldn't have gotten that if obama had wanted that...moron.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Really? Bush didn't get it in the SOFA he signed in 2008.

U.S. Security Agreements and Iraq
Updated: December 23, 2008

A Contentious Accord
Opposition leaders in Iraq and legal scholars in the United States have been critical of the way Washington has characterized the SOFA, and some Iraqi hard-liners kept up their opposition following parliamentary voting in November 2008. Anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who called on Shiite followers to protest the agreement, denounced the cabinet's approval and urged supporters to take up arms against Americans. But other opponents of the pact appear to have softened their position. Maliki succeeded in building support for the pact among Shiite and Kurdish leaders. Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who objected to previous versions of the accord, did not publicly oppose the version passed by the cabinet.

Questions about what the U.S. side has given up could linger. Yale's Hathaway says the SOFA, as discussed publicly, appears to go beyond agreements negotiated with past allies. "The SOFA is a misnomer here; it's a SOFA-plus. And it's the 'plus' that's controversial." Hathaway says a so-called right-to-fight clause--the legal authority to conduct military missions after the UN mandate expires--is the "linchpin" of the debate. Other experts say the provision requiring U.S. troops to leave Iraqi cities by the summer of 2009 could render them powerless in containing future violence. Among the most discussed changes outlined by the security deal--in addition to withdrawal from cities by mid-2009 and total withdrawal by the end of 2011--are requirements that U.S. combat troops coordinate missions with the Iraqi government; hand over prisoners to Iraqi authorities; relinquish control of the Green Zone; and give Iraqi authorities the lead in monitoring Iraqi airspace. The agreement also allows for nonmilitary contractors to be subject to Iraqi law, a change contracting advocates fear will open civilians up to unfair prosecution.

http://www.cfr.org/iraq/us-security-agreements-iraq/p16448#p5

You realize that obama was President after Bush...and if he wanted troops to stay in Iraq he would have made it happen....the facts on the ground changed the need for troops and obama didn't care......how dumb are you guys.........obama made the decision facing the rise of isis....and he didn't change the agreement...are you guys this stupid or this partisan...I am know you are both.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

However amusing the OP's ignorance, stupidity, and blind partisanism might be, there is nonetheless an important theme to recognize: the right's failed attempts at revisionist history illustrates their propensity to start failed, illegal wars, such as in Iraq, where a republican administration has a considerable likelihood of seeking to start a war with Iran.

The fact is republicans simply can't be trusted or believed – including that of a republican administration.

But yet you blindly follow the current administration like a loyal little ObamaBot

 

[2aguy]

The Egyptians expended less effort building the pyramids than the neocons will ultimately expend in their effort to construct a myth that will somehow exonerate them in the disaster of Iraq.

the democrats, who began undermine the war before the first boot touched Iraqi soil, and whose President pulled out our troops and told the terrorists the exact day we would do it...yeah, they didn't cause the problem...considering if anyone knew about the facts on the ground as he was getting ready to pull out the troops it was Obama, you know, the guy in charge....he knew Isis was there and an actual threat and he didn't care....he pulled out our troops before Iraq was ready and the blood is on his hands.

So how many more dead solders and trillions would make the cost too high for you? I'm sure you have a figure but for rational people the cost was already too high, especially since you consider that the military was exhausted from multiple deployments and we had been fighting the war on the deficit since day one. You guys were against extending unemployment benefits for out of work Americans but were more than willing to pump unlimited cash into that hellhole, that's ******* sick.

Yeah...because if you don't deal with them over there, they start flying jets into buildings over here.......do you think once isis or iran consolidates it's power over there they will simply leave us alone....?

ISIS will never be defeated by the US on their home turf. It is the job of countries in the region to deal with them with our limited support,not run in there with masses of soldiers to provide ready American targets and hostages for them. As long as the strife is confined to the area let them fight it out until they are sick of it, there is nothing constructive we can do getting in the middle of that shit.

Had obama left troops in Iraq they wouldn't be an issue now...he pulled the troops an now we have a problem.

 

[2aguy]

The failed, illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will forever be GWB's failed, illegal wars, where he will likewise forever be responsible for the consequences of those failed, illegal wars, regardless the current administration, democratic or republican.

And the American people know this to be the truth, they won't be fooled by the ridiculous lies propagated by the OP and others on the reprehensible right.

