How OBAMA abandoned Iraq

[JustRalph]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2015/04/emma_sky_on_america_s_failure_in_iraq_the_rise_of_ isis_and_the_fall_of_iraq.html

I'm not a fan of Slate......but this is a good piece

[Greyfox]

The problem was both George W. Bush and Barack Obama failed to see what Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was all about.
Sadam Hussein was a Sunni and he patronized those Muslims.
al-Maliki is Shiite. He tipped the scales the other way and made Sunnis and Kurds second class citizens in Iraq, seldom giving them any meaningful posts in Government.
This naturally bred resentment between the various factions.
In time Obama made a lame duck attempt to sign a Status of Forces Agreement with al-Maliki to have American troops stay longer.
But Obama's heart wasn't in it and he hastily decided against the troops staying.
With the power void that was left, ISIS recruited Sunnis and started the vicious campaign that is still raging today.
Fortunately, al-Maliki could not hang on to power and a less biased leader is in place today. But the Sunnis don't have much trust in him yet.

I wouldn't blame Obama alone here. George W. Bush also had his hand in inspiring the troubles that are going on here.
Bush believed that Democracy would spread like wild fire.
Unfortunately, he was quite ignorant about the tribal splits in Middle-East society.
Bush also didn't understand how Democracy is a huge threat to Muslim cultures, in that it would mean less oppression of women.

[Robert Goren]

The problem started when we invaded Iraq. That may be worst foreign policy decision in the history of the United States. Since then, both Bush and Obama have been faced with a series of no-win decisions. At least Obama has managed not to involve troops on the ground. If he or the next president were to do so, it would solve nothing and only result in a more deaths and injures to American soldiers. We can not fix that place.

[Hank]

The problem started when we invaded Iraq. That may be worst foreign policy decision in the history of the United States. Since then, both Bush and Obama have been faced with a series of no-win decisions. At least Obama has managed not to involve troops on the ground. If he or the next president were to do so, it would solve nothing and only result in a more deaths and injures to American soldiers. We can not fix that place.


The problem started when we invaded Iraq. That may be worst foreign policy decision in the history of the United States

Once again myopic wingnuts demonstrate their unmatched ability to "overlook" obvious and indisputable facts.And whats really scary is their unshakable belief in the validity of "their" keyhole worldview.The veracity of this charge is underscored by the asinine and ill-advised Iraq invasion itself.

[Hank]

The problem was both George W. Bush and Barack Obama failed to see what Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was all about.
Sadam Hussein was a Sunni and he patronized those Muslims.
al-Maliki is Shiite. He tipped the scales the other way and made Sunnis and Kurds second class citizens in Iraq, seldom giving them any meaningful posts in Government.
This naturally bred resentment between the various factions.
In time Obama made a lame duck attempt to sign a Status of Forces Agreement with al-Maliki to have American troops stay longer.
But Obama's heart wasn't in it and he hastily decided against the troops staying.
With the power void that was left, ISIS recruited Sunnis and started the vicious campaign that is still raging today.
Fortunately, al-Maliki could not hang on to power and a less biased leader is in place today. But the Sunnis don't have much trust in him yet.

I wouldn't blame Obama alone here. George W. Bush also had his hand in inspiring the troubles that are going on here.
Bush believed that Democracy would spread like wild fire.
Unfortunately, he was quite ignorant about the tribal splits in Middle-East society.
Bush also didn't understand how Democracy is a huge threat to Muslim cultures, in that it would mean less oppression of women.

Bush believed that Democracy would spread like wild fire.

Fox do you "actually believe", that Bush "actually believed" that the Saudi monarchy would embrace "democracy" as a result of the Iraq invasion?

[Greyfox]

Fox do you "actually believe", that Bush "actually believed" that the Saudi monarchy would embrace "democracy" as a result of the Iraq invasion?

No. There was never any intention to spread democracy to Arabia.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I'm starting to think maybe the collision course was inevitable and the tea-leave readers just figured we need some real practice before shit got serious.

[Robert Goren]

No. There was never any intention to spread democracy to Arabia.You should go back and check some the rhetoric coming out the mouths of the neo cons during the early days of the Iraqi war. Whether or not anybody in the Bush administration actually said it public would probably require a lot of research, but there is plenty of statements by Iraqi war supporters that indicated that at least some neo cons thought that would be case. There seemed to be another faulty view floating around at the time. A democratically elected government anywhere would be by its nature pro American. The idea that Middle Easterners were actually pro American and that only the governments were anti American was a commonly held belief in the early 2000s. Unfortunately there are a few holdouts that continue to hang on to those ideas just as there is some Americans (generally liberals) who believe that Iraqi war caused the Islamic world to turn against America. Both of these camps were/are just plain naïve. As are the Americans who believe that Iranian people are actually pro Western and their government is out of touch with their people. Wishful thinking by some Americans when dealing with middle east has been one of our great downfalls.

[Clocker]

You should go back and check some the rhetoric coming out the mouths of the neo cons during the early days of the Iraqi war. Whether or not anybody in the Bush administration actually said it public would probably require a lot of research, but there is plenty of statements by Iraqi war supporters that indicated that at least some neo cons thought that would be case. There seemed to be another faulty view floating around at the time. A democratically elected government anywhere would be by its nature pro American.

Bush and the neocons thought that they could turn Iraq into a democracy if they got rid of Saddam. There is no evidence of any thought of bringing democracy to Saudi Arabia. The Bush family had close ties to the Saudi royals dating back to the first president Bush.

[Greyfox]

As are the Americans who believe that Iranian people are actually pro Western and their government is out of touch with their people. Wishful thinking by some Americans when dealing with middle east has been one of our great downfalls.

I've seen enough Iranians in the street shouting in crowds "Death to America."

But there is also a large faction there who probably silently are against theocracy.
Here's two pictures to make you think that faction might be quite large.

Iran 1970


https://us-mg5.mail.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid=2%5f0%5f0%5f1%5f4988978%5fAJBUimIAAPb cVSe%2b1AXf6Kxut1E&m=YaDownload&pid=10&fid=Inbox&inline=1&appid=yahoomail


Iran 2012

https://us-mg5.mail.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid=2%5f0%5f0%5f1%5f4988978%5fAJBUimIAAPb cVSe%2b1AXf6Kxut1E&m=YaDownload&pid=5&fid=Inbox&inline=1&appid=yahoomail

[Marshall Bennett]

The problem started when we invaded Iraq. That may be worst foreign policy decision in the history of the United States. Since then, both Bush and Obama have been faced with a series of no-win decisions. At least Obama has managed not to involve troops on the ground. If he or the next president were to do so, it would solve nothing and only result in a more deaths and injures to American soldiers. We can not fix that place.
I've addressed this quote at least a half dozen times here. I'm not wasting another minute of my time with it because none of you liberals get it, or you do and won't budge. :)

[Marshall Bennett]

Bush had troops in Iraq when he left office. Iraq had basically stabilized with little if any fighting. Obama comes along and removes our presence and now it's a unsettled shit-hole. Enter ISIS.
Case closed.

[JustRalph]

Bush had troops in Iraq when he left office. Iraq had basically stabilized with little if any fighting. Obama comes along and removes our presence and now it's a unsettled shit-hole. Enter ISIS.
Case closed.

You left out the real mistake. Announcing that under no circumstances would we stay. Even giving dates for withdrawal. If they would have followed the Justralph doctrine we would have one hell of a nice base in the middle of Iraq. ISIS would be less than the JV team and the country would still be stable. The oil would be safe, stable etc.

No, can't be an imperialist nation.....that would be anti left.

[Robert Goren]

You left out the real mistake. Announcing that under no circumstances would we stay. Even giving dates for withdrawal. If they would have followed the Justralph doctrine we would have one hell of a nice base in the middle of Iraq. ISIS would be less than the JV team and the country would still be stable. The oil would be safe, stable etc.

No, can't be an imperialist nation.....that would be anti left. You left out the part about our soldiers coming home dead or injured for life. Iraq was never a friendly place for our soldiers even when we were paying millions of dollars to the Sunni leaders during and right after the surge.
As it turned out we don't need their oil after all. Technology has made the US independent of middle eastern oil or will shortly depend on who you talk to. Who'd thought that would happen under Obama? Not even an old lefty like me.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Bush had troops in Iraq when he left office. Iraq had basically stabilized with little if any fighting. Obama comes along and removes our presence and now it's a unsettled shit-hole. Enter ISIS.
Case closed.

Remind us of GWB's Iraq troop drawdown plans when he exited office? Ok, how did Obama's plan/actions differ so radically?

[JustRalph]

You left out the part about our soldiers coming home dead or injured for life. Iraq was never a friendly place for our soldiers even when we were paying millions of dollars to the Sunni leaders during and right after the surge.
As it turned out we don't need their oil after all. Technology has made the US independent of middle eastern oil or will shortly depend on who you talk to. Who'd thought that would happen under Obama? Not even an old lefty like me.

Spare me. The soldiers do their job and they deserve better leadership. You Lefties think you can fight a war half ass. You can't. It's been proven over and over.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/16/middleeast/iraq-ramadi-isis-damon/

OBAMA has handed half of the Middle East to a gang of thugs who practice barbarism to get what they want. All for the sake of of his ideals and legacy. As the monster grows, he plays golf and his minions ignore it.

Somebody is going to have to put these assholes down. Killing the cockroaches is much easier early on. Whether we do it now or later will decide more about how many soldiers are killed or injured. Kicking the can does nothing.

I worry what it will take to wake this country up.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Reagan came to understand the Middle East after the Lebanon bombing, and he wanted no part of it. That's the Republican foreign policy I miss.

[JustRalph]

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/04/17/open-letter-to-martin-dempsey-from-mother-of-first-navy-seal-killed-in-ramadi-iraq/

Not symbolic.....?

This is why OBAMA and his ilk are a blight on our country. They don't care about anything except self preservation.

[Tom]

Once again myopic wingnuts demonstrate their unmatched ability to "overlook" obvious and indisputable facts.And whats really scary is their unshakable belief in the validity of "their" keyhole worldview.The veracity of this charge is underscored by the asinine and ill-advised Iraq invasion itself.

You must have missed PAs video.

The list of wingnuts included MANY democrats.

[Tom]

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/04/17/open-letter-to-martin-dempsey-from-mother-of-first-navy-seal-killed-in-ramadi-iraq/

Not symbolic.....?

This is why OBAMA and his ilk are a blight on our country. They don't care about anything except self preservation.

The 8th plague.
Where is Moses when you need him?

[Robert Goren]

Spare me. The soldiers do their job and they deserve better leadership. You Lefties think you can fight a war half ass. You can't. It's been proven over and over.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/16/middleeast/iraq-ramadi-isis-damon/

OBAMA has handed half of the Middle East to a gang of thugs who practice barbarism to get what they want. All for the sake of of his ideals and legacy. As the monster grows, he plays golf and his minions ignore it.

Somebody is going to have to put these assholes down. Killing the cockroaches is much easier early on. Whether we do it now or later will decide more about how many soldiers are killed or injured. Kicking the can does nothing.

I worry what it will take to wake this country up.It was Bush who signed the agreement with his puppet Iraqi government for the pull out of American troops. We left because we had done all we could do. What the right does not understand is that having troops in Iraq only makes it easier to kill Americans. ISIS or something similar(and probably worse) to it would have popped in Iraq even if we had stayed. When you occupy a country, the opposition only grows over time. If you bother to check the history books, you will see that happens 100% of the time. Almost everyone over there would stick a knife in one of our soldier's back if given half a chance. Everyone over there is in your terms, a cockroach and they are going keep on being cockroaches no matter what we do. What do you plan on doing? Killing every man, woman and child over there because that is what you are going have to do to get rid of the cockroaches. There is just no reason to make easy for the cockroaches.

[Tom]

America has no clue how to fight a war.
Our troops are first class, our leadership are A-Holes.
We need to stay out of wars until our leaders learn how to fight one.

[fast4522]

RG & Tom , our words (myself included) go only so far. . . . .
Many years ago continuity of government was setup during the cold war, call it what you may. Long before Saddam Hussein was caught and went to trial he was marked for death, it is not like Dick Cheney talked President George W. Bush into anything. The word came down, get the bastard so Iran is an easy kill if need be. Now most might think other than that, but I assure you setups are the preferred course for world domination. While we talk of what minimum wage is or how much nicer it is elsewhere others talk of who is to die next, count on it. While we defend the Presidents actions or inaction's or what have you, remember when he leaves office his mark will be erased and the next will fall in line to secure a more stable path than this current insanity we are calling foreign affairs.

[Greyfox]

Long before Saddam Hussein was caught and went to trial he was marked for death, it is not like Dick Cheney talked President George W. Bush into anything. The word came down, get the bastard so Iran is an easy kill if need be. .

The word to kill Saddam came down from who? or what group?

[Marshall Bennett]

Liberals don't believe in military force of any kind under any circumstances, so it's pointless to argue with them. Even one troop casualty isn't worth any number of lives it may have saved to them.
Morons, of course Bush had to have a course for withdrawing troops. The liberal American cesspool would have settled for nothing less.
Blind and stupid is forever. Bush would have never withdrawn those troops. Bush would have never allowed ISIS to flourish as Obama has done.
This whole conversation is really ridiculous. :ThmbDown:

[fast4522]

The word to kill Saddam came down from who? or what group?

"get the bastard so Iran is an easy kill if need be"

Everyone was saying it who was not elected, those who are first into the bunker. Consider what you want to be open for debate to be null and void.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Liberals don't believe in military force of any kind under any circumstances, so it's pointless to argue with them. Even one troop casualty isn't worth any number of lives it may have saved to them.
Morons, of course Bush had to have a course for withdrawing troops. The liberal American cesspool would have settled for nothing less.
Blind and stupid is forever. Bush would have never withdrawn those troops. Bush would have never allowed ISIS to flourish as Obama has done.
This whole conversation is really ridiculous. :ThmbDown:

So Bush's plans to draw down troops on the day he left office were a lie? Come on, get real.

Love the assumption that anyone opposed to GWB's Wilsonian Interventionism was/is a liberal. Laughable.

[Saratoga_Mike]

"get the bastard so Iran is an easy kill if need be"

Everyone was saying it who was not elected, those who are first into the bunker. Consider what you want to be open for debate to be null and void.

A weaker Iraq would result in a weaker Iran? Right.

[fast4522]

A weaker Iraq would result in a weaker Iran? Right.

No, but when we kill at 100 to 1 for years who is to know when we go at 1000 to 1. If we did not need the oil I am sure we would let them pound sand at their own pace right? And you say that you think its easy?

[Saratoga_Mike]

No, but when we kill at 100 to 1 for years who is to know when we go at 1000 to 1. If we did not need the oil I am sure we would let them pound sand at their own pace right? And you say that you think its easy?

Honestly, I have no idea what you're saying (can't follow), so I can't respond.

[fast4522]

Honestly, I have no idea what you're saying (can't follow), so I can't respond.

Let me spell it out for you, most what they say is true. They terrorize because that is all they can do. Systematically we corner them like animals, it is what it is.

[Greyfox]

"get the bastard so Iran is an easy kill if need be"

Everyone was saying it who was not elected, those who are first into the bunker. Consider what you want to be open for debate to be null and void.

Everyone wasn't saying "get the bastard..."

I don't want to open a debate.
You said word came down to Bush and Cheney but didn't say from who?

If you don't know who, then you are speculating in the dark. There is no debate.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Let me spell it out for you, most what they say is true. They terrorize because that is all they can do. Systematically we corner them like animals, it is what it is.

Who is "they?" You realize that the proper response to 9/11 would have been to invade Saudi Arabia, correct (assuming the reaction had to be a war beyond Afghanistan)? You realize that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, correct? You realize Saddam Hussein viewed Al Q as a threat, correct? Was Saddam Hussein evil? Yes, but he served as a useful countervailing force to Iran, a bigger threat, no?

[fast4522]

Greyfox,

You are correct, yes I did say that.

Lets say your the next President elect, do you really think your ideas and thoughts will carry or you too will do as told. Why do you think their hair grays faster than a normal man in that job? This guy upset the apple cart and followed principals he set forth in his book "Dreams of his father" by siding with the Arabs whenever possible.

[fast4522]

Who is "they?" You realize that the proper response to 9/11 would have been to invade Saudi Arabia, correct (assuming the reaction had to be a war beyond Afghanistan)? You realize that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, correct? You realize Saddam Hussein viewed Al Q as a threat, correct? Was Saddam Hussein evil? Yes, but he served as a useful countervailing force to Iran, a bigger threat, no?

We destabilize who we want when we want, no liberal is going to change that.

Be consumed by "they" or "who", your going to see much more of it.

[Saratoga_Mike]

We destabilize who we want when we want, no liberal is going to change that.

Be consumed by "they" or "who", your going to see much more of it.

I'm not a liberal, and you make no sense. Therefore, I won't waste anymore time discussing this with you.

[fast4522]

I make perfect sense, I might not go into the direction you prefer like Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia will gladly grant air space to a republican President because they are our bitch, they have No trust in Obama NONE.

[Saratoga_Mike]

You really need to study the region and the players. Saudi Arabia does as much if not more than any country in the world to foment terrorism. Enough.

[fast4522]

On the norm I am the first guy to say "follow the money", in this case it is not what it seems. The poor man with the beard gets to die on the plane, you want to talk of origin of birth because it suits you in your thinking. Much of the left's contention is "mistake Iraq", much of the left only gets to view redacted material anyway.

[Clocker]

All your base are belong to us.

[Robert Goren]

You really need to study the region and the players. Saudi Arabia does as much if not more than any country in the world to foment terrorism. Enough.Probably an overstatement, but the Saudis are not totally blameless.

[fast4522]

Everyone wasn't saying "get the bastard..."

I don't want to open a debate.
You said word came down to Bush and Cheney but didn't say from who?

If you don't know who, then you are speculating in the dark. There is no debate.

For now call it the inelegance community, the very same people who advised the President to give Ambassador Stevens what he needs. Yes the President gets to do what he wants while always having plausible deniability, but it does not mean that there will be no payback down the road. In this case everyone knows the then secretary of state knows upfront was very much LESS THAN in her position, lets see if 2016 becomes payback.

[Tom]

Iraq Hell.
Obama has abandoned the whole Middle East.
His foreign policy has been a total failure and has unsettled the entire region.

Clinton fathered Al Qeda, Obama fathered ISIS.
Two fools meddle and terrorism grows.

[classhandicapper]

I think the entire area is a blight on humanity. The free world should be doing everything it can to be become energy independent, leave the area entirely, and to block them from immigrating to any of the modern countries of the west and far east (as Japan is smart enough to do).

The civilized world has enough trouble getting along. We don't need a bunch of backwards religious zealots and psychopaths adding to our problems. If they want to kill each other along tribal and religious lines, we should be available to help them resolve their differences. That's the moral thing to do. But if they don't want our help, we should get pop some corn, watch them kill each other, and understand that world would be improving by the minute.

It's horribly sad to think and say that, but it's true. Too many of them are crazy extremists for us to solve their problems. Our concern should be making sure their insanity doesn't come to our shores.

[fast4522]

Bush had troops in Iraq when he left office. Iraq had basically stabilized with little if any fighting. Obama comes along and removes our presence and now it's a unsettled shit-hole. Enter ISIS.
Case closed.

Bush drew a line into the sand with an ultimatum, he followed through. Obama draws lines everywhere, huge difference.

[Robert Goren]

Bush drew a line into the sand with an ultimatum, he followed through. Obama draws lines everywhere, huge difference.Well, Bush tried to, but he failed in his attempt to back it up. He left Iraq a much worse place than it was when he invade the country. His father, Bush41 saw the folly of invading Iraq. Which is the greater folly, drawing a line in the sand and then backing off or drawing a line in the sand and trying to back it up and failing in your attempt. Nobody is scared of us in the middle east anymore because they know we can not do any real harm to them. We have been exposed as a country with a hell of lot of weapons, but are unable to use them effectively against the kind of enemies we face over there. All we can do is come in and shoot up the place, but are unable to have any real control the place.

[Tom]

Bush left Iraq far better than Obama let it get.
He dropped the ball.

[PaceAdvantage]

His father, Bush41 saw the folly of invading Iraq.Many years had passed since then...things change...

[Marshall Bennett]

Many contend that had Saddam Hussein not been removed, he'd be one hell of a tyrant to deal with today.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Many years had passed since then...things change...

Not really. All that changed after 9/11 was the case for war against Saudi Arabia (I would not have supported that). The Iraq war was a huge strategic blunder, just as James Baker predicted pre-invasion.

[PaceAdvantage]

Not really. All that changed after 9/11 was the case for war against Saudi Arabia (I would not have supported that). The Iraq war was a huge strategic blunder, just as James Baker predicted pre-invasion.And every military involvement prior was a strategic success?

We were batting 1.000 prior to Iraq?

What exactly is the point?

Vote for Rand Paul if you wish to severely lessen your chances of American military involvement during the next Presidential term.

[Clocker]

The Iraq war was a huge strategic blunder, just as James Baker predicted pre-invasion.

I agree. A major reason G. H. W. Bush did not push into Iraq from Kuwait and take down Saddam was that our military and intelligence people were sure that without Saddam, the country would break down into sectarian violence, and we had no idea of how to deal with that.

[PaceAdvantage]

Saddam wasn't going to live forever.

[TJDave]

Vote for Rand Paul if you wish to severely lessen your chances of American military involvement during the next Presidential term.

I think just the opposite. Knowing Paul's isolationist philosophy, our enemies would be poking us at every opportunity.

[Saratoga_Mike]

And every military involvement prior was a strategic success?

We were batting 1.000 prior to Iraq?

What exactly is the point?

Vote for Rand Paul if you wish to severely lessen your chances of American military involvement during the next Presidential term.

No need to get so upset.

What exactly is the point? We, as a country, should learn from our mistakes. I'm so radical and fringe.

Yes, I yearn for a Calvin Coolidge Republican. Guilty.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I think just the opposite. Knowing Paul's isolationist philosophy, our enemies would be poking us at every opportunity.

Rand Paul, who will never be elected president, simply wants a more sensible foreign policy, projecting strength but avoiding unnecessary foreign entanglements. Pre-GWB, that was the policy of the Rep Party.

[Tom]

Had Bush actually fought a WAR once we invaded, the results could have been drastically different, but he choose to listen to and try to accommodate the democrats, who were all for taking out SH until we actually something about it.

When you go to war, you better go 100% and not worry about anything but total victory ASAP. If you are not committed to totally destroying your enemy, you better stay home.

Bush failed to fight a real war.
The last war we won, WWI, we showed no mercy in Germany or Japan.
We won, they have never bothered us again, and today are allies.

Why we would ever consider anything less is beyond reason.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Had Bush actually fought a WAR once we invaded, the results could have been drastically different, but he choose to listen to and try to accommodate the democrats, who were all for taking out SH until we actually something about it.

When you go to war, you better go 100% and not worry about anything but total victory ASAP. If you are not committed to totally destroying your enemy, you better stay home.

Bush failed to fight a real war.
The last war we won, WWI, we showed no mercy in Germany or Japan.
We won, they have never bothered us again, and today are allies.

Why we would ever consider anything less is beyond reason.

There wasn't a war to fight post-invasion. The Iraq military was disbanded. Chaos ensued. At that point, there was no clear enemy. It wasn't a war our military was/is designed to win (except for special ops forces that are capable of almost anything or so it seems). And I think you mean WWII - most likely a typo.

[Tom]

WWII, yes.

[PaceAdvantage]

No need to get so upset.

What exactly is the point? We, as a country, should learn from our mistakes. I'm so radical and fringe.

Yes, I yearn for a Calvin Coolidge Republican. Guilty.Yes, I am just so upset...somebody get me some Valium...

[PaceAdvantage]

There wasn't a war to fight post-invasion. The Iraq military was disbanded. Chaos ensued. At that point, there was no clear enemy. It wasn't a war our military was/is designed to win (except for special ops forces that are capable of almost anything or so it seems). And I think you mean WWII - most likely a typo.Actually, there was all this prediction of chaos and civil war, which never materialized...UNTIL...Obama pulled out...and not only pulled out, telegraphed when and where...

In fact, things were getting progressively better in Iraq for quite some time, until we abandoned ship completely...

Mission Accomplished

[Robert Goren]

Had Bush actually fought a WAR once we invaded, the results could have been drastically different, but he choose to listen to and try to accommodate the democrats, who were all for taking out SH until we actually something about it.

When you go to war, you better go 100% and not worry about anything but total victory ASAP. If you are not committed to totally destroying your enemy, you better stay home.

Bush failed to fight a real war.
The last war we won, WWI, we showed no mercy in Germany or Japan.
We won, they have never bothered us again, and today are allies.

Why we would ever consider anything less is beyond reason.We had to whip Germany's ass twice.

[Robert Goren]

Actually, there was all this prediction of chaos and civil war, which never materialized...UNTIL...Obama pulled out...and not only pulled out, telegraphed when and where...

In fact, things were getting progressively better in Iraq for quite some time, until we abandoned ship completely...

Mission AccomplishedPlease keep the facts straight. It was Bush who announced when our troops were leaving. At least I think he was still president 2008, although many of his supporters seem to think he left office in 2007.

[PaceAdvantage]

New York Times, April 2008...begs to differ....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/11/washington/11prexy.html?pagewanted=all

WASHINGTON — President Bush said Thursday that the senior United States commander in Iraq could “have all the time he needs” before reducing American forces there any further, but he promised shorter tours for troops and longer breaks for them at home.

Democrats responded by saying that no end was in sight to the American troop commitment.You were saying?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Actually, there was all this prediction of chaos and civil war, which never materialized...UNTIL...Obama pulled out...and not only pulled out, telegraphed when and where...

In fact, things were getting progressively better in Iraq for quite some time, until we abandoned ship completely...

Mission Accomplished

Absurd, even Cheney would disagree with you on this one.

See Surge - See Sunni Awakening - See David Patereus - was that all in reaction to peace and tranquility?

Abandoned ship? You mean following GWB and Cheney's withdrawal timeline?

Your reflexive defense of GWB's Wilsonian Interventionism never ceases to amaze me. But you don't typically resort to your own facts.

[PaceAdvantage]

Absurd, even Cheney would disagree with you on this one.

See Surge - See Sunni Awakening - See David Patereus - was that all in reaction to peace and tranquility?

Abandoned ship? You mean following GWB and Cheney's withdrawal timeline?

Your reflexive defense of GWB's Wilsonian Interventionism never ceases to amaze me. But you don't typically resort to your own facts.And you probably also agree with Goren's last post...

And methinks you're greatly exaggerating in your second to last sentence above.

Either that, or you're easily amazed.

And on a side note, I believe if I were one of my many "detractors" here on off-topic, I'd be crying that I'm being "unfairly attacked," given your last two sentences above.

But I won't resort to such tantrums...

[Saratoga_Mike]

New York Times, April 2008...begs to differ....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/11/washington/11prexy.html?pagewanted=all

You were saying?

Oh please, Obama has said the same thing multiple times over the past six-plus years. Almost every prez, if he's smart, shows deference to the military commanders, then goes right ahead and makes his own decisions.

The surge was gutsy, though. The public wasn't behind it. Obama never would have done that. Bush made a real presidential decision on that one.

[PaceAdvantage]

Oh please, Obama has said the same thing multiple times over the past six-plus years. Almost every prez, if he's smart, shows deference to the military commanders, then goes right ahead and makes his own decisions.

The surge was gutsy, though. The public wasn't behind it. Obama never would have done that. Bush made a real presidential decision on that one.OK. We'll just ignore Goren's comment that Bush started the timeline and telegraphed when and where, and we'll also ignore that in April 2008, the NY Times wrote that Democrats saw NO END IN SIGHT for troop commitment in Iraq. That must have been one radical shift in thinking after April 2008.

[Saratoga_Mike]

And you probably also agree with Goren's last post...

And methinks you're greatly exaggerating in your second to last sentence above.

Either that, or you're easily amazed.

Okay, you made me laugh. I was serious. I honestly don't understand why any right-minded Republican or conservative or libertarian would defend GWB on Iraq.

[Saratoga_Mike]

OK. We'll just ignore Goren's comment that Bush started the timeline and telegraphed when and where, and we'll also ignore that in April 2008, the NY Times wrote that Democrats saw NO END IN SIGHT for troop commitment in Iraq. That must have been one radical shift in thinking after April 2008.

April 2008 Dems state this war-mongering Rep Party is NEVER going to pull out of Iraq.

It isn't like they were trying to position themselves to win the presidency or anything six months later?

What Obama bungled, among many things, was the SoF negotiations with Iraq. To be clear, I think Obama is a horrible foreign policy president, too.

[Tom]

We had to whip Germany's ass twice.

What we did to them in WWII dwarfed what we did in WWI.
No comparison.

[TJDave]

New York Times, April 2008...begs to differ....

The timetable to leave Iraq was negotiated and signed months after this story. In November of 2008.

Of course, the new administration was more than happy to accommodate.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Please keep the facts straight. It was Bush who announced when our troops were leaving. At least I think he was still president 2008, although many of his supporters seem to think he left office in 2007.

Just to hammer your point home.

November 17, 2008 - Iraq and the United States sign an accord requiring Washington to withdraw its forces by the end of 2011. The pact gives the government authority over the U.S. mission for the first time, replacing a U.N. Security Council mandate. Parliament approves pact after negotiations 10 days later.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/15/us-iraq-usa-pullout-idUSTRE7BE0EL20111215

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't really agree that Iraq was such a terrible post-9/11 option.

Talk about Saudi hijackers all you want...war with SA was never going to happen.

And Iran was probably deemed too much trouble.

So they picked what they thought was the easiest big target...

[PaceAdvantage]

Just to hammer your point home.

November 17, 2008 - Iraq and the United States sign an accord requiring Washington to withdraw its forces by the end of 2011. The pact gives the government authority over the U.S. mission for the first time, replacing a U.N. Security Council mandate. Parliament approves pact after negotiations 10 days later.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/15/us-iraq-usa-pullout-idUSTRE7BE0EL20111215Like I said, that was some radical shift in a little over 6 months.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Like I said, that was some radical shift in a little over 6 months.

Let's stipulate the Dems lied in April 2008. They knew GWB would negotiate this deal.

So? All it shows is the withdrawal plan was formulated by......GWB!

[Saratoga_Mike]

I don't really agree that Iraq was such a terrible post-9/11 option.

Talk about Saudi hijackers all you want...war with SA was never going to happen.

And Iran was probably deemed too much trouble.

So they picked what they thought was the easiest big target...

Yes and bombing Brazil would not have been such a terrible idea after Pearl Harbor.

[PaceAdvantage]

Big mistake.

[PaceAdvantage]

Yes and bombing Brazil would not have been such a terrible idea after Pearl Harbor.Terrible analogy.

I could call up my video again, but something tells me even you would not be amazed after so many replays.

The point is, Iraq was considered a state-sponsor of terrorism for decades...by multiple administrations, both (D) and (R).

The Clinton machine, including Clinton himself, were constantly warning us about how dangerous Iraq was and how dangerous they will be with their weapons of mass destruction that they already have or will have in very short order.

And as Bush eloquently stated in his post 9/11 speech, you are either with us, or with the terrorists.

He also said "From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

Iraq was fair game.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Big mistake.

Yes, it would have been a big mistake bombing Brazil in reaction to Pearl Harbor. Anyway, we'll never agree. I appreciated the spirited exchange. You may have the last word.

[PaceAdvantage]

Yes, it would have been a big mistake bombing Brazil in reaction to Pearl Harbor. Anyway, we'll never agree. I appreciated the spirited exchange. You may have the last word.That was a response to reply #76

[TJDave]

Like I said, that was some radical shift in a little over 6 months.

Obama campaigned on getting us out of Iraq. The American public was tired of it. That this agreement was finalized just weeks before the election was no coincidence. ;)

[dartman51]

New York Times, April 2008...begs to differ....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/11/washington/11prexy.html?pagewanted=all

You were saying?

There you go, messing up the left's narrative with facts. :lol:

[Tom]

Yes and bombing Brazil would not have been such a terrible idea after Pearl Harbor.

No, we should have bombed Brazil once we found out the Nazis were fleeing there.

[Saratoga_Mike]

No, we should have bombed Brazil once we found out the Nazis were fleeing there.

Thought that was Argentina...didn't realize Brazil.

[Tom]

The boys From Brazil.......?

Wow, that could have been.....embarrassing! :eek:

[Saratoga_Mike]

The boys From Brazil.......?

May have "misremembered" countries.

[Greyfox]

May have "misremembered" countries.

...but not movies.

[Saratoga_Mike]

...no movies

[fast4522]

Well, Bush tried to, but he failed in his attempt to back it up. He left Iraq a much worse place than it was when he invade the country. His father, Bush41 saw the folly of invading Iraq. Which is the greater folly, drawing a line in the sand and then backing off or drawing a line in the sand and trying to back it up and failing in your attempt. Nobody is scared of us in the middle east anymore because they know we can not do any real harm to them. We have been exposed as a country with a hell of lot of weapons, but are unable to use them effectively against the kind of enemies we face over there. All we can do is come in and shoot up the place, but are unable to have any real control the place.

Everyone wanted Saddam dead who was neighbors to him, you doves "you think it's easy" to be right when there is no good choice to make. I recall Marine lieutenant colonel Oliver North testifying before the congress about a security system installed to protect his family from some bad ass Osama bin Laden, right then and there we should have hunted that piece of shit down and removed his head. Going into Iraq and displaying Saddam's sons dead on a slab for the whole world to see was a damn good move, spare us the drivel because we should elect real men to Presidency that they have stones that actually work. Your hanging your hopes on Hillary, lets watch that one play out.

[davew]

Terrible analogy.

I could call up my video again, but something tells me even you would not be amazed after so many replays.

The point is, Iraq was considered a state-sponsor of terrorism for decades...by multiple administrations, both (D) and (R).

The Clinton machine, including Clinton himself, were constantly warning us about how dangerous Iraq was and how dangerous they will be with their weapons of mass destruction that they already have or will have in very short order.

And as Bush eloquently stated in his post 9/11 speech, you are either with us, or with the terrorists.

He also said "From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

Iraq was fair game.

After a generous donation from some Iraqi's, the Clinton Clean Air Nuclear Energy Foundation has made great progress in promoting less use of fossil fuels and the resulting dirty carbon dioxide generation in the middle east area. Iraq is no longer a danger area for the Clintons.

[fast4522]

After a generous donation from some Iraqi's, the Clinton Clean Air Nuclear Energy Foundation has made great progress in promoting less use of fossil fuels and the resulting dirty carbon dioxide generation in the middle east area. Iraq is no longer a danger area for the Clintons.

But the Clintons pose more liberal danger to the United States.