Wasn't it Dubya's Policy to get Troops out of Iraq?...

[mal]

And Obama is simply Executing that Plan?...

Am I Misremembering HIStory?...

The Surge was Sucessful and Barry has done nothing of Note that was out of Line with (43)'s Policies in Iraq, so...

Barry's not going to try to take Credit for this, is he?...



peace...

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Yes this draw-down to 50,000 troops was a George Bush plan signed with the Iraqi Government in 2008. I'm still shocked that this current President is taking all the credit for this draw-down. Even more shocking is the fact that no one in the MSM is calling him on this. This draw-down is not an Obama plan. It's a George Bush plan. Shame on the corrupt MSM for not pointing this out. That's why less & less people trust the MSM at this point.

 

[johnrocks]

Him and those who voted for it that put us there to begin with are rightfully blamed but yeah, it was his plan and I don't see it ending anytime soon, 50000 is still over there in that mistake and it won't surprise me one iota if we ask for an extention come next year or go right back in.

 

[syrenn]

That is the way i understood it. obama is just following the time line that was already laid out.

 

[mal]

That is the way i understood it. obama is just following the time line that was already laid out.

Shut up, Racist!...



peace...

 

[Article 15]

Yes, you are misremembering history.

Up until mid 2008 the Bush Admin refused to make "timetables" for getting out of Iraq. When it became perfectly clear to anyone with a half a brain that even the Dems couldn't manage to lose the White House in November, Bush allowed the "time horizon" plan to go through. They used the term "time horizon" because they and their media attack dogs had painted themselves into a corner by viciously attacking support for a timetable as "support for the terrorist." However, they also knew the war was going to be "ended" by the next admin and they wanted to beat them to the political punch so people like you could claim that this was actually Bush's plan along ... and voila, time horizon. Make no mistake about it, if McCain had any kind of a chance at winning or if Bush could have run for, and won third term, there is no way that "time horizon" would have come to pass.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Yes, you are misremembering history.

Up until mid 2008 the Bush Admin refused to make "timetables" for getting out of Iraq. When it became perfectly clear anyone with a half a brain that even the Dems couldn't manage to lose the White House in November, Bush allowed the "time horizon" plan to go through. They used the term "time horizon" because they and their media attack dogs had painted themselves into a corner viciously attacking support for a timetable as "support for the terrorist" but they also knew the war was going to be "ended" by the next admin and they wanted to beat them to the political punch so people like you could claim that this was actually Bush's plan along ... and voila, time horizon. Make no mistake about it, if McCain had any kind of a chance at winning or if Bush could have run for and won third term there is no way that "time horizon" would have come to pass.

They're not getting out of Iraq. This Bush plan was to draw-down troops to this 50,000 level. That's what is going to happen. This is not an Obama plan. Btw,we're not leaving Iraq or Afghanistan anymore than we have left South Korea. Anyone who thinks different is just plain ignorant and delusional.

 

[johnrocks]

Yes, you are misremembering history.

Up until mid 2008 the Bush Admin refused to make "timetables" for getting out of Iraq. When it became perfectly clear anyone with a half a brain that even the Dems couldn't manage to lose the White House in November, Bush allowed the "time horizon" plan to go through. They used the term "time horizon" because they and their media attack dogs had painted themselves into a corner viciously attacking support for a timetable as "support for the terrorist" but they also knew the war was going to be "ended" by the next admin and they wanted to beat them to the political punch so people like you could claim that this was actually Bush's plan along ... and voila, time horizon. Make no mistake about it, if McCain had any kind of a chance at winning or if Bush could have run for and won third term there is no way that "time horizon" would have come to pass.

Btw,we're not leaving Iraq or Afghanistan anymore than we have left South Korea. Anyone who thinks different is just plain ignorant and delusional.

Yep and it is going to continue contributing to our overall demise;imho.

 

[jillian]

That is the way i understood it. obama is just following the time line that was already laid out.

that's not correct.

 

[Article 15]

Yes, you are misremembering history.

Up until mid 2008 the Bush Admin refused to make "timetables" for getting out of Iraq. When it became perfectly clear anyone with a half a brain that even the Dems couldn't manage to lose the White House in November, Bush allowed the "time horizon" plan to go through. They used the term "time horizon" because they and their media attack dogs had painted themselves into a corner viciously attacking support for a timetable as "support for the terrorist" but they also knew the war was going to be "ended" by the next admin and they wanted to beat them to the political punch so people like you could claim that this was actually Bush's plan along ... and voila, time horizon. Make no mistake about it, if McCain had any kind of a chance at winning or if Bush could have run for and won third term there is no way that "time horizon" would have come to pass.

They're not getting out of Iraq. This Bush plan was to draw-down troops to this 50,000 level. That's what is going to happen. This is not an Obama plan. Btw,we're not leaving Iraq or Afghanistan anymore than we have left South Korea. Anyone who thinks different is just plain ignorant and delusional.

Well, gee, thanks for the clue, moron.

Now here's something for you to chew on:

Obama June 2008:

Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.

But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOSHHHH a month later.

WASHINGTON — President Bush has agreed to a "general time horizon" for withdrawals of U.S. combat troops from Iraq, the White House announced Friday in a marked softening of his long-standing opposition to deadlines for reducing the American presence.

Administration officials portrayed the shift, which was announced a day after a video conference between Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, as an evolution in policy rather than a fundamental change. They emphasized that withdrawals still would be tied to improvements in security conditions.

Bush agrees to 'horizon' for pullout - Los Angeles Times

This was no BOOOOOOOOOOSHHH plan, this was BOOOOOOOOOSHH going "oh, shit the Dems are going to win."

Gotta love the history rewrite attempt though.

Nice try

 

[WillowTree]

That is the way i understood it. obama is just following the time line that was already laid out.

that's not correct.

yes it is

 

[Si modo]

Yes, you are misremembering history.

Up until mid 2008 the Bush Admin refused to make "timetables" for getting out of Iraq. When it became perfectly clear anyone with a half a brain that even the Dems couldn't manage to lose the White House in November, Bush allowed the "time horizon" plan to go through. They used the term "time horizon" because they and their media attack dogs had painted themselves into a corner viciously attacking support for a timetable as "support for the terrorist" but they also knew the war was going to be "ended" by the next admin and they wanted to beat them to the political punch so people like you could claim that this was actually Bush's plan along ... and voila, time horizon. Make no mistake about it, if McCain had any kind of a chance at winning or if Bush could have run for and won third term there is no way that "time horizon" would have come to pass.

They're not getting out of Iraq. This Bush plan was to draw-down troops to this 50,000 level. That's what is going to happen. This is not an Obama plan. Btw,we're not leaving Iraq or Afghanistan anymore than we have left South Korea. Anyone who thinks different is just plain ignorant and delusional.

Well, gee, thanks for the clue, moron.

Now here's something for you to chew on:

Obama June 2008:

Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.

But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOSHHHH a month later.

WASHINGTON — President Bush has agreed to a "general time horizon" for withdrawals of U.S. combat troops from Iraq, the White House announced Friday in a marked softening of his long-standing opposition to deadlines for reducing the American presence.

Administration officials portrayed the shift, which was announced a day after a video conference between Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, as an evolution in policy rather than a fundamental change. They emphasized that withdrawals still would be tied to improvements in security conditions.

Bush agrees to 'horizon' for pullout - Los Angeles Times

This was no BOOOOOOOOOOSHHH plan, this was BOOOOOOOOOSHH going "oh, shit the Dems are going to win."

Gotta love the history rewrite attempt though.

Nice try

Idiot.

When the agreement was signed, it was signed while Bush was in office by his administration. Your being stoned again does not make it an Obama agreement.

 

[jillian]

That is the way i understood it. obama is just following the time line that was already laid out.

that's not correct.

yes it is

no. it's not... bush's position was always... well, we'll see... and even then only after he had to give in and bring in petreus. until then, he had his head up his butt and was flailing wildly in a war we never should have started.

 

[Article 15]

When the agreement was signed, it was signed while Bush was in office by his administration. Your being stoned again does not make it an Obama agreement.

lol ...

Weak.

I never claimed BOOOOOOOOOOSHHH didn't sign the deal, I explained very thoroughly in my first post in this thread WHY BOOOOOOOOOSHHH signed the deal.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Wasn't it Dubya's Policy to get Troops out of Iraq?...

Yeah.....after he'd established we OWNED Iraq's oil-infrastructure....and, all PRE-War oil-contracts were NULL & VOID!!!!! (a.k.a. "winning" the Iraq War)

(Oh....yeah....and, found the WMDs, too. )

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o&p=80676B9DFAB860AA&playnext=1&index=46]YouTube - WMD LIES - Bush Cheney Rumsfeld etc. - THE ULTIMATE CLIP[/ame]​

 

[Si modo]

When the agreement was signed, it was signed while Bush was in office by his administration. Your being stoned again does not make it an Obama agreement.

lol ...

Weak.

I never claimed BOOOOOOOOOOSHHH didn't sign the deal, I explained very thoroughly in my first post in this thread WHY BOOOOOOOOOSHHH signed the deal.

Which...wait for it...makes it Bush's deal.



Take another bong hit. Life will morph to what you want it to be, eventually.

 

[WillowTree]

that's not correct.

yes it is

no. it's not... bush's position was always... well, we'll see... and even then only after he had to give in and bring in petreus. until then, he had his head up his butt and was flailing wildly in a war we never should have started.

not correct. President Bush signed an agreement with the Iraqi government before he left office agreeing to this troop withdrawal. Obama, on the other hand voted against the surge and said it would fail. He needs to own up to the fact that he did not buy into the surge and the surge is what got us to the point in which we could withdraw troops. IMHO, it's not going to have a good ending. Iraq still can't agree on a government.

 

[Article 15]

When the agreement was signed, it was signed while Bush was in office by his administration. Your being stoned again does not make it an Obama agreement.

lol ...

Weak.

I never claimed BOOOOOOOOOOSHHH didn't sign the deal, I explained very thoroughly in my first post in this thread WHY BOOOOOOOOOSHHH signed the deal.

Which...wait for it...makes it Bush's deal.



Take another bong hit. Life will morph to what you want it to be, eventually.

Sure ... if you are in a vacuum and ignore the current state of American politics at the time and everything leading up to it, it was BOOOOOOOOOSHHHH's plan. Here's your token point

 

[Si modo]

lol ...

Weak.

I never claimed BOOOOOOOOOOSHHH didn't sign the deal, I explained very thoroughly in my first post in this thread WHY BOOOOOOOOOSHHH signed the deal.

Which...wait for it...makes it Bush's deal.



Take another bong hit. Life will morph to what you want it to be, eventually.

Sure ... if you are in a vacuum and ignore the current state of American politics at the time and everything leading up to it, it was BOOOOOOOOOSHHHH's plan. Here's your token point

Sooooo, Obama ISN'T executing Bush's plan.

You know, I bet your mind would get a lot more clear if you just abstained from drugs and alcohol, Article 15.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Yes, you are misremembering history.

Up until mid 2008 the Bush Admin refused to make "timetables" for getting out of Iraq. When it became perfectly clear anyone with a half a brain that even the Dems couldn't manage to lose the White House in November, Bush allowed the "time horizon" plan to go through. They used the term "time horizon" because they and their media attack dogs had painted themselves into a corner viciously attacking support for a timetable as "support for the terrorist" but they also knew the war was going to be "ended" by the next admin and they wanted to beat them to the political punch so people like you could claim that this was actually Bush's plan along ... and voila, time horizon. Make no mistake about it, if McCain had any kind of a chance at winning or if Bush could have run for and won third term there is no way that "time horizon" would have come to pass.

They're not getting out of Iraq. This Bush plan was to draw-down troops to this 50,000 level. That's what is going to happen. This is not an Obama plan. Btw,we're not leaving Iraq or Afghanistan anymore than we have left South Korea. Anyone who thinks different is just plain ignorant and delusional.

Well, gee, thanks for the clue, moron.

Now here's something for you to chew on:

Obama June 2008:

Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.

But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOSHHHH a month later.

WASHINGTON — President Bush has agreed to a "general time horizon" for withdrawals of U.S. combat troops from Iraq, the White House announced Friday in a marked softening of his long-standing opposition to deadlines for reducing the American presence.

Administration officials portrayed the shift, which was announced a day after a video conference between Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, as an evolution in policy rather than a fundamental change. They emphasized that withdrawals still would be tied to improvements in security conditions.

Bush agrees to 'horizon' for pullout - Los Angeles Times

This was no BOOOOOOOOOOSHHH plan, this was BOOOOOOOOOSHH going "oh, shit the Dems are going to win."

Gotta love the history rewrite attempt though.

Nice try

lol! Sounds like more deranged Leftist ramblings to me. This is a Bush signed agreement with the Iraqi Government in 2008. This is not an Obama plan. I know he's trying to take all the credit for it but that doesn't make it his plan. Nice try.