Yeah, you assholes are doing your best to create the next big lie, and cover obama and his epic failures...obama pulled the troops out, that is what created isis, not Bush. Had obama kept the troops over there, isis would have been eliminated as they were starting out, but like democrats, you don't understand right and wrong or good and evil so obama and you, his minions, pulled out the troops and now isis is a real threat. You don't understand iran, and you are going to give them a nuclear weapon and billions to fund the very terrorist troops that kept Iraq from being stablilized...you truly are vile in your stupidity.....

 

[occupied]

The failed, illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will forever be GWB's failed, illegal wars, where he will likewise forever be responsible for the consequences of those failed, illegal wars, regardless the current administration, democratic or republican.

And the American people know this to be the truth, they won't be fooled by the ridiculous lies propagated by the OP and others on the reprehensible right.

Yeah, you assholes are doing your best to create the next big lie, and cover obama and his epic failures...obama pulled the troops out, that is what created isis, not Bush. Had obama kept the troops over there, isis would have been eliminated as they were starting out, but like democrats, you don't understand right and wrong or good and evil so obama and you, his minions, pulled out the troops and now isis is a real threat. You don't understand iran, and you are going to give them a nuclear weapon and billions to fund the very terrorist troops that kept Iraq from being stablilized...you truly are vile in your stupidity.....

There are so many "big lies" in that post it would be comic gold if were not for the tragic fact that many believe that shit enough to vote for Jeb who is guaranteed to immediately start making the case for a re-invasion of Iraq and and new war in Iran.

 

[Obiwan]

The failed, illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will forever be GWB's failed, illegal wars, where he will likewise forever be responsible for the consequences of those failed, illegal wars, regardless the current administration, democratic or republican.

And the American people know this to be the truth, they won't be fooled by the ridiculous lies propagated by the OP and others on the reprehensible right.

Illegal??? Congress approved them, unlike Obozo's illegal war in Libya.

 

[Bfgrn]

Does Hewitt or Graham tell you that they would be willing to do what Obama wouldn't do? Leave American troops in Iraq without immunity to Iraqi prosecution?

Yeah....like they wouldn't have gotten that if obama had wanted that...moron.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Really? Bush didn't get it in the SOFA he signed in 2008.

U.S. Security Agreements and Iraq
Updated: December 23, 2008

A Contentious Accord
Opposition leaders in Iraq and legal scholars in the United States have been critical of the way Washington has characterized the SOFA, and some Iraqi hard-liners kept up their opposition following parliamentary voting in November 2008. Anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who called on Shiite followers to protest the agreement, denounced the cabinet's approval and urged supporters to take up arms against Americans. But other opponents of the pact appear to have softened their position. Maliki succeeded in building support for the pact among Shiite and Kurdish leaders. Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who objected to previous versions of the accord, did not publicly oppose the version passed by the cabinet.

Questions about what the U.S. side has given up could linger. Yale's Hathaway says the SOFA, as discussed publicly, appears to go beyond agreements negotiated with past allies. "The SOFA is a misnomer here; it's a SOFA-plus. And it's the 'plus' that's controversial." Hathaway says a so-called right-to-fight clause--the legal authority to conduct military missions after the UN mandate expires--is the "linchpin" of the debate. Other experts say the provision requiring U.S. troops to leave Iraqi cities by the summer of 2009 could render them powerless in containing future violence. Among the most discussed changes outlined by the security deal--in addition to withdrawal from cities by mid-2009 and total withdrawal by the end of 2011--are requirements that U.S. combat troops coordinate missions with the Iraqi government; hand over prisoners to Iraqi authorities; relinquish control of the Green Zone; and give Iraqi authorities the lead in monitoring Iraqi airspace. The agreement also allows for nonmilitary contractors to be subject to Iraqi law, a change contracting advocates fear will open civilians up to unfair prosecution.

http://www.cfr.org/iraq/us-security-agreements-iraq/p16448#p5

You realize that obama was President after Bush...and if he wanted troops to stay in Iraq he would have made it happen....the facts on the ground changed the need for troops and obama didn't care......how dumb are you guys.........obama made the decision facing the rise of isis....and he didn't change the agreement...are you guys this stupid or this partisan...I am know you are both.

You realize the SOFA BUSH signed in 2008 expired in January 1, 2012.

WHERE were you right wing turds who say the nuclear deal with Iraq is not tough enough? The SOFA BUSH signed was a piece of shit....

