Stunning! Bush Predicted Iraq Disaster Obama Actually Created

[idb]

Hmmm.
Econchick believes that having a lot of people predict stuff on the internet is proof of something.
She believes that, because she knew a lot of people in Iraq that didn't want the US to leave then that's proof that they should have stayed (I wonder how many of them had contracts with Halliburton etc).

If she was as central to negotiations with the Iraqis and advising the US military and political hierarchy as she claims then I hope she got the sack because, going by the evidence, she did a pretty poor job.

 

[Oldstyle]

President Bush warned that if we pulled out of Iraq too soon, it would be dangerous for Iraq, the region and the United States; it would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean we are risking mass killings on a grand scale. It would allow the terrorists to replace the safe haven they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean we’d have to return at a later date to confront an enemy who is even more dangerous.



President Obama is trying to blame Bush but he won the war and Obama then handed over to ISIS.

Listen to this clip. He thinks people will fall for his blaming Bush for what is obviously his failure.








Stunning Bush Predicted Iraq Disaster Obama Actually Created www.independentsentinel.com

Stunning performance by bush. After destroying Iraq and murdering a good percentage of it's population, he warns that pulling out could be dangerous for Iraq.

You know what's REALLY stunning? That you progressives simply can't bring yourselves to admit that Bush was completely correct when he warned about a premature withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Over a million people have been dislocated from their homes. Tens of thousands more have been raped or slaughtered by an invading terrorist army. Yet you people can't admit that Bush was right when he said an early withdrawal was the wrong thing to do!

If the President truly believed that in November of 2008, why did he sign the agreement to remove all our troops by 2012?

Because he truly wanted to get American combat troops out of Iraq and thought it could be done by that date? The difference between Bush and Obama however is that with the situation two years later Bush would have fought hard for a residual force to remain behind because it was obvious that the Sunnis were not being included in the Maliki government and that there was a growing threat from ISIS across the border in Syria...whereas Obama simply ignored the threat...declared that Iraq was stable and a "win" for his Administration and moved on despite having failed miserably at forcing Maliki to be inclusive with the Kurds and the Sunnis.

Nice try but no, it was the Iraqis who forced the agreement on President Bush. They also refused to allow our troops immunity during the negotiations with Obama as well.

How exactly does Maliki "force" anything on any American President? We were the ones who put him in office...we were the ones who were training his security forces...we were the ones who were subsidizing his government to the tune of billions of dollars in aid. Where is his leverage to "force" an American President to do ANYTHING!

Why do you think Maliki is no longer running Iraq? I'll give you a hint...because we told him to resign or we were pulling our aid. That's the reality that has always existed in "negotiations" between Iraq and America. If Barry had REALLY wanted a new Status of Forces Agreement that kept 10,000 US troops in Iraq then all he needed to do is make it clear to Maliki that was the way it was going to be. That didn't get done because quite frankly...Obama didn't care if it got done! He wanted out of Iraq and didn't care how that happened. So he pulled everyone out despite the fact that his military were warning him that doing so was dangerous given the situation in Iraq and Syria.

Stop being so naive, Boo...it doesn't do wonders for your rep...

from post #525

"U.S. and coalition forces have been in Iraq since 2003. And while the UN Security Council did not explicitly authorize the invasion, the council did approve the presence of foreign forces in an annually renewed resolution first adopted in October 2003.Because Iraq's government has requested that the Security Council not renew the mandate upon its expiration at the end of 2008, U.S. officials have had to accelerate negotiations on a detailed legal framework for the U.S. presence in Iraq.

Who exactly gives a single **** about reps.......

I meant your reputation for being naive, Boo. When you make statements like you've made about Maliki "forcing" something from either Bush or Obama when he was always dependent on the US for his survival you come across as incredibly naive. What do you think forced Maliki from power? Do you NOT grasp that came from the US?

Who do you suppose made that request of the UNSC?

Quite frankly, Boo...I'm trying to understand what that even has to do with what's being discussed.

