Obama really is Dubya II

[L.K.Eder]

Seen all that. Obama doesn't look any more intelligent. If you can't see that, then you haven't come face to face with your biases.

Obama might look dumb every once in a while, but every single word that came out of Dubya's mouth was embarrassing. There's a reason Dubya has a global reputation as a complete moron.

Check you biases is still my advice.

I can say that Rubio, Cruz, Walker, Romney, Paul, and other republicans sound fairly intelligent when they speak. Even Trump, though spouting off some pretty wild stuff, has clarity and competence in his voice. Dubya was like a 3rd grader, having to stand up in front of class to give a report that he and everybody else knew he hadn't studied or prepared for.

And that's how Obama has sounded on many of occasions as well; more than I can count.

11 times, then?

 

[IcebergSlim]

Seen all that. Obama doesn't look any more intelligent. If you can't see that, then you haven't come face to face with your biases.

Uh......Dude,

Obama graduated Magna cum Laude from a top 5 law school.....

Scrub?

Not so much...

 

[IcebergSlim]

You can complain about Saddam all you like. I didn't like him. This isn't the point, you just seem to want to simplify the situation to a point where it's useless debating with you.

Saddam might have been bad, but in 1991 they knew that Saddam was far more stable than what could come after. So, they didn't depose him.

2003, with an idiot in the White House, they thought they could do it. Why? Who knows, maybe people who see the world in a simplistic way think simplistic solutions work. How'd that work out?

ISIS was a problem was created during BUSH's time in office. The guy who started ISIS went to Afghanistan to fight, got injured, ended up in Iran, then fought in Iraq, which is where many of them learned their trade.
Bush signed the order to pull US troops out of Iraq, and then the Arab Spring happened which weakened the area further, which allowed ISIS and ISIQ to take a hold of parts of those countries.

Without BUSH this wouldn't have happened. There simply wouldn't have been armed Islamic fundamentalist groups ready to pounce, as they did, and did so successfully.

Few were openly touting that the Middle East would be more stable with Saddam in the picture. Sure, there were a few people that understood the maniacal nature of Islamic culture who were of that opinion. But Saddam being good for America's interests was far from a popular view.

And you're talking about idiots and their simplistic solutions? Okay, well ISIS was spawned on Obama's simplistic get out at all costs and damn the consequences agenda. ISIS came to power because Obama allowed it to happen. Blaming Bush does not offset reality.

A popular view is more often than not a simplistic view.

Obama pulled out because his predecessor signed the pulling out order.

ISIS came to power in a place where Obama didn't have control, wasn't the president, didn't have the right to have troops in the country.

Blaming Bush doesn't offset reality. What you're spouting isn't reality. It's what you want to believe.

Obama campaigned on getting out of Iraq, dude. I know you may not be used to him keeping campaign promises (not that he actually kept that one; as he belatedly did it); but he did take them out and always broadcasted very strongly that that was what he thought was best. Was it? Clearly not, dude. And ISIS came to power after Obama completely split when he had the power to negotiate. That's not Bush. Stop trying to make this about a signature on paper. That's a ******* cop out, 'Mr. Objective'.

Yeah, so he campaigned on getting out of Iraq. That doesn't stop the FACT that he didn't sign the pulling out order, does it?

Now, you're saying he campaigned to pull out, and then saying he hasn't kept a single promise, and yet you're blaming him for pulling the troops out, for campaigning that he would pull troops out, and not living up to his campaign promises.

What you're smoking must be good.

ISIS came to power after Obama came to office. But get this. Things don't just suddenly appear out of no where. It's not like you go to the fridge and all of a sudden it's full of food and nothing happened to get that food there.

Imagine. Bush puts food in the fridge. Leaves office. Obama takes over, opens the fridge. What's in the fridge? Different food to what was put in there? Give me a ******* break.

You're giving me fine print that does not belie reality. It doesn't matter what Bush signed. Obama completely pulled out on his own accord. He was quite definitive in his undeniable rhetoric on the matter as well.

On the sidebar point: I was saying that Obama promised to pull out of Iraq by a certain time; I think it was a year or two. He went well past the date. So, I was saying that was ultimately another campaign promise that he broke. Nonetheless, his hastiness has cost lives. There is no denying that.

It doesn't matter what Bush signed.

Say no more......

 

[IcebergSlim]

We knew the policies were about the same. Seems the intelligence is roughly the same too:

Yeah, intelligence is the same as popularity ratings and wars started and all of that. Er.....

Yea, cos deposing a homicidal dictator is way worse than being serially complicit in the collapse of the Middle East... Er....

Thanks again for another brilliant take, 'Mr. Objective'

Yea, cos deposing a homicidal dictator is way worse than being serially complicit in the collapse of the Middle East... Er....

WTF?

Before ISIS re-branded, what was it called?

 

[frigidweirdo]

We knew the policies were about the same. Seems the intelligence is roughly the same too:

Yeah, intelligence is the same as popularity ratings and wars started and all of that. Er.....

Yea, cos deposing a homicidal dictator is way worse than being serially complicit in the collapse of the Middle East... Er....