January 1, 2009 (20 days BEFORE Obama took the oath of office)

The Status of Forces Agreement between the governments of Iraq and the United States comes with outrageous stipulations that render our troops helpless, subject them to Iraqi military tribunals, halt U.S. military operations, and turn vengeful detainees over to the Iraqis. So what is the point of leaving our troops there as potted plants for the next three years?

Anyone who thinks this SOFA is similar to that of the pacts we have with Germany or Japan is delusional. There will be no safe tours of the Iraqi countryside for our troops on R&R. The Bush Administration, in one of their last attempts to salvage some grain of positive legacy, pushed this "rush job" through so they can say: "look at how far the Iraqis have come, see, we really did liberate them." At the same time a bipartisan majority of Congress sat on their hands with the deer in the headlights look. Knowing it's going to blow up in the Obama Administration's face. You gotta love how politics works.

Mr. Obama has promised to initiate a firm time line for troop withdrawal which coincides with the SOFA. However, it won't be overnight -- it will take years. And if upon our exit from Iraq violence spikes, it is likely that the withdrawal plan will be replaced by a contingency plan that keeps our troops in harms way indefinitely.

According to the SOFA a system has to be established for Iraqi approval of all U.S. missions. Therefore, our military strategy over the next six months is to leave Iraqi cities and confine ourselves behind walls while waiting to be assigned approved missions by the Iraqi government. Every time U.S. troops leave their bases it will have to be cleared by the Iraqis -- even if they want to conduct a convoy to Kuwait for resupply purposes. Not to mention an actual combat mission to quell violence and find bad guys.

How many undercover insurgent cells currently plague the Iraqi police and security forces? When retired Marine General James Jones and then D.C. Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey conducted their trip to Iraq to evalute the Iraqi police they concluded that the Iraqi National Police Force is so sectarian and corrupt that the entire force should be disbanded and rebuilt from the ground up -- it never happened.

Next month we start the process of releasing approximately sixteen thousand Iraqi detainees in U.S. custody to the Iraqi government. We here in America have no clue who these people are. They may be actual anti-American killers or just Iraqi bystanders that were falsely identified as insurgents and locked up for the last 5 years. When released many Iraqi men may find that their homes have been destroyed and their family members killed. Will that provide sixteen thousand (a divisional size element) reinforcements to the Iraqi insurgency? It's very conceivable.

Our regular ground forces still apprehend 50 insurgents a day while our special forces teams apprehend approximately a dozen hardline terrorists. Under the SOFA, not only can't we apprehend them, we have to turn them loose to a corrupt Iraqi police force loaded with sleepers within forty eight hours.

What about the Iraqi detainees that will be considered "enemies of the state?" They'll be placed in brutal Iraqi detention camps where they're likely to be tortured and eventually killed on mere circumstantial evidence. If they're fortunate enough to be released further down the line don't expect them not to retaliate -- a perfect ingredient to jump start the abated Iraqi civil war.

If and when that happens, and the Iraqis authorize U.S. troops to restart military operations and innocent people are accidentally killed, Iraqi military tribunals reserve the right to prosecute our service people.

The Iraqi government can now try U.S. civilians and military personnel for crimes committed outside of U.S. bases and while "off duty." I can't envision a scenario that would place our military in an "off duty" status in a country as hostile as Iraq. Suffice it to say that our troops will be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system every second of the day.

The Iraqi government, in an effort to further demonstrate it's sovereignty, reserves the right search and inventory all U.S. cargo entering the country. They will check off the boxes on exactly what resources they feel are acceptable for our military. So if a shipment of ordinance arrives in Kuwait and the Iraqis decide to conduct an inspection of a U.S. convoy carrying the shipment across the border and render a decision to confiscate our munitions will they allow us to turn it around or will they confiscate it, use it, or possibly turn it over to our enemies for them to use against our residual forces?

Silly us, we must have forgotten it's their country.

All for the bargain price of 3 billion dollars per week. What a beautiful mess.

 

[hortysir]

Never should have been there in the first place, they lied to get us there and we could have easily spent another twenty years unsuccessfully trying to pacify the place. I'm sure the pentagon would have enjoyed fighting a war for a generation but America was sick of feeding it's young men and women to that futile wood-chipper. We should also remember that Lindsey never met a wasteful military program he would not be willing to double the budget on.