The bottom line is that with everything that the US was doing for Maliki there is no way he says no to a determined US President. The reason that a new Status of Forces Agreement wasn't reached was that Barack Obama really didn't want US forces to be IN Iraq therefore he didn't push for a new agreement to happen but rather used a lack of one as an excuse to take out all of the US forces.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

On September 10, 2014 at 03:55 PM I asked, "Question: Did US intelligence analysts predict the Iraqi army fleeing from the ISIS fighters in Iraq while outnumbering them at least 20 to 1 and were much better equipped?"

At 03:59 PM EconChick replied, "As for predictability, I can be seen all over the internet for the past three years predicting almost everything that has happened in Iraq, dumbass. Many people can be seen predicting it. Not down to the color of shoe strings dumb ass, but conceptually it was easy to see Sunnis revolting because of what Maliki was doing."

All can see that EconChick did not attempt to answer my question.

 

[idb]

On September 10, 2014 at 03:55 PM I asked, "Question: Did US intelligence analysts predict the Iraqi army fleeing from the ISIS fighters in Iraq while outnumbering them at least 20 to 1 and were much better equipped?"

At 03:59 PM EconChick replied, "As for predictability, I can be seen all over the internet for the past three years predicting almost everything that has happened in Iraq, dumbass. Many people can be seen predicting it. Not down to the color of shoe strings dumb ass, but conceptually it was easy to see Sunnis revolting because of what Maliki was doing."

All can see that EconChick did not attempt to answer my question.

Weren't there people all over the internet predicting a collision with a rogue planet as well?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

President Bush warned that if we pulled out of Iraq too soon, it would be dangerous for Iraq, the region and the United States; it would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean we are risking mass killings on a grand scale. It would allow the terrorists to replace the safe haven they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean we’d have to return at a later date to confront an enemy who is even more dangerous.
/QUOTE]


You are claiming that Bush warned that pulling troops out of Iraq too soon it would mean surrendering the future of IRaq to al Qaeda.

Iraq has not surrendered to al Qaeda and it is not even close.

The premise of your OP is completely false and based upon hysteria not facts.

 

[EconChick]

Here ya go looking stupid. I actually worked for and briefed Petraeus in Iraq...and you have no idea what you're talking about.

Then you should know as a matter of fact that the reality that Bush strapped his successor with the mandate by the sovereign government of Iraq that all US troops had to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. You should know that there is no such thing as a placeholder in the 2008 SOFA that Bush, Maliki and Iraq's Parliament agreed to last December. Why don't you?

International law and treaties dealing with sovereignty do not work according to your elaborate scheme to deny the reality that Bush strapped his successor with the mandate by the sovereign government of Iraq that all US troops had to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011 unless the Iraqis had a change of mind. The Iraqis could also tell Bush to get out the day after it was signed if they wanted to.

I've told you about 20 ******* times, idiot, that the 2008 SOFA WASSSSSSSSSSSSSSS a placeholder for the one that was supposed to be completed when they left. I can't help you have reading comprehension problems.

And strapped his successor?????????? What a ******* moron. He left plenty of wiggle room for anyone that had any competence at negotiating.

But that person had to WANT to negotiate and your boy didn't.

Surely in or after those 20 times someone asked you where this placeholder agreement was agreed too and signed.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20081119_SOFA_FINAL_AGREED_TEXT.pdf

Boo, we have SOFAs with 40 other countries. None of them were handled the way this one has been handled, because none of them have the same complications Iraq has.

The 2008 SOFA was not meant to be final. When done in other countries, they wait till they're finalized and there is just ONE for that time period.

By placeholder, I'm saying the 2008 was never meant to be final. The intent was always that this was a tentative SOFA until a final one that would be negotiated when the next president came in and finalized the number of troops to be left. Obama has even confirmed that, so I don't know what keeps confusing you people. He confirms there was supposed to be a better SOFA, he just claims he couldn't win the negotiation. Let me repeat this again, even O acknowledges what you and NotFooled keep denying.

I don't know why you people keep having a hard time with that concept.