Thanks again for another brilliant take, 'Mr. Objective'

Yea, cos deposing a homicidal dictator is way worse than being serially complicit in the collapse of the Middle East... Er....

WTF?

Before ISIS re-branded, what was it called?

ISIS wasn't really anything before it was ISIS.

Okay, it had other names, but they are meaningless to most people:

Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, then it changed its name to Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn, this was while it was jumping on al-Qaeda's bandwagon and called itself al Qaeda in Iraq, but the reality was it was just using the name to become more popular. Then it joined Mujahideen Shura Council (MSC), which again was just to promote itself. Then it became the Mutayibeen Coalition. There were a few other names AQI, ISI and whatever.

 

[IcebergSlim]

We knew the policies were about the same. Seems the intelligence is roughly the same too:

Yeah, intelligence is the same as popularity ratings and wars started and all of that. Er.....

Yea, cos deposing a homicidal dictator is way worse than being serially complicit in the collapse of the Middle East... Er....

Thanks again for another brilliant take, 'Mr. Objective'

Yea, cos deposing a homicidal dictator is way worse than being serially complicit in the collapse of the Middle East... Er....

WTF?

Before ISIS re-branded, what was it called?

ISIS wasn't really anything before it was ISIS.

Okay, it had other names, but they are meaningless to most people:

Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, then it changed its name to Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn, this was while it was jumping on al-Qaeda's bandwagon and called itself al Qaeda in Iraq, but the reality was it was just using the name to become more popular. Then it joined Mujahideen Shura Council (MSC), which again was just to promote itself. Then it became the Mutayibeen Coalition. There were a few other names AQI, ISI and whatever.

I think most people, not calling themselves TheGreatGatsby, recognize AQI......and

The six individuals who have been at the helm of the terror group are from Iraq, Deputy Minister of Iraq's Interior Ministry Adnan al-Asadi told Al Arabiya in an exclusive interview to be aired on Friday.

At least three of them served in Saddam Hussein’s army while others were previously detained in Iraq and upon their release they joined the war in Syria.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/2014/02/13/Exclusive-Top-ISIS-leaders-revealed.html

Now, admittedly, since 2014, there has been some attrition in the top ranks...

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Few were openly touting that the Middle East would be more stable with Saddam in the picture. Sure, there were a few people that understood the maniacal nature of Islamic culture who were of that opinion. But Saddam being good for America's interests was far from a popular view.

And you're talking about idiots and their simplistic solutions? Okay, well ISIS was spawned on Obama's simplistic get out at all costs and damn the consequences agenda. ISIS came to power because Obama allowed it to happen. Blaming Bush does not offset reality.

A popular view is more often than not a simplistic view.

Obama pulled out because his predecessor signed the pulling out order.

ISIS came to power in a place where Obama didn't have control, wasn't the president, didn't have the right to have troops in the country.

Blaming Bush doesn't offset reality. What you're spouting isn't reality. It's what you want to believe.

Obama campaigned on getting out of Iraq, dude. I know you may not be used to him keeping campaign promises (not that he actually kept that one; as he belatedly did it); but he did take them out and always broadcasted very strongly that that was what he thought was best. Was it? Clearly not, dude. And ISIS came to power after Obama completely split when he had the power to negotiate. That's not Bush. Stop trying to make this about a signature on paper. That's a ******* cop out, 'Mr. Objective'.

Yeah, so he campaigned on getting out of Iraq. That doesn't stop the FACT that he didn't sign the pulling out order, does it?

Now, you're saying he campaigned to pull out, and then saying he hasn't kept a single promise, and yet you're blaming him for pulling the troops out, for campaigning that he would pull troops out, and not living up to his campaign promises.

What you're smoking must be good.

ISIS came to power after Obama came to office. But get this. Things don't just suddenly appear out of no where. It's not like you go to the fridge and all of a sudden it's full of food and nothing happened to get that food there.

Imagine. Bush puts food in the fridge. Leaves office. Obama takes over, opens the fridge. What's in the fridge? Different food to what was put in there? Give me a ******* break.

You're giving me fine print that does not belie reality. It doesn't matter what Bush signed. Obama completely pulled out on his own accord. He was quite definitive in his undeniable rhetoric on the matter as well.

On the sidebar point: I was saying that Obama promised to pull out of Iraq by a certain time; I think it was a year or two. He went well past the date. So, I was saying that was ultimately another campaign promise that he broke. Nonetheless, his hastiness has cost lives. There is no denying that.

I'm sorry if you think Iraq isn't a sovereign country and the US can do whatever the **** it feels like with it, but it is actually a sovereign country and when the US sign a withdrawal of troops, they can't just turn around and say "sorry Iraq, we were just ******* with you, we're staying".

Do you not understand this simple point?

Obama said 16 months. Last troops left after 3 years based on the agreement with Bush.

Obama reduced the troops by quite a bit by 16 months, then increased then in 2011 before the final withdrawal.

However, you're complaining because he withdrew troops too early AND you're complaining he withdrew troops too late.

Hmmm.....

A campaign promise of pulling all troops out in 16 months was always going to be one that might not make it, these things are not easy operations and a guy who isn't president making such a statement must be taken with a pinch of salt (as is everything they say). However, he did what he said, he got the troops out of Iraq. Just not in the timetable that he said he would do it.