None of this disputes the OP.

Pure deflection

The American people, the Iraqi people, and the Iraqi government did not want us to keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq.

If Obama had somehow forced that on Iraq, i.e., staying there,

the rightwing propaganda machine would be at the head of the line to attack him for doing so.

Judging by the conversation in the OP, Iraq was wanting a helluva lot more than the WH was willing

 

[kiwiman127]

An important thing that Graham and OP conveniently omitted as that the Iraqi Parilement would not of agreed with any deal that transpired during the negotiation Graham is referring to.
Maliki stated that several times as the Iraqi people and the Parliament wanted total sovereignty.
Of course they changed their tune once the Sunni rebelled against Maliki's government isolation of the Sunni and join forces with the ISIS.

 

[KissMy]

Senator Lindsey Graham explains how Obama lost Iraq by refusing to keep troops in Iraq. The myth that it was Bush's fault is exactly that, a myth. graham and McCain were part of the group sent over to negotiate the status of forces agreement and he explained how it went with Hugh Hewitt, Lawyer, law professor, author and radio host....

Who Lost Iraq Power Line


Lindsey Graham: I think it was our fault. The president got the answer he wanted when it comes to troop levels. He wanted zero. He got zero. He promised to end the War in Iraq. He actually lost the War in Iraq.

But this is something that most people don’t know. I want to make sure you understand. Secretary Clinton called me to go over to Iraq to talk to all the parties to see if we can find a way to achieve a residual force to be left behind. I went with Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman. We met with Mr. Allawi who’s is the Aratia party leader, the former prime minister. He is a Shia, but it was a Sunni coalition. We flew up to meet with President Barzani – not president – but Barzani, the head of the Kurds. … Then we met with Maliki.

So we had Ambassador Jeffrey – U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and Gen. Austin, the commander of Iraq forces at the time in the meeting with me, Maliki, and McCain. I asked Prime Minister Maliki, “Would you accept troops?” He says, “If other will, I will.” Then he turned to me and said, “How many troops are you talking about?” I turned to Gen. Austin and then Ambassador Jeffrey – “What’s the answer to the prime minister’s question?” Gen. Dreyfuss says, “We’re still working on the number.” The number went from 18,000 recommended by Austin down to 3,000 coming out of the White House.

General Dempsey answered Senator McCain’s question and my question as to how the numbers went down – “What is because the Iraqis suggest too many?” He said, “No, the cascading numbers came from the White House.” I was there. They were all ready to accept a residual force. But when you get below 3,000, it was a joke. And we got the answer we wanted. I was on the ground. I asked the question. I heard the answer from Gen. Austin – the White House hasn’t made up their mind, yet.

FYI - We NEVER had intentions to win in Iraq, Viet Nam, or Afghanistan. We do NOT fight war as war, rather we fight political and diplomatic wars.

Actually, we won the war...then Iran fed supplies, trained military forces and money to the terrorists to keep Iraq from becoming peaceful...you know, the country obama wants to give the bomb to....and the democrats started undermining the effort from the beginning....a 5th column at home and iran over there kept us from creating the peace we needed.

You lie like a rug!

Bush lost the Iraq war & hid the true $4.4 Trillion cost from the American people. Iran supplied Iraq with roadside bombs, soldiers & training. They were killing the hell out of US & coalition forces. Our citizens & coalition partners had it with Abu-Ghraib & Bush-Cheney's lies & told them to kiss their ass.

Bush sent Condi Rice hat in hand to Iran negotiations. Bush offered Iran to keep running centrifuges to make nuclear weapons if they would please stop killing US in Iraq & keep the Shia from fighting US so we could exit. Then he sent $20 Billion Cash to Iraq & surged our troops there. We were getting killed big-time until we paid off the Sunni fighters to stop fighting US.

After giving our enemies everything they wanted to stop fighting US, Bush claimed the surge worked & started our exit from Iraq. After Abu-Ghraib the Iraqi Parilement & people would not allow US forces to stay in Iraq. Maliki would not give US soldiers immunity to Iraqi prosecution.

Obama had to pull US troops out before Iraq filled up their prison with them. Then Obama had to fix the Iran nuclear mess Bush created. Obama is getting Iran to hand over their 10 bomb stockpile of nuclear materials Bush allowed to to amass & halt production of the nuclear materials & bombs.