The Sequester was never suppose to happen either. Many on the left complained that Obama was renegotiating the agreement to keep troops in Iraq. If the Iraqis had agreed to the immunity portion of the agreement with President Bush the matter would have been settled then. It wasn't and the Iraqis never offered to allow our troops immunity. So imo, the premise that President Obama didn't want to leave a residual force is false.

Boo, here is an example of the fallacy of your thinking.

Bush knew that because of the timeline of events -- i.e. he knew it couldn't be completed on his watch -- that he could not and did not want to completely commit the next president, whoever that was going to be, to 100% of the 2008 SOFA. So he negotiated a tentative or placeholder SOFA to accommodate certain political goals (for him AND Maliki) addressing immunity for current troops and contractors, for example, and then left lots of wiggle room for the next president to do what they needed to do depending on conditions on the ground to negotiate the final SOFA.

In other words, why would a president who knows the next president had to take up the mantel, hem that president in when in fact they are giving that president room to maneuver. This is how all most all presidents have handled foreign policy...and shocked you don't know how it's done.

President Bush had no choice and it wasn't because he was worried about committing Obama.

"U.S. and coalition forces have been in Iraq since 2003. And while the UN Security Council did not explicitly authorize the invasion, the council did approve the presence of foreign forces in an annually renewed resolution first adopted in October 2003.Because Iraq's government has requested that the Security Council not renew the mandate upon its expiration at the end of 2008, U.S. officials have had to accelerate negotiations on a detailed legal framework for the U.S. presence in Iraq. Two major agreements-a Status of Forces Agreement stalled on the issue of legal immunity for U.S. troops and dates for a full withdrawal, and a broader strategic framework agreement-were approved by Iraq's parliament in late November 2008."

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

Furthermore had the Iraqis relented on the immunity deal breaker I'm sure President Obama would have taken the military's advice and left a substantial residual force.

Bullshit, you have no idea what you're talking about. Next question?

 

[EconChick]

Boo, here is an example of the fallacy of your thinking.

Bush knew that because of the timeline of events -- i.e. he knew it couldn't be completed on his watch -- that he could not and did not want to completely commit the next president, whoever that was going to be, to 100% of the 2008 SOFA. So he negotiated a tentative or placeholder SOFA to accommodate certain political goals (for him AND Maliki) addressing immunity for current troops and contractors, for example, and then left lots of wiggle room for the next president to do what they needed to do depending on conditions on the ground to negotiate the final SOFA.

In other words, why would a president who knows the next president had to take up the mantel, hem that president in when in fact they are giving that president room to maneuver. This is how all most all presidents have handled foreign policy...and shocked you don't know how it's done.

We have come full circle now. Obama did just that, he maneuvered right out of the SOFA Bush timeline creating this mess all himself.

Yep, R.D., you weren't there but you have no problems comprehending exactly what went on. The 3rd graders on the thread, on the other hand, keep twitching and moaning about how hard it is for them to grasp reality versus Democrat talking points.

It's absolutely comical to watch.

 

[EconChick]

By placeholder, I'm saying the 2008 was never meant to be final. The intent was always that this was a tentative SOFA until a final one that would be negotiated...

Who's "intent"?

You are lying. The Iraqis have never shown or stated that intent.

REALLY DUMB ASS????????? I was there negotiating with Iraqis, not you, you stupid ******.

Are you going to next tell me what time of day I was delivered from my mother's womb??????????


What makes you think that everything is put in writing you ******* moron????????????????????

You also show incredible ignorance about international law even in developed countries.

Ice tea just shot out my nose as I laughed at this post. This crazy lady claims to have been negotiating for the US with Iraq and closed her comment by some kind of nutty remark about everything not having to be in writing. I guess that means she made secret arrangement with the Iraqi's but only she knows about them. They were secrets that didn't get put into writing. It's in the international law somewhere that says that's OK.

That's not what I said, idiot. That's not even close to what I said, LMAO. Maybe you should stay away from the bottle.



Your hero's in a free fall....and so are you USMB moronic libs.