Yea, look at those numbers improving before Obama even took office. Look how Iraq was much more stable. The enemy was on its dying embers. Then, Obama cut and ran. As for your sovereign mumbo jumbo, Iraqi officials were begging us to stay behind the scenes. You think they didn't know they were sitting on a powder keg? You think they're that ******* stupid?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Few were openly touting that the Middle East would be more stable with Saddam in the picture. Sure, there were a few people that understood the maniacal nature of Islamic culture who were of that opinion. But Saddam being good for America's interests was far from a popular view.

And you're talking about idiots and their simplistic solutions? Okay, well ISIS was spawned on Obama's simplistic get out at all costs and damn the consequences agenda. ISIS came to power because Obama allowed it to happen. Blaming Bush does not offset reality.

A popular view is more often than not a simplistic view.

Obama pulled out because his predecessor signed the pulling out order.

ISIS came to power in a place where Obama didn't have control, wasn't the president, didn't have the right to have troops in the country.

Blaming Bush doesn't offset reality. What you're spouting isn't reality. It's what you want to believe.

Obama campaigned on getting out of Iraq, dude. I know you may not be used to him keeping campaign promises (not that he actually kept that one; as he belatedly did it); but he did take them out and always broadcasted very strongly that that was what he thought was best. Was it? Clearly not, dude. And ISIS came to power after Obama completely split when he had the power to negotiate. That's not Bush. Stop trying to make this about a signature on paper. That's a ******* cop out, 'Mr. Objective'.

Yeah, so he campaigned on getting out of Iraq. That doesn't stop the FACT that he didn't sign the pulling out order, does it?

Now, you're saying he campaigned to pull out, and then saying he hasn't kept a single promise, and yet you're blaming him for pulling the troops out, for campaigning that he would pull troops out, and not living up to his campaign promises.

What you're smoking must be good.

ISIS came to power after Obama came to office. But get this. Things don't just suddenly appear out of no where. It's not like you go to the fridge and all of a sudden it's full of food and nothing happened to get that food there.

Imagine. Bush puts food in the fridge. Leaves office. Obama takes over, opens the fridge. What's in the fridge? Different food to what was put in there? Give me a ******* break.

You're giving me fine print that does not belie reality. It doesn't matter what Bush signed. Obama completely pulled out on his own accord. He was quite definitive in his undeniable rhetoric on the matter as well.

On the sidebar point: I was saying that Obama promised to pull out of Iraq by a certain time; I think it was a year or two. He went well past the date. So, I was saying that was ultimately another campaign promise that he broke. Nonetheless, his hastiness has cost lives. There is no denying that.

It doesn't matter what Bush signed.

Say no more......

It doesn't. Obama's stated objective to leave and resultant actions were irrespective of ink on paper. And had ISIS not exploded on to the scene, you sure as hell wouldn't be giving Bush credit for getting us out of Iraq. I know your stupid games.

 

[frigidweirdo]

A popular view is more often than not a simplistic view.

Obama pulled out because his predecessor signed the pulling out order.

ISIS came to power in a place where Obama didn't have control, wasn't the president, didn't have the right to have troops in the country.

Blaming Bush doesn't offset reality. What you're spouting isn't reality. It's what you want to believe.

Obama campaigned on getting out of Iraq, dude. I know you may not be used to him keeping campaign promises (not that he actually kept that one; as he belatedly did it); but he did take them out and always broadcasted very strongly that that was what he thought was best. Was it? Clearly not, dude. And ISIS came to power after Obama completely split when he had the power to negotiate. That's not Bush. Stop trying to make this about a signature on paper. That's a ******* cop out, 'Mr. Objective'.

Yeah, so he campaigned on getting out of Iraq. That doesn't stop the FACT that he didn't sign the pulling out order, does it?

Now, you're saying he campaigned to pull out, and then saying he hasn't kept a single promise, and yet you're blaming him for pulling the troops out, for campaigning that he would pull troops out, and not living up to his campaign promises.

What you're smoking must be good.

ISIS came to power after Obama came to office. But get this. Things don't just suddenly appear out of no where. It's not like you go to the fridge and all of a sudden it's full of food and nothing happened to get that food there.

Imagine. Bush puts food in the fridge. Leaves office. Obama takes over, opens the fridge. What's in the fridge? Different food to what was put in there? Give me a ******* break.

You're giving me fine print that does not belie reality. It doesn't matter what Bush signed. Obama completely pulled out on his own accord. He was quite definitive in his undeniable rhetoric on the matter as well.

On the sidebar point: I was saying that Obama promised to pull out of Iraq by a certain time; I think it was a year or two. He went well past the date. So, I was saying that was ultimately another campaign promise that he broke. Nonetheless, his hastiness has cost lives. There is no denying that.

I'm sorry if you think Iraq isn't a sovereign country and the US can do whatever the **** it feels like with it, but it is actually a sovereign country and when the US sign a withdrawal of troops, they can't just turn around and say "sorry Iraq, we were just ******* with you, we're staying".

Do you not understand this simple point?

Obama said 16 months. Last troops left after 3 years based on the agreement with Bush.

Obama reduced the troops by quite a bit by 16 months, then increased then in 2011 before the final withdrawal.

However, you're complaining because he withdrew troops too early AND you're complaining he withdrew troops too late.

Hmmm.....

A campaign promise of pulling all troops out in 16 months was always going to be one that might not make it, these things are not easy operations and a guy who isn't president making such a statement must be taken with a pinch of salt (as is everything they say). However, he did what he said, he got the troops out of Iraq. Just not in the timetable that he said he would do it.

Yea, look at those numbers improving before Obama even took office. Look how Iraq was much more stable. The enemy was on its dying embers. Then, Obama cut and ran. As for your sovereign mumbo jumbo, Iraqi officials were begging us to stay behind the scenes. You think they didn't know they were sitting on a powder keg? You think they're that ******* stupid?

Again, Obama didn't have a choice. A document had been signed stating that the US would leave.

Prove Iraqi officials were begging the US to stay.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Obama campaigned on getting out of Iraq, dude. I know you may not be used to him keeping campaign promises (not that he actually kept that one; as he belatedly did it); but he did take them out and always broadcasted very strongly that that was what he thought was best. Was it? Clearly not, dude. And ISIS came to power after Obama completely split when he had the power to negotiate. That's not Bush. Stop trying to make this about a signature on paper. That's a ******* cop out, 'Mr. Objective'.

Yeah, so he campaigned on getting out of Iraq. That doesn't stop the FACT that he didn't sign the pulling out order, does it?

Now, you're saying he campaigned to pull out, and then saying he hasn't kept a single promise, and yet you're blaming him for pulling the troops out, for campaigning that he would pull troops out, and not living up to his campaign promises.

What you're smoking must be good.

ISIS came to power after Obama came to office. But get this. Things don't just suddenly appear out of no where. It's not like you go to the fridge and all of a sudden it's full of food and nothing happened to get that food there.

Imagine. Bush puts food in the fridge. Leaves office. Obama takes over, opens the fridge. What's in the fridge? Different food to what was put in there? Give me a ******* break.

You're giving me fine print that does not belie reality. It doesn't matter what Bush signed. Obama completely pulled out on his own accord. He was quite definitive in his undeniable rhetoric on the matter as well.

On the sidebar point: I was saying that Obama promised to pull out of Iraq by a certain time; I think it was a year or two. He went well past the date. So, I was saying that was ultimately another campaign promise that he broke. Nonetheless, his hastiness has cost lives. There is no denying that.

I'm sorry if you think Iraq isn't a sovereign country and the US can do whatever the **** it feels like with it, but it is actually a sovereign country and when the US sign a withdrawal of troops, they can't just turn around and say "sorry Iraq, we were just ******* with you, we're staying".

Do you not understand this simple point?

Obama said 16 months. Last troops left after 3 years based on the agreement with Bush.

Obama reduced the troops by quite a bit by 16 months, then increased then in 2011 before the final withdrawal.

However, you're complaining because he withdrew troops too early AND you're complaining he withdrew troops too late.

Hmmm.....

A campaign promise of pulling all troops out in 16 months was always going to be one that might not make it, these things are not easy operations and a guy who isn't president making such a statement must be taken with a pinch of salt (as is everything they say). However, he did what he said, he got the troops out of Iraq. Just not in the timetable that he said he would do it.

Yea, look at those numbers improving before Obama even took office. Look how Iraq was much more stable. The enemy was on its dying embers. Then, Obama cut and ran. As for your sovereign mumbo jumbo, Iraqi officials were begging us to stay behind the scenes. You think they didn't know they were sitting on a powder keg? You think they're that ******* stupid?

Again, Obama didn't have a choice. A document had been signed stating that the US would leave.

Prove Iraqi officials were begging the US to stay.

"But, but, but__ Bush Signed."

Wipe the drivel off your chin. The status of forces agreement allowed for extensions in the event that Iraq was not yet stable. And that's just what was in place. Negotiations were always an option. Obama clearly wanted to cut and run. See link for more.

None

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yeah, so he campaigned on getting out of Iraq. That doesn't stop the FACT that he didn't sign the pulling out order, does it?

Now, you're saying he campaigned to pull out, and then saying he hasn't kept a single promise, and yet you're blaming him for pulling the troops out, for campaigning that he would pull troops out, and not living up to his campaign promises.

What you're smoking must be good.

ISIS came to power after Obama came to office. But get this. Things don't just suddenly appear out of no where. It's not like you go to the fridge and all of a sudden it's full of food and nothing happened to get that food there.

Imagine. Bush puts food in the fridge. Leaves office. Obama takes over, opens the fridge. What's in the fridge? Different food to what was put in there? Give me a ******* break.

You're giving me fine print that does not belie reality. It doesn't matter what Bush signed. Obama completely pulled out on his own accord. He was quite definitive in his undeniable rhetoric on the matter as well.

On the sidebar point: I was saying that Obama promised to pull out of Iraq by a certain time; I think it was a year or two. He went well past the date. So, I was saying that was ultimately another campaign promise that he broke. Nonetheless, his hastiness has cost lives. There is no denying that.

I'm sorry if you think Iraq isn't a sovereign country and the US can do whatever the **** it feels like with it, but it is actually a sovereign country and when the US sign a withdrawal of troops, they can't just turn around and say "sorry Iraq, we were just ******* with you, we're staying".

Do you not understand this simple point?

Obama said 16 months. Last troops left after 3 years based on the agreement with Bush.

Obama reduced the troops by quite a bit by 16 months, then increased then in 2011 before the final withdrawal.

However, you're complaining because he withdrew troops too early AND you're complaining he withdrew troops too late.

Hmmm.....

A campaign promise of pulling all troops out in 16 months was always going to be one that might not make it, these things are not easy operations and a guy who isn't president making such a statement must be taken with a pinch of salt (as is everything they say). However, he did what he said, he got the troops out of Iraq. Just not in the timetable that he said he would do it.

Yea, look at those numbers improving before Obama even took office. Look how Iraq was much more stable. The enemy was on its dying embers. Then, Obama cut and ran. As for your sovereign mumbo jumbo, Iraqi officials were begging us to stay behind the scenes. You think they didn't know they were sitting on a powder keg? You think they're that ******* stupid?

Again, Obama didn't have a choice. A document had been signed stating that the US would leave.

Prove Iraqi officials were begging the US to stay.

"But, but, but__ Bush Signed."

Wipe the drivel off your chin. The status of forces agreement allowed for extensions in the event that Iraq was not yet stable. And that's just what was in place. Negotiations were always an option. Obama clearly wanted to cut and run. See link for more.

None

You can try all the bully tactics you want, Bush STILL SIGNED THE DOCUMENT. Get over it.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

You're giving me fine print that does not belie reality. It doesn't matter what Bush signed. Obama completely pulled out on his own accord. He was quite definitive in his undeniable rhetoric on the matter as well.

On the sidebar point: I was saying that Obama promised to pull out of Iraq by a certain time; I think it was a year or two. He went well past the date. So, I was saying that was ultimately another campaign promise that he broke. Nonetheless, his hastiness has cost lives. There is no denying that.

I'm sorry if you think Iraq isn't a sovereign country and the US can do whatever the **** it feels like with it, but it is actually a sovereign country and when the US sign a withdrawal of troops, they can't just turn around and say "sorry Iraq, we were just ******* with you, we're staying".

Do you not understand this simple point?

Obama said 16 months. Last troops left after 3 years based on the agreement with Bush.

Obama reduced the troops by quite a bit by 16 months, then increased then in 2011 before the final withdrawal.

However, you're complaining because he withdrew troops too early AND you're complaining he withdrew troops too late.

Hmmm.....

A campaign promise of pulling all troops out in 16 months was always going to be one that might not make it, these things are not easy operations and a guy who isn't president making such a statement must be taken with a pinch of salt (as is everything they say). However, he did what he said, he got the troops out of Iraq. Just not in the timetable that he said he would do it.

Yea, look at those numbers improving before Obama even took office. Look how Iraq was much more stable. The enemy was on its dying embers. Then, Obama cut and ran. As for your sovereign mumbo jumbo, Iraqi officials were begging us to stay behind the scenes. You think they didn't know they were sitting on a powder keg? You think they're that ******* stupid?

Again, Obama didn't have a choice. A document had been signed stating that the US would leave.

Prove Iraqi officials were begging the US to stay.

"But, but, but__ Bush Signed."

Wipe the drivel off your chin. The status of forces agreement allowed for extensions in the event that Iraq was not yet stable. And that's just what was in place. Negotiations were always an option. Obama clearly wanted to cut and run. See link for more.

None

You can try all the bully tactics you want, Bush STILL SIGNED THE DOCUMENT. Get over it.

Bully tactics? I made points that you OBVIOUSLY can't counter. Good job, 'Mr. Objective.'

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm sorry if you think Iraq isn't a sovereign country and the US can do whatever the **** it feels like with it, but it is actually a sovereign country and when the US sign a withdrawal of troops, they can't just turn around and say "sorry Iraq, we were just ******* with you, we're staying".

Do you not understand this simple point?

Obama said 16 months. Last troops left after 3 years based on the agreement with Bush.

Obama reduced the troops by quite a bit by 16 months, then increased then in 2011 before the final withdrawal.

However, you're complaining because he withdrew troops too early AND you're complaining he withdrew troops too late.

Hmmm.....

A campaign promise of pulling all troops out in 16 months was always going to be one that might not make it, these things are not easy operations and a guy who isn't president making such a statement must be taken with a pinch of salt (as is everything they say). However, he did what he said, he got the troops out of Iraq. Just not in the timetable that he said he would do it.

Yea, look at those numbers improving before Obama even took office. Look how Iraq was much more stable. The enemy was on its dying embers. Then, Obama cut and ran. As for your sovereign mumbo jumbo, Iraqi officials were begging us to stay behind the scenes. You think they didn't know they were sitting on a powder keg? You think they're that ******* stupid?

Again, Obama didn't have a choice. A document had been signed stating that the US would leave.

Prove Iraqi officials were begging the US to stay.

"But, but, but__ Bush Signed."

Wipe the drivel off your chin. The status of forces agreement allowed for extensions in the event that Iraq was not yet stable. And that's just what was in place. Negotiations were always an option. Obama clearly wanted to cut and run. See link for more.

None

You can try all the bully tactics you want, Bush STILL SIGNED THE DOCUMENT. Get over it.

Bully tactics? I made points that you OBVIOUSLY can't counter. Good job, 'Mr. Objective.'

And how would I counter them if they're just bully tactics.

You've taken a fact, dismissed it, pretended it didn't happen, then made a point based on this. You won't accept the fact, which clearly shows you are plain wrong. So, no, I can't counter you ignoring things. Although any sane intelligent person will know I'm right.

 

[IcebergSlim]

A popular view is more often than not a simplistic view.

Obama pulled out because his predecessor signed the pulling out order.

ISIS came to power in a place where Obama didn't have control, wasn't the president, didn't have the right to have troops in the country.

Blaming Bush doesn't offset reality. What you're spouting isn't reality. It's what you want to believe.

Obama campaigned on getting out of Iraq, dude. I know you may not be used to him keeping campaign promises (not that he actually kept that one; as he belatedly did it); but he did take them out and always broadcasted very strongly that that was what he thought was best. Was it? Clearly not, dude. And ISIS came to power after Obama completely split when he had the power to negotiate. That's not Bush. Stop trying to make this about a signature on paper. That's a ******* cop out, 'Mr. Objective'.

Yeah, so he campaigned on getting out of Iraq. That doesn't stop the FACT that he didn't sign the pulling out order, does it?

Now, you're saying he campaigned to pull out, and then saying he hasn't kept a single promise, and yet you're blaming him for pulling the troops out, for campaigning that he would pull troops out, and not living up to his campaign promises.

What you're smoking must be good.

ISIS came to power after Obama came to office. But get this. Things don't just suddenly appear out of no where. It's not like you go to the fridge and all of a sudden it's full of food and nothing happened to get that food there.

Imagine. Bush puts food in the fridge. Leaves office. Obama takes over, opens the fridge. What's in the fridge? Different food to what was put in there? Give me a ******* break.

You're giving me fine print that does not belie reality. It doesn't matter what Bush signed. Obama completely pulled out on his own accord. He was quite definitive in his undeniable rhetoric on the matter as well.

On the sidebar point: I was saying that Obama promised to pull out of Iraq by a certain time; I think it was a year or two. He went well past the date. So, I was saying that was ultimately another campaign promise that he broke. Nonetheless, his hastiness has cost lives. There is no denying that.

It doesn't matter what Bush signed.

Say no more......

It doesn't. Obama's stated objective to leave and resultant actions were irrespective of ink on paper. And had ISIS not exploded on to the scene, you sure as hell wouldn't be giving Bush credit for getting us out of Iraq. I know your stupid games.

Obama's stated objective to leave and resultant actions were irrespective of ink on paper.

They were entirely CONSISTENT with ink on paper. Had the Iraqnamese parliament agreed to the issue of legal jurisdiction, US troops would have remained. Maliki refused to even bring it to them......

These are facts, not conjectures - to which you are so prone.

And had ISIS not exploded on to the scene, you sure as hell wouldn't be giving Bush credit for getting us out of Iraq.

How does something with a continuous presence on the scene for more than a decade "explode" on to it?

 

[IcebergSlim]

Yeah, so he campaigned on getting out of Iraq. That doesn't stop the FACT that he didn't sign the pulling out order, does it?

Now, you're saying he campaigned to pull out, and then saying he hasn't kept a single promise, and yet you're blaming him for pulling the troops out, for campaigning that he would pull troops out, and not living up to his campaign promises.

What you're smoking must be good.

ISIS came to power after Obama came to office. But get this. Things don't just suddenly appear out of no where. It's not like you go to the fridge and all of a sudden it's full of food and nothing happened to get that food there.

Imagine. Bush puts food in the fridge. Leaves office. Obama takes over, opens the fridge. What's in the fridge? Different food to what was put in there? Give me a ******* break.

You're giving me fine print that does not belie reality. It doesn't matter what Bush signed. Obama completely pulled out on his own accord. He was quite definitive in his undeniable rhetoric on the matter as well.

On the sidebar point: I was saying that Obama promised to pull out of Iraq by a certain time; I think it was a year or two. He went well past the date. So, I was saying that was ultimately another campaign promise that he broke. Nonetheless, his hastiness has cost lives. There is no denying that.

I'm sorry if you think Iraq isn't a sovereign country and the US can do whatever the **** it feels like with it, but it is actually a sovereign country and when the US sign a withdrawal of troops, they can't just turn around and say "sorry Iraq, we were just ******* with you, we're staying".

Do you not understand this simple point?

Obama said 16 months. Last troops left after 3 years based on the agreement with Bush.

Obama reduced the troops by quite a bit by 16 months, then increased then in 2011 before the final withdrawal.

However, you're complaining because he withdrew troops too early AND you're complaining he withdrew troops too late.

Hmmm.....

A campaign promise of pulling all troops out in 16 months was always going to be one that might not make it, these things are not easy operations and a guy who isn't president making such a statement must be taken with a pinch of salt (as is everything they say). However, he did what he said, he got the troops out of Iraq. Just not in the timetable that he said he would do it.

Yea, look at those numbers improving before Obama even took office. Look how Iraq was much more stable. The enemy was on its dying embers. Then, Obama cut and ran. As for your sovereign mumbo jumbo, Iraqi officials were begging us to stay behind the scenes. You think they didn't know they were sitting on a powder keg? You think they're that ******* stupid?

Again, Obama didn't have a choice. A document had been signed stating that the US would leave.

Prove Iraqi officials were begging the US to stay.

"But, but, but__ Bush Signed."

Wipe the drivel off your chin. The status of forces agreement allowed for extensions in the event that Iraq was not yet stable. And that's just what was in place. Negotiations were always an option. Obama clearly wanted to cut and run. See link for more.

None

We rate the statement Mostly False.


What is it with you people?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Yea, look at those numbers improving before Obama even took office. Look how Iraq was much more stable. The enemy was on its dying embers. Then, Obama cut and ran. As for your sovereign mumbo jumbo, Iraqi officials were begging us to stay behind the scenes. You think they didn't know they were sitting on a powder keg? You think they're that ******* stupid?

Again, Obama didn't have a choice. A document had been signed stating that the US would leave.

Prove Iraqi officials were begging the US to stay.

"But, but, but__ Bush Signed."

Wipe the drivel off your chin. The status of forces agreement allowed for extensions in the event that Iraq was not yet stable. And that's just what was in place. Negotiations were always an option. Obama clearly wanted to cut and run. See link for more.

None

You can try all the bully tactics you want, Bush STILL SIGNED THE DOCUMENT. Get over it.

Bully tactics? I made points that you OBVIOUSLY can't counter. Good job, 'Mr. Objective.'

And how would I counter them if they're just bully tactics.

You've taken a fact, dismissed it, pretended it didn't happen, then made a point based on this. You won't accept the fact, which clearly shows you are plain wrong. So, no, I can't counter you ignoring things. Although any sane intelligent person will know I'm right.

What are you talking about, dude? I took your 'fact' and addressed it by noting that status of forces agreement allowed for extensions. I also noted that further negotiation was an option. That's the point that you broke down and called me a bully. That's just plain pathetic, dude. You hit something you couldn't counter and you just cried. Now, if you were objective like you've claimed, you might have said, 'Oh, Obama could've kept troops in Iraq and chose not to.' But you're not objective. You're just some deuche apologist.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Again, Obama didn't have a choice. A document had been signed stating that the US would leave.

Prove Iraqi officials were begging the US to stay.

"But, but, but__ Bush Signed."

Wipe the drivel off your chin. The status of forces agreement allowed for extensions in the event that Iraq was not yet stable. And that's just what was in place. Negotiations were always an option. Obama clearly wanted to cut and run. See link for more.

None

You can try all the bully tactics you want, Bush STILL SIGNED THE DOCUMENT. Get over it.

Bully tactics? I made points that you OBVIOUSLY can't counter. Good job, 'Mr. Objective.'

And how would I counter them if they're just bully tactics.

You've taken a fact, dismissed it, pretended it didn't happen, then made a point based on this. You won't accept the fact, which clearly shows you are plain wrong. So, no, I can't counter you ignoring things. Although any sane intelligent person will know I'm right.

What are you talking about, dude? I took your 'fact' and addressed it by noting that status of forces agreement allowed for extensions. I also noted that further negotiation was an option. That's the point that you broke down and called me a bully. That's just plain pathetic, dude. You hit something you couldn't counter and you just cried. Now, if you were objective like you've claimed, you might have said, 'Oh, Obama could've kept troops in Iraq and chose not to.' But you're not objective. You're just some deuche apologist.

Obama DID offer to keep keep US troops in Iraqnam........but under the condition that they operate exclusively under US legal jurisdiction.........He required that this be stipulated to be the Iraqnamese parliament.......Maliki decline to even bring it before it......that was a deal killer.....

With what part of that do you struggle?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

"But, but, but__ Bush Signed."

Wipe the drivel off your chin. The status of forces agreement allowed for extensions in the event that Iraq was not yet stable. And that's just what was in place. Negotiations were always an option. Obama clearly wanted to cut and run. See link for more.

None

You can try all the bully tactics you want, Bush STILL SIGNED THE DOCUMENT. Get over it.

Bully tactics? I made points that you OBVIOUSLY can't counter. Good job, 'Mr. Objective.'

And how would I counter them if they're just bully tactics.

You've taken a fact, dismissed it, pretended it didn't happen, then made a point based on this. You won't accept the fact, which clearly shows you are plain wrong. So, no, I can't counter you ignoring things. Although any sane intelligent person will know I'm right.

What are you talking about, dude? I took your 'fact' and addressed it by noting that status of forces agreement allowed for extensions. I also noted that further negotiation was an option. That's the point that you broke down and called me a bully. That's just plain pathetic, dude. You hit something you couldn't counter and you just cried. Now, if you were objective like you've claimed, you might have said, 'Oh, Obama could've kept troops in Iraq and chose not to.' But you're not objective. You're just some deuche apologist.

Obama DID offer to keep keep US troops in Iraqnam........but under the condition that they operate exclusively under US legal jurisdiction.........He required that this be stipulated to be the Iraqnamese parliament.......Maliki decline to even bring it before it......that was a deal killer.....

With what part of that do you struggle?

They already weren't exclusively under US juridstiction. Derp....

 

[IcebergSlim]

You can try all the bully tactics you want, Bush STILL SIGNED THE DOCUMENT. Get over it.

Bully tactics? I made points that you OBVIOUSLY can't counter. Good job, 'Mr. Objective.'

And how would I counter them if they're just bully tactics.

You've taken a fact, dismissed it, pretended it didn't happen, then made a point based on this. You won't accept the fact, which clearly shows you are plain wrong. So, no, I can't counter you ignoring things. Although any sane intelligent person will know I'm right.

What are you talking about, dude? I took your 'fact' and addressed it by noting that status of forces agreement allowed for extensions. I also noted that further negotiation was an option. That's the point that you broke down and called me a bully. That's just plain pathetic, dude. You hit something you couldn't counter and you just cried. Now, if you were objective like you've claimed, you might have said, 'Oh, Obama could've kept troops in Iraq and chose not to.' But you're not objective. You're just some deuche apologist.

Obama DID offer to keep keep US troops in Iraqnam........but under the condition that they operate exclusively under US legal jurisdiction.........He required that this be stipulated to be the Iraqnamese parliament.......Maliki decline to even bring it before it......that was a deal killer.....

With what part of that do you struggle?

They already weren't exclusively under US juridstiction. Derp....

And whose fault was that?

I'm guessing it would be the idiot who "negotiated" the 2008 SOFA...but then, his only priority was making certain US troops didn't withdraw from his colossal blunder under his watch.......

 

[frigidweirdo]

Again, Obama didn't have a choice. A document had been signed stating that the US would leave.

Prove Iraqi officials were begging the US to stay.

"But, but, but__ Bush Signed."

Wipe the drivel off your chin. The status of forces agreement allowed for extensions in the event that Iraq was not yet stable. And that's just what was in place. Negotiations were always an option. Obama clearly wanted to cut and run. See link for more.

None

You can try all the bully tactics you want, Bush STILL SIGNED THE DOCUMENT. Get over it.

Bully tactics? I made points that you OBVIOUSLY can't counter. Good job, 'Mr. Objective.'

And how would I counter them if they're just bully tactics.

You've taken a fact, dismissed it, pretended it didn't happen, then made a point based on this. You won't accept the fact, which clearly shows you are plain wrong. So, no, I can't counter you ignoring things. Although any sane intelligent person will know I'm right.

What are you talking about, dude? I took your 'fact' and addressed it by noting that status of forces agreement allowed for extensions. I also noted that further negotiation was an option. That's the point that you broke down and called me a bully. That's just plain pathetic, dude. You hit something you couldn't counter and you just cried. Now, if you were objective like you've claimed, you might have said, 'Oh, Obama could've kept troops in Iraq and chose not to.' But you're not objective. You're just some deuche apologist.

Okay then, if it allowed for extensions, prove it.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122074.pdf

"1. All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011."

"4. The United States recognizes the sovereign right of the Government of Iraq to request the departure of the United States Forces from Iraq at any time The Government of Iraq recognizes the sovereign right of the United States to withdraw the United States Forces from Iraq at any time."

"1. This Agreement shall be effective for a period of three years, unlessterminated sooner by either Party pursuant to paragraph 3 of this Article."

"2. This Agreement shall be amended only with the official agreement of the Parties in writing and in accordance with the constitutional procedures in effect in both countries."

I don't really see anything here that would allow the US government to extend this, unless of course there was an agreement between both parties. This agreement set out a time frame for leaving, it was the end of 2011. The USA could not stay unless another agreement was put in place.

Yes, Obama could have tried to do this. But this doesn't take into account that the Iraqi government probably didn't want this.

U.S. Troops Are Leaving Because Iraq Doesn't Want Them There

"
U.S. Troops Are Leaving Because Iraq Doesn't Want Them There"

Gates: Some US troops may stay if Iraq wants

"
Gates: Some US troops may stay if Iraq wants"

None

"
Obama wanted to keep 10,000 troops in Iraq, ABC's Raddatz claims"

"The Obama administration was initially open to leaving up to 10,000 troops in Iraq after the scheduled pullout at the end of 2011,"

"a controversial pitch that would have required approval from Iraq’s divided government to change the 2008 agreement, the Los Angeles Times reported."

"The agreement failed over a demand that American troops be given immunity from prosecution by Iraqis, a very touchy political issue within the Iraqi Parliament."

Would you have agreed to US troops in Iraq WITHOUT immunity from prosecution? Seriously? Obama would have been slaughtered by the US press.

""When the Americans asked for immunity, the Iraqi side answered that it was not possible," al-Maliki said in an October 2011 news conference. "The discussions over the number of trainers and the place of training stopped. Now that the issue of immunity was decided and that no immunity to be given, the withdrawal has started.""

"Obama said, "Keep in mind, that wasn't a decision made by me. That was a decision made by the Iraqi government.""