Stunning! Bush Predicted Iraq Disaster Obama Actually Created

[idb]

“If Bush hadn't invaded in the first place..... “


A simple fact the Bush apologists are clearly incapable of comprehending.

Just another bullshit talking point. It gets boring as hell.

Dismissing it as a 'talking point' - which is itself a boring meme - doesn't alter the fact.

 

[Dot Com]

“If Bush hadn't invaded in the first place..... “


A simple fact the Bush apologists are clearly incapable of comprehending.

yep. Repubs like that tool- Oldstyle are glossing over the fact that The President (then "Sen Obama) vehemently & rightly advised AGAINST vietraq from the start. Now people like Oldstyle are whining that the President isn't containing the blow back of their disastrous UNPAID-FOR foreign policy adventure fast enough that 44 advised against undertaking in the first place.

eXtreme rw circular logic

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Take note that your red highlighted line contains the descriptive term "increasing ability to secure itself"...that does not mean that they were ready to secure themselves as is evident from the Huffington Post article I just cited showing the vast majority of our military brass being worried about Iraq collapsing if we withdrew too soon.

Then why did Bush agree to the date certain removal of all US troops by December 31, 2011?


And you are arguing that Iraq was not 'ready to secure themselves' in June of 2014 when 1000 terrorist gunmen overpowered 20,000 heavily armed army and police basically without a fight from the Iraqi government side.

Stop and think how rediculous your argument is when you are saying that the American taxpayer is expected to pay to train and supply more than 20 Iraqi soldiers to every one piece of shit who decides to be a terrorist .

And that ratio is not sufficient in Iraq so on top of that the American fighting man and woman needs to be stationed in Iraq until Kingdom Come so as the Iraqi government will never have to rely on Iraqi soldiers and officers to turn back an al Qaeda Sunni anti-government threat. The Americans will always be there for them.

Because the Bush faithful like tinydancer agree with their god's gift of a war president who said, the Iraqis were only "increasing their ability to secure" themselves which now means in OH (Obama Hater) translation - the Iraqis will never be able to actually defend themselves and they will never be able to actually know that they cannot defend themselves so US Presidents forever more will have to make their security decisions for them and impose our general's decisions on them whether they like it or not.

So what is it Oldstyle? Do we train 100 Iraqis for every single terrorist. 500?


Or how many US combat troops do we keep there and for how long?


Or do we do some good ole Obama tough love and tell them the reality is that the US military is not ever going to be a Shiite government's army or Air Force.

The training wheels are coming off after we assist you this one last time?


I'm with Obama.

You can stay with the idiot Bush.

 

[Oldstyle]

“If Bush hadn't invaded in the first place..... “


A simple fact the Bush apologists are clearly incapable of comprehending.

yep. Repubs like that tool- Oldstyle are glossing over the fact that The President (then "Sen Obama) vehemently & rightly advised AGAINST vietraq from the start. Now people like Oldstyle are whining that the President isn't containing the blow back of their disastrous UNPAID-FOR foreign policy adventure fast enough that 44 advised against undertaking in the first place.

eXtreme rw circular logic

It's interesting that then Senator Obama called for a 16 month withdrawal from Iraq but also called for a "residual force" to be left in Iraq when he was running for President in 2008. So what happened to that residual force once he became President?

 

[Oldstyle]

and once again at 9:50

 

[Oldstyle]

So what happened to the promised "residual force" that he pledged would be left behind in Iraq for counter terrorism activities?

 

[Oldstyle]

The TRUTH of the matter is that "Senator Obama" ran for the office of President promising that he would withdraw American forces over 16 months but he ALSO ran on the promise that a force would be left in place to protect the gains that we had made. He failed to keep that promise because he wanted to be remembered as the President who ended the war in Iraq. THAT decision is what led ISIS to cross the border from Syria and conquer vast territory in Iraq.

 

[Jroc]

“If Bush hadn't invaded in the first place..... “


A simple fact the Bush apologists are clearly incapable of comprehending.

yep. Repubs like that tool- Oldstyle are glossing over the fact that The President (then "Sen Obama) vehemently & rightly advised AGAINST vietraq from the start. Now people like Oldstyle are whining that the President isn't containing the blow back of their disastrous UNPAID-FOR foreign policy adventure fast enough that 44 advised against undertaking in the first place.

eXtreme rw circular logic

Umm..Obama wasn't in the Senate at the start of the Iraq war

 

[ogibillm]

“If Bush hadn't invaded in the first place..... “


A simple fact the Bush apologists are clearly incapable of comprehending.

yep. Repubs like that tool- Oldstyle are glossing over the fact that The President (then "Sen Obama) vehemently & rightly advised AGAINST vietraq from the start. Now people like Oldstyle are whining that the President isn't containing the blow back of their disastrous UNPAID-FOR foreign policy adventure fast enough that 44 advised against undertaking in the first place.

eXtreme rw circular logic

It's interesting that then Senator Obama called for a 16 month withdrawal from Iraq but also called for a "residual force" to be left in Iraq when he was running for President in 2008. So what happened to that residual force once he became President?

iraq didn't want it. they refused to allow us to keep troops there without having them under the jurisdiction of iraqi courts.

you've been told this time and time again. why can't you accept it?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

ISIS is a product of our leaders obsession with regime change in the Middle East. It appears they weren't happy with just messing up Egypt or Libya, no they had to jump in and try to remove Assad as well.

You make absolutely no sense. Egypt is not messed up. Foreign western leaders did not instigate Mubarak or Morsi's demise.

Libya was authorized by the UN to save tens of thousands of lives in Benghazi. We don't know how many Ghadafi would have killed had the world not organized to stop him.

And then there is the dominant point on Syria. The three leaders you mention did not instigate the Syria rebellion.'

Obama was criticized for not doing enough to assist the rebels early on.

And the he forced Putin and Assad to rid the civil war of CW Assad's arsenal .
Netanyahu let it be known that Israel supported the CW destruction.

So there is nothing messed up about that..

So provide documentation that there was intent from the beginning to regime change Libya, Syria or Egypt by the US, UK or Canada.

 

[Oldstyle]

“If Bush hadn't invaded in the first place..... “


A simple fact the Bush apologists are clearly incapable of comprehending.

yep. Repubs like that tool- Oldstyle are glossing over the fact that The President (then "Sen Obama) vehemently & rightly advised AGAINST vietraq from the start. Now people like Oldstyle are whining that the President isn't containing the blow back of their disastrous UNPAID-FOR foreign policy adventure fast enough that 44 advised against undertaking in the first place.

eXtreme rw circular logic

It's interesting that then Senator Obama called for a 16 month withdrawal from Iraq but also called for a "residual force" to be left in Iraq when he was running for President in 2008. So what happened to that residual force once he became President?

iraq didn't want it. they refused to allow us to keep troops there without having them under the jurisdiction of iraqi courts.

you've been told this time and time again. why can't you accept it?

Because it's a talking point that ignores reality? What some politicians in Iraq "wanted" and what they would have done to receive billions in US aid are two different things. The truth is that a new Status of Forces Agreement was never pursued by President Obama because HE didn't want to keep American troops in Iraq.

 

[ogibillm]

“If Bush hadn't invaded in the first place..... “


A simple fact the Bush apologists are clearly incapable of comprehending.

yep. Repubs like that tool- Oldstyle are glossing over the fact that The President (then "Sen Obama) vehemently & rightly advised AGAINST vietraq from the start. Now people like Oldstyle are whining that the President isn't containing the blow back of their disastrous UNPAID-FOR foreign policy adventure fast enough that 44 advised against undertaking in the first place.

eXtreme rw circular logic

It's interesting that then Senator Obama called for a 16 month withdrawal from Iraq but also called for a "residual force" to be left in Iraq when he was running for President in 2008. So what happened to that residual force once he became President?

iraq didn't want it. they refused to allow us to keep troops there without having them under the jurisdiction of iraqi courts.

you've been told this time and time again. why can't you accept it?

Because it's a talking point that ignores reality? What some politicians in Iraq "wanted" and what they would have done to receive billions in US aid are two different things. The truth is that a new Status of Forces Agreement was never pursued by President Obama because HE didn't want to keep American troops in Iraq.

again, patently false. the agreement was pursued. iraq rejected it.
Stunning Bush Predicted Iraq Disaster Obama Actually Created Page 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[whutTHEYsay]

It's interesting that then Senator Obama called for a 16 month withdrawal from Iraq but also called for a "residual force" to be left in Iraq when he was running for President in 2008. So what happened to that residual force once he became President?

So what happened to the promised "residual force" that he pledged would be left behind in Iraq for counter terrorism activities?

The TRUTH of the matter is that "Senator Obama" ran for the office of President promising that he would withdraw American forces over 16 months but he ALSO ran on the promise that a force would be left in place to protect the gains that we had made. He failed to keep that promise because he wanted to be remembered as the President who ended the war in Iraq. THAT decision is what led ISIS to cross the border from Syria and conquer vast territory in Iraq.

iraq didn't want it. they refused to allow us to keep troops there without having them under the jurisdiction of iraqi courts.

you've been told this time and time again. why can't you accept it?

Your right winger hate talk media gets some blame for politically blurring the line between residual forces combat forces. The right media machine loves to attack whatever Obama says into a broken promise.

Obama's campaign promise was to bring 'combat' troops out in 16 months. The anti-war left and OHater right combined to proclaim and mock Obama for making a distinction between residual and combat forces.

 

[tinydancer]

Dismissing it as a 'talking point' - which is itself a boring meme - doesn't alter the fact.

The difference between repeating the mantra "Bush did it" and the arguments that I and others have put forth is that "Bush did it" is based on emotion and opinion.

One has every right to their opinion. But not their own facts. We've been putting up timelines and true history with links.

 

[R.D.]

Your right winger hate talk media gets some blame for politically blurring the line between residual forces combat forces. The right media machine loves to attack whatever Obama says into a broken promise.

Obama's campaign promise was to bring 'combat' troops out in 16 months. The anti-war left and OHater right combined to proclaim and mock Obama for making a distinction between residual and combat forces.

Proving the op correct

 

[tinydancer]

ISIS is a product of our leaders obsession with regime change in the Middle East. It appears they weren't happy with just messing up Egypt or Libya, no they had to jump in and try to remove Assad as well.

You make absolutely no sense. Egypt is not messed up. Foreign western leaders did not instigate Mubarak or Morsi's demise.

Libya was authorized by the UN to save tens of thousands of lives in Benghazi. We don't know how many Ghadafi would have killed had the world not organized to stop him.

And then there is the dominant point on Syria. The three leaders you mention did not instigate the Syria rebellion.'

Obama was criticized for not doing enough to assist the rebels early on.

And the he forced Putin and Assad to rid the civil war of CW Assad's arsenal .
Netanyahu let it be known that Israel supported the CW destruction.

So there is nothing messed up about that..

So provide documentation that there was intent from the beginning to regime change Libya, Syria or Egypt by the US, UK or Canada.

Oh dear heavens for the love of humanity stop with the lies.

To say western leaders had no hand in supporting the unrest Egypt is to deny all reality. We gave them Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood.

To say we had no hand in supporting the unrest in Libya is to deny all reality. We have given the poor Libyans jihadists who now control 1/5th of the world's oil and are partying hardy at the US Embassy in Tripoli.

And Syria. Oh bite me. As far back as 2012 it was being reported in the New York Times, you know, that bastion of neo con war mongers that the CIA was working with Qatar and Saudi Arabia to depose Assad.

Good grief. Stop with the spin and the lies.

 

[deltex1]

Deal with the here and now. If Obabble projects we need three years to defeat ISIS, how many years does he project to defeat Islamic radicalism...and what is his plan for that?

 

[WelfareQueen]

Uh, R.D., US commanders DID tell us we were ready to withdraw from Iraq. It was according to THEIR plan, mostly finished before Bush left office.

So, no, former Pres. Bush's comments were not very prophetic at all. But I'm not surprised that FOX would try to use this tactic.

No....this is completely wrong. The military asked for a residual force of at least 25,000 troops to be left in Iraq. Obama refused. The military then said 10,000 troops. Obama again refused.

Hence, the descent into chaos.

Second, the military requested a status of forces agreement to maintain a US presence in Iraq. Again...Obama basically refused and fucked it up.

No offense...but if you're going to say something like this at least get your facts straight.


Here's a source for the actual facts. Huffington Post.

Iraq Troop Withdrawal Obama Administration Supports Reducing U.S. Forces To 3 000 By End Of 2011

 

[Oldstyle]

“If Bush hadn't invaded in the first place..... “


A simple fact the Bush apologists are clearly incapable of comprehending.

yep. Repubs like that tool- Oldstyle are glossing over the fact that The President (then "Sen Obama) vehemently & rightly advised AGAINST vietraq from the start. Now people like Oldstyle are whining that the President isn't containing the blow back of their disastrous UNPAID-FOR foreign policy adventure fast enough that 44 advised against undertaking in the first place.

eXtreme rw circular logic

It's interesting that then Senator Obama called for a 16 month withdrawal from Iraq but also called for a "residual force" to be left in Iraq when he was running for President in 2008. So what happened to that residual force once he became President?

iraq didn't want it. they refused to allow us to keep troops there without having them under the jurisdiction of iraqi courts.

you've been told this time and time again. why can't you accept it?

Because it's a talking point that ignores reality? What some politicians in Iraq "wanted" and what they would have done to receive billions in US aid are two different things. The truth is that a new Status of Forces Agreement was never pursued by President Obama because HE didn't want to keep American troops in Iraq.

again, patently false. the agreement was pursued. iraq rejected it.
Stunning Bush Predicted Iraq Disaster Obama Actually Created Page 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

So you're saying that Barack Obama made the pursuit of a new Status of Forces Agreement a priority? An article from the New York Times back in September of 2012 paints a different picture. Take note of Vice President Joe Biden's take on the situation:

"Mr. Biden also predicted that the Americans could work out a deal with a government led by Mr. Maliki. “Maliki wants us to stick around because he does not see a future in Iraq otherwise,” Mr. Biden said. “I’ll bet you my vice presidency Maliki will extend the SOFA,” he added, referring to the Status of Forces Agreement the Obama administration hoped to negotiate."

Or the opinion coming from the Kurds:

"To many Iraqis, the United States’ influence is greatly diminished. “American policy is very weak,” observed Fuad Hussein, the chief of staff to Massoud Barzani, the president of the semiautonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq. “It is not clear to us how they have defined their interests in Iraq,” Mr. Hussein said. “They are picking events and reacting on the basis of events. That is the policy.”

The Times sums up the failure to reach an agreement with this observation:

"Some experts say that given the Iraqis’ concerns about sovereignty, and Iranian pressure, the politicians in Baghdad were simply not prepared to make the hard decisions that were needed to secure parliamentary approval. Others say the Iraqis sensed the Americans’ ambivalence and were being asked to make unpopular political decisions for a modest military benefit."

That's the liberal New York Times stating that American "ambivalence" about keeping troops in Iraq was what was making Iraqi politicians shy away from making a correct but politically risky move to keep an American force behind after the main withdrawal. The military certainly wasn't ambivalent! They were adamant about the need to keep a force there. The ambivalence came from the President and members of his Staff.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/w...-last-months-in-iraq.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

And the Times ends that article with the following:

"
On Oct. 21, Mr. Obama held another videoconference with Mr. Maliki — his first such discussion since the talks began in June. The negotiations were over, and all of the American troops would be coming home.

The White House insisted that the collapse of the talks was not a setback. “As we reviewed the 10,000 option, we came to the conclusion that achieving the goal of a security partnership was not dependent on the size of our footprint in-country, and that stability in Iraq did not depend on the presence of U.S. forces,” a senior Obama administration official said.

It is too soon to fully assess that prediction. But tensions have increased to the point that Mr. Barzani has insisted Mr. Maliki be replaced and Iraq’s lone Sunni vice president has fled to Turkey to avoid arrest.

Without American forces to train and assist Iraqi commandos, the insurgent group Al Qaeda in Iraq is still active in Iraq and is increasingly involved in Syria. With no American aircraft to patrol Iraqi airspace, Iraq has become a corridor for Iranian flights of military supplies to Bashar al-Assad’s government in Syria, American officials say. It is also a potential avenue for an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear installations, something the White House is laboring to avoid."

It's obvious WAY back then that the current problems were already rearing their ugly heads. The fact of the matter is that the Obama Administration failed miserably at getting Maliki to be inclusive with his government and then made a weak attempt at negotiating a Status of Forces Agreement. The fact that Obama didn't have talks with Maliki on that topic from June all the way until the end of October illustrates the lack of commitment that Obama had towards such an agreement.

 

[WelfareQueen]

“If Bush hadn't invaded in the first place..... “


A simple fact the Bush apologists are clearly incapable of comprehending.

yep. Repubs like that tool- Oldstyle are glossing over the fact that The President (then "Sen Obama) vehemently & rightly advised AGAINST vietraq from the start. Now people like Oldstyle are whining that the President isn't containing the blow back of their disastrous UNPAID-FOR foreign policy adventure fast enough that 44 advised against undertaking in the first place.

eXtreme rw circular logic

It's interesting that then Senator Obama called for a 16 month withdrawal from Iraq but also called for a "residual force" to be left in Iraq when he was running for President in 2008. So what happened to that residual force once he became President?

iraq didn't want it. they refused to allow us to keep troops there without having them under the jurisdiction of iraqi courts.

you've been told this time and time again. why can't you accept it?

Because it's a talking point that ignores reality? What some politicians in Iraq "wanted" and what they would have done to receive billions in US aid are two different things. The truth is that a new Status of Forces Agreement was never pursued by President Obama because HE didn't want to keep American troops in Iraq.

again, patently false. the agreement was pursued. iraq rejected it.
Stunning Bush Predicted Iraq Disaster Obama Actually Created Page 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

So you're saying that Barack Obama made the pursuit of a new Status of Forces Agreement a priority? An article from the New York Times back in September of 2012 paints a different picture. Take note of Vice President Joe Biden's take on the situation:

"Mr. Biden also predicted that the Americans could work out a deal with a government led by Mr. Maliki. “Maliki wants us to stick around because he does not see a future in Iraq otherwise,” Mr. Biden said. “I’ll bet you my vice presidency Maliki will extend the SOFA,” he added, referring to the Status of Forces Agreement the Obama administration hoped to negotiate."

Or the opinion coming from the Kurds:

"To many Iraqis, the United States’ influence is greatly diminished. “American policy is very weak,” observed Fuad Hussein, the chief of staff to Massoud Barzani, the president of the semiautonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq. “It is not clear to us how they have defined their interests in Iraq,” Mr. Hussein said. “They are picking events and reacting on the basis of events. That is the policy.”

The Times sums up the failure to reach an agreement with this observation:

"Some experts say that given the Iraqis’ concerns about sovereignty, and Iranian pressure, the politicians in Baghdad were simply not prepared to make the hard decisions that were needed to secure parliamentary approval. Others say the Iraqis sensed the Americans’ ambivalence and were being asked to make unpopular political decisions for a modest military benefit."

That's the liberal New York Times stating that American "ambivalence" about keeping troops in Iraq was what was making Iraqi politicians shy away from making a correct but politically risky move to keep an American force behind after the main withdrawal. The military certainly wasn't ambivalent! They were adamant about the need to keep a force there. The ambivalence came from the President and members of his Staff.

Obama fucked up the negotiations with Iraq for a status of forces agreement. He fucked it up because he wanted it to fail. The entire cluster **** that is Iraq and Syria is 100% on Obama....and clearly will be the judgment of history. Deal with it.