 

[EconChick]

Bush knew that because of the timeline of events -- i.e. he knew it couldn't be completed on his watch --

Oldstyle tells us that Bush "... truly wanted to get American combat troops out of Iraq and thought it could be done by that date? "

So which is it? That was 2008 Bush right? 2008 Bush did not run out of time - he went for full withdrawal (the reality is evidenced by the actual SOFA) of all troops by 2011 end. That is according to Oldstyle too.

Where do you get your cockamaymee version of what happened EconChick?

You have nothing that backs you up.

At least Oldstyle agrees with the actual language in the Bush:Maliki agreement of 2008.

Your placeholder crap is still crap.

You have nothing that backs YOUR lies up my dear clodpowd.

 

[EconChick]

Boo, here is an example of the fallacy of your thinking.

Bush knew that because of the timeline of events -- i.e. he knew it couldn't be completed on his watch -- that he could not and did not want to completely commit the next president, whoever that was going to be, to 100% of the 2008 SOFA. So he negotiated a tentative or placeholder SOFA to accommodate certain political goals (for him AND Maliki) addressing immunity for current troops and contractors, for example, and then left lots of wiggle room for the next president to do what they needed to do depending on conditions on the ground to negotiate the final SOFA.

In other words, why would a president who knows the next president had to take up the mantel, hem that president in when in fact they are giving that president room to maneuver. This is how all most all presidents have handled foreign policy...and shocked you don't know how it's done.

We have come full circle now. Obama did just that, he maneuvered right out of the SOFA Bush timeline creating this mess all himself.

The time line set in the SOFA signed by President Bush was followed. Troops were out of the cities in mid 2009 and out of the country by 2012.

Article 24
Withdrawal of the United States Forces from Iraq

Recognizing the performance and increasing capacity of the Iraqi Security Forces, the assumption of full security responsibility by those Forces, and based upon the strong relationship between the Parties, an agreement on the following has been reached:

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

2. All United States combat forces shall withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages, and localities no later than the time at which Iraqi Security Forces assume full responsibility for security in an Iraqi province, provided that such withdrawal is completed no later than June 30, 2009.

3. United States combat forces withdrawn pursuant to paragraph 2 above shall be stationed in the agreed facilities and areas outside cities, villages, and localities to be designated by the JMOCC before the date established in paragraph 2 above.

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.

5. The Parties agree to establish mechanisms and arrangements to reduce the number of the United States Forces during the periods of time that have been determined, and they shall agree on the locations where the United States Forces will be present.

There are almost 30 pages to the SOFA yet you always post just half a page. Dead give away you're too stupid to understand the whole thing.

 

[EconChick]

No Boo, but after 27 pages it is no longer and interesting debate.

Being wrong is a choice. Wear it with pride

R.D. you're so smart, girl. You could take these children on with both hands tied behind your back. LOL

 

[EconChick]

Obama's in freefall. Just like you libs on this thread. He has fucked it all up. It's a huge mess. Own it.

 

[1776]

These dumb motherfuckers still defending Obama ******* up in Iraq and Syria......and none of them have ever seen anything above FOUO.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

You have nothing that backs YOUR lies up my dear clodpowd.

What lies. Point to a specific lie you think I've told and I will show you why it is not.

I have pointed out yours. Such as the lie that Iraqis did not have to pass a SOFA through parliament.l

 

[whutTHEYsay]

001

They have lost one third of their country have they not?

No they have not lost a third of Iraq. What is your source for that? And when you say 'lost' do you mean permanently?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

No Boo, but after 27 pages it is no longer and interesting debate.

It is very interesting to see the one who posted a fraud as the OP to suddenly lose interest in the discussion when the fraud had been pointed out.

The fraud is that Iraq has not surrendered to al Qaeda and never will.

It is very interesting that the OP cites Bush in 2007 where he lies about a Afghanistan no longer being a safe haven for terrorists like the Taliban.

Bush is quoted as saying, "It would allow the terrorists to replace the safe haven they lost in Afghanistan."

Do you believe Bush was correct in 2007 when he said that the 'terrorists' had lost their 'safe haven' in Afghanistan?

The bottom line is that with everything that the US was doing for Maliki there is no way he says no to a determined US President.

Of course Maliki can say no to a US President. He said a big NO to US military occupation in 2007 when he wrote to the UNSC and directed them to put an end to the MNF conducting military operations inside Iraq by the end of 2008.

Maliki said NO to Bush in 2007. Wouid you admit that Bush was not determined enough to force a YES out of Maliki to keep US troops in Iraq indefinitly.

Why did Bush let Maliki end the MNF mandate in Iraq if it was too soon to do so?

 

[Oldstyle]

No Boo, but after 27 pages it is no longer and interesting debate.

It is very interesting to see the one who posted a fraud as the OP to suddenly lose interest in the discussion when the fraud had been pointed out.

The fraud is that Iraq has not surrendered to al Qaeda and never will.

It is very interesting that the OP cites Bush in 2007 where he lies about a Afghanistan no longer being a safe haven for terrorists like the Taliban.

Bush is quoted as saying, "It would allow the terrorists to replace the safe haven they lost in Afghanistan."

Do you believe Bush was correct in 2007 when he said that the 'terrorists' had lost their 'safe haven' in Afghanistan?

[QUOTE="Oldstyle, post: 9779440, member: 31215". The bottom line is that with everything that the US was doing for Maliki there is no way he says no to a determined US President.

Of course Maliki can say no to a US President. He said a big NO to US military occupation in 2007 when he wrote to the UNSC and directed them to put an end to the MNF conducting military operations inside Iraq by the end of 2008.

Maliki said NO to Bush in 2007. Wouid you admit that Bush was not determined enough to force a YES out of Maliki to keep US troops in Iraq indefinitly.

Why did Bush let Maliki end the MNF mandate in Iraq if it was too soon to do so?[/QUOTE]

Why is Maliki no longer in power? Do you NOT understand that without US support he had about as much staying power as a fart in the wind?

Bush negotiated a Status of Forces Agreement with Maliki that had a clause in it that either side could back out of it given a years notice. The troop withdrawals stretched all the way out until 2012...plenty of time to reevaluate what was going on in Iraq and bordering countries.

That job unfortunately fell to Barack Obama who botched it so badly that an Islamic terror "nation" now exists in the Middle East.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

That job unfortunately fell to Barack Obama who botched it so badly that an Islamic terror "nation" now exists in the Middle East.

Why did it fall to Obama?

Maliki says no more troops to Bush in 2007 and 2008 and its ok with you.

But then Obama has to later do what Bush couldn't do.

Why do you recognize an Islamic terror "nation" that no civilized human being should recognize?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Yep, R.D., you weren't there but you have no problems comprehending exactly what went on.

This means that being there has nothing to do with comprehending the situation and what the facts are.

That means your request for my expertise has nothing to do with the discussion and debate.

So you can drop that reason for you to avoid answering questions that are related to the debate.

Such as "who's intent" were you talking about?

And I have established that I comprehend what went on much better than you because I knew that Obama didnt poison the negotiations on a post-2011 SOFA for demanding for the first time that a second SOFA be approved by Iraq's legislators.

Anyone claiming what you claim about yourself would not need someone like me to explain the truth to you about that.

So 'Who's Intent' were you addressing? It appears now that you have no clue on a critical detail of your significantly factually disturbed argument.

 

[teapartysamurai]

President Bush warned that if we pulled out of Iraq too soon, it would be dangerous for Iraq, the region and the United States; it would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean we are risking mass killings on a grand scale. It would allow the terrorists to replace the safe haven they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean we’d have to return at a later date to confront an enemy who is even more dangerous.



President Obama is trying to blame Bush but he won the war and Obama then handed over to ISIS.

Listen to this clip. He thinks people will fall for his blaming Bush for what is obviously his failure.








Stunning Bush Predicted Iraq Disaster Obama Actually Created www.independentsentinel.com

And Bush didn't need a crystal ball for that.

All you need do is remember how Democrats shamefully pulled us out of Vietnam and the "Killing Fields" that resulted from it.

The press gave Democrats cover for that shameful period of history but everyone knew who was to blame.

History repeats itself, and everyone knows who's to blame again!

War Mongering President War Criminal Blood On His Hands US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum