# Bush Close to Deal on Timeline for Withdrawl from Iraq



## Red Dawn (Aug 7, 2008)

This is some funny sh*t.   Mere weeks ago, GOPers were outraged at the mere mention of any timeline for withdrawl. 

This plan that BushCo is reportedly negotiating would have combat troops out in 21 months.  Obama proposed 16 months.  Pretty close.  

Poor John McCain.  Legs cut out from under him again.  




> Iraqis: Deal close on plan for US troops to leave
> 
> By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writer Thu Aug 7, 12:20 PM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## Chris (Aug 8, 2008)

The worst foreign policy mistake in American history.


----------



## Tristan (Aug 8, 2008)

Kirk said:


> The worst foreign policy mistake in American history.




Must be nice to be a lefty and have history start the day you were born and/or wake up every day!

Still, when a dreaded war comes, it feels good to win for a change! Thanks Bush!


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 8, 2008)

I love the spin. The Liberals have been preaching from day two we couldn't ever win. That we had to cut and run. That we were stuck in a quagmire with no end. That Iraq would never be able to form a functioning Government , military and police force.

It comes to pass they were all so wrong as to be hilarious. And instead they spin it as if Obama and his cut and run plan were the right plan all along.


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 8, 2008)

I love about face that the righties have done vis-a-vis timetables for withdrawing from Iraq simply because it came from Bush and was called a "time horizon."

Watching it unfold has certainly been a comedic experience.

LOL


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 8, 2008)

Article 15 said:


> I love about face that the righties have done vis-a-vis timetables for withdrawing from Iraq simply because it came from Bush and was called a "time horizon."
> 
> Watching it unfold has certainly been a comedic experience.
> 
> LOL



Are you truly this ignorant? The plan has ALWAYS been to cease combat operations and withdraw most forces as son as possible in a frame work of Iraq being able to take over. That has been the plan from DAY one. It has NEVER changed.

The Administration and the Military have been opposed to FIXED dates before Iraq was able to preform the mission.  The libs have been pushing for just leaving whether the Iraqis were ready or not.

Obama's plan was another " we leave on x date no matter what" The current plan is " we leave on x date because the Iraqis want us to and can actually do the job with out us"

You guys are so stupid as to be brain dead.


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 8, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Are you truly this ignorant? The plan has ALWAYS been to cease combat operations and withdraw most forces as son as possible in a frame work of Iraq being able to take over. That has been the plan from DAY one. It has NEVER changed.
> 
> The Administration and the Military have been opposed to FIXED dates before Iraq was able to preform the mission.  The libs have been pushing for just leaving whether the Iraqis were ready or not.
> 
> ...



Yeah, yeah ... fixed dates ... blah blah ... the enemy will wait ... yada yada ...

Thinking that there is some sort of difference between a 16 month "time table" and a 16 month "time horizon" is laughable.

Bush has basically told the turrists, "hey guys, cool it for a while longer and we'll be gone in a little over a year," which is the same damn thing as "we'll be gone May 19, 2010."

But hey that won't stop you guys from high-5-ing each other from with in the circle of hypocrisy.

Carry on, Sarge.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 8, 2008)

Article 15 said:


> Yeah, yeah ... fixed dates ... blah blah ... the enemy will wait ... yada yada ...
> 
> Thinking that there is some sort of difference between a 16 month "time table" and a 16 month "time horizon" is laughable.
> 
> ...



Your IGNORANCE is ASTOUNDING. You losers will twist anything to fit your ignorant ramblings.

There is a HUGE difference between leaving in 16 months no matter what the conditions are in Iraq, as Obama wanted to do and leaving after the Iraqis take over the job of security because we stayed and trained them for it and bought them the time to get that training. But you dumb shits pretend otherwise. Par for the course from retards and rejects like your name implies.


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 8, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your IGNORANCE is ASTOUNDING. You losers will twist anything to fit your ignorant ramblings.
> 
> There is a HUGE difference between leaving in 16 months no matter what the conditions are in Iraq, as Obama wanted to do and leaving after the Iraqis take over the job of security because we stayed and trained them for it and bought them the time to get that training. But you dumb shits pretend otherwise. Par for the course from retards and rejects like your name implies.



This was a political move ... and a bad one ...

Bush saw the writing on the wall and realized that the boys were coming home whether he liked it or not ... and he wanted to preempt Obama ...

He's pulling out and declaring victory while he still can ...

But he's got that whole "time table" thing to skirt around ... which according to the right has been akin to aiding and comforting the enemy ... oops ...

Hence, the "time horizon" ...

So much for McCain though ... Bush just keeps on derailing his message ...

And oh, I know that 15/18 of the benchmarks are "Satisfactory" and a whole lot of spinning can be done with such a pleasing looking number like that but I've been through a few exercises and UCI's and well ... "Satisfactory" is pretty much a way of saying "you suck" without flat out saying it ...

So please, keep living in the fantasy land where pulling the troops out is the right thing to do and Iraq will be fine because it's coming from the Bush Administration as opposed to an Obama Administration where it would be all hellfire and brimstone, and all that ish ...

Iraq is going to burn no matter who pulls the troops out, Sarge ...


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 8, 2008)

Article 15 said:


> This was a political move ... and a bad one ...
> 
> Bush saw the writing on the wall and realized that the boys were coming home whether he liked it or not ... and he wanted to preempt Obama ...
> 
> ...



You are not my friend and I do not even let them call me "sarge" Sarge is a term the army uses for all its E-5 and up and is NOT an acceptable term in the Marine Corps. A Sarge is a Sgt and I retired as a GySgt. 

Now back to the discussion at hand. The plan all along has been to train the Iraqis to take over their own security. And all along your liberals have been chanting "we can't win" "cut and run", Obama was in lock step with that, denying the Surge could work and still claiming it did not. His 16 month time table was a cut and run. A plan that with his words, admits he did not think the Iraqis could take over their own security and that we would just leave them anyway.

The reality is the Iraqis believe they can handle Security now and we are going to turn over the responsibility to them, with troops in place if it doesn't work. The plan ALL ALONG. We have always said we would pull out combat troops when the Iraqis could handle their own security. 

We do want to maintain bases in Iraq however. And the Iraqis want us to remain with enough force to help them if needed. They want us to change from combat missions to support missions. Which again has ALWAYS been the plan.

You turds have been claiming all along and I see you continue to claim it, that the Iraqis can not succeed.

Hate to break it to you Einstein but if they fail and Iraq becomes a failed state we will be right back in there with our troops again. We can not afford to allow that Country to devolve into anarchy.

But you keep pretending you are right. It is fun laughing at your absolute total ignorance on this issue.


----------



## editec (Aug 8, 2008)

21 months?

Sounds good to me.

Of course, we all know that depends on the Iraqi being able to continue taking over the nation, right?

So this plan is basically the same plan that O has been advancing only 5 months later.

I can live with it...if it happens.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 8, 2008)

Red Dawn said:


> This is some funny sh*t.   Mere weeks ago, GOPers were outraged at the mere mention of any timeline for withdrawl.
> 
> This plan that BushCo is reportedly negotiating would have combat troops out in 21 months.  Obama proposed 16 months.  Pretty close.
> 
> Poor John McCain.  Legs cut out from under him again.



Oh please---BushCo is discussing exit strategy with Iraq because the situation now warrants it. It's far from the liberal plan which is " ready or not, we're outta here on when this date rolls around." 
Talk of troop withdrawal is happening. Something the libs have wanted for years. Now all you can do is bitch and moan about it ?


----------



## editec (Aug 8, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> It's far from the liberal plan which is " ready or not, we're outta here on when this date rolls around."


 
Partisan nonsense.  That does not describe O's plan.

His was targeting 16 months, depending on what his military advisors told him as events onfolded.

YOu can look it up

 He's certainly said it enough times.

Bush and co, are now advancing essantially the same plan, only thy're of the mind it will take 5 more months.

That sounds good to me, too.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 8, 2008)

editec said:


> Partisan nonsense.  That does not describe O's plan.
> 
> His was targeting 16 months, depending on what his military advisors told him as events onfolded.
> 
> ...



Targeting 16 months depending on what military advisors is a purposly vague statement meant to appease voters. Military advisors could recommend anything from now to 100 years from now.
Here's something you need to look up. Bush has been saying ALL ALONG that when Iraq can stand up, we will stand down. That time apparently is getting closer. Im' sorry it's gonna screw up the Obama's talking points.


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 8, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You are not my friend and I do not even let them call me "sarge" Sarge is a term the army uses for all its E-5 and up and is NOT an acceptable term in the Marine Corps. A Sarge is a Sgt and I retired as a GySgt.
> 
> Now back to the discussion at hand. The plan all along has been to train the Iraqis to take over their own security. And all along your liberals have been chanting "we can't win" "cut and run", Obama was in lock step with that, denying the Surge could work and still claiming it did not. His 16 month time table was a cut and run. A plan that with his words, admits he did not think the Iraqis could take over their own security and that we would just leave them anyway.
> 
> ...



The e-tough guy schtick is old, tired, and unimpressive, Sarge ...

About as old, tired, and unimpressive as your talking points ...

If we pull out of Iraq it _will_ become a failed state ...

Or at best an Iranian client-state ...

But please, keep on believing that we've been successful over there ...


----------



## JimH52 (Aug 8, 2008)

Personally, I have found that if I just don't read anything that Sarg posts, life is better.


----------



## editec (Aug 8, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Targeting 16 months depending on what military advisors is a purposly vague statement meant to appease voters. Military advisors could recommend anything from now to 100 years from now.
> Here's something you need to look up. Bush has been saying ALL ALONG that when Iraq can stand up, we will stand down. That time apparently is getting closer. Im' sorry it's gonna screw up the Obama's talking points.


 

Are you being obtuse on purpose?

Do you NOT understand that Bush's plan is ALSO dependent on events as they unfold?

Tell you what, sport.

If Bush is saying the plan is out in X-time no matter what?

_He's_ the man you need to worry about, not O.

Of course that is NOT what Bush's plan is, either.

_Neither_ of them are that dumb.

They are_ both_ proposing withdrawl targets, not deadlines.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Aug 8, 2008)

The oil deals have been cut out already. Exxon, Chevron, BP, Shell, everyone's got a piece now, so stability has been regained. Mission Accomplished!


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 8, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Im' sorry it's gonna screw up the Obama's talking points.



Wrong.

It's making Obama look right, undercutting McCain's message, and making Bush loyalists spin themselves into a tizzy.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 8, 2008)

Article 15 said:


> The e-tough guy schtick is old, tired, and unimpressive, Sarge ...
> 
> About as old, tired, and unimpressive as your talking points ...
> 
> ...



Tell ya what moron, take your bullshit and crap it on someone elses lawn. And your name tells me all I need to know about YOUR military time. If you ever were in at all.

Your ignorance is showing again. Perhaps you can get Maineman to make an appearance and remind us all how we would NEVER be talking about pulling combat troops anyway? How Iraq was never going to be stable and was descending into a civil war.

You liberals prove your ignorance with every post on this subject.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 8, 2008)

Article 15 said:


> Wrong.
> 
> It's making Obama look right, undercutting McCain's message, and making Bush loyalists spin themselves into a tizzy.



Only to retards and losers that do not understand that Obama was gonna abandon Iraq in 16 months because he still believes we lost.


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 8, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Tell ya what moron, take your bullshit and crap it on someone elses lawn. And your name tells me all I need to know about YOUR military time. If you ever were in at all.
> 
> Your ignorance is showing again. Perhaps you can get Maineman to make an appearance and remind us all how we would NEVER be talking about pulling combat troops anyway? How Iraq was never going to be stable and was descending into a civil war.
> 
> You liberals prove your ignorance with every post on this subject.






RetiredGySgt said:


> Only to retards and losers that do not understand that Obama was gonna abandon Iraq in 16 months because he still believes we lost.



Huffing and puffing is getting you nowhere, Sarge ...

It's making you look childish ...


----------



## Ravi (Aug 8, 2008)

One day his head is going to explode. Talk about anger issues.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 8, 2008)

The right was not interested in setting withdrawal dates before we had achieved what we set out to do: stabilize Iraq. Since the surge (which was pooh-poohed by the left, who, as RGS said, claimed we could never win, period) it is obvious that Iraq is well on its way to stability.

I listened to CNN on this this morning, and what BOTH sides are saying, including ranking Iraqi officials, is that a tentative time table may be looked at, but at this point they do NOT want to eliminate our presence and our ability to step in should the situation deteriorate. In other words, it's going well, they are discussing options for when the US leaves, but neither side thinks they should decide on a hard and fast date or withdraw to such a degree that we can't continue to  help them as needed.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 8, 2008)

Red Dawn said:


> This is some funny sh*t.   Mere weeks ago, GOPers were outraged at the mere mention of any timeline for withdrawl.
> 
> This plan that BushCo is reportedly negotiating would have combat troops out in 21 months.  Obama proposed 16 months.  Pretty close.
> 
> Poor John McCain.  Legs cut out from under him again.



GOPers were always for staying until the job was done.That may be close to happening. General timelines have never been ruled out. It's the liberal DEADLINES and ultimatums that were garbage.  Now you want us to suddenly believe this is something Obama came up with first ?
Screw McCain--he can come up with his own spin. The only votes he will get are the ones voting against Obama anyway.
Scares the shit out of you that old George (the guy who tricked you) might pull this one off in spite of those who have been so determined to make him look like a loser.


----------



## Reality (Aug 8, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I love the spin. The Liberals have been preaching from day two we couldn't ever win. That we had to cut and run. That we were stuck in a quagmire with no end. That Iraq would never be able to form a functioning Government , military and police force.
> 
> It comes to pass they were all so wrong as to be hilarious. And instead they spin it as if Obama and his cut and run plan were the right plan all along.



Define the victory? Bombing a society on the cusp of modernization back into the third world for it to be brought under the influence of Iran is a dumber than dumb. Way to pave the way for a Shiite alliance from Tehran through Iraq and straight across the Middle East into Lebanon. 

No one ever denied the military engagement could be won.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 8, 2008)

Yeah, Iraq was certainly on the cusp of modernization, and those people were certainly enjoying their modern privileges.

What a load.


----------



## Red Dawn (Aug 20, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> GOPers were always for staying until the job was done.That may be close to happening. General timelines have never been ruled out. It's the liberal DEADLINES and ultimatums that were garbage.  Now you want us to suddenly believe this is something Obama came up with first ?
> Screw McCain--he can come up with his own spin. The only votes he will get are the ones voting against Obama anyway.



You republicans keep changing your story, to stay consistent with the latest mccain flip flop. 

Doesn't matter if the withdrawl time table is a hard date or a soft date.  Mere months ago, republicans were telling us that if we gave any day whatsoever, the insurgents would just lie low and wait for us to leave.  If you give them a soft date, its the same damn thing.  Once the date becomes public knowlege, according to Bush apologists, the insurgents could just lay low and not attack until we leave. 



> Scares the shit out of you that old George (the guy who tricked you) might pull this one off in spite of those who have been so determined to make him look like a loser.



It doesn't matter if the shooting stops tommorow, or ten years from now.  This was an abject failure.  We spent a trillion dollars to replace a secular, anti-iranian iraqi government, with a theocratic-leaning, nominally pro-iranian government.  And we didn't find WMD.  At the cost of a trillion dollars and thousands of lives.   

That's not a victory by any measure.  That's an abject clusterfuck, and a waste of the nation's blood and treasure.


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 20, 2008)

Red Dawn said:


> *You republicans keep changing your story, to stay consistent with the latest mccain flip flop.*
> 
> Doesn't matter if the withdrawl time table is a hard date or a soft date.  Mere months ago, republicans were telling us that if we gave any day whatsoever, the insurgents would just lie low and wait for us to leave.  If you give them a soft date, its the same damn thing.  Once the date becomes public knowlege, according to Bush apologists, the insurgents could just lay low and not attack until we leave.
> 
> ...



This flip-flop is all Bush.


----------



## jillian (Aug 21, 2008)

Article 15 said:


> This flip-flop is all Bush.



All Bush? Well, seems he's running around trying to make sure the next administration gets all the fallout from his failures....


----------



## editec (Aug 21, 2008)

jillian said:


> All Bush? Well, seems he's running around trying to make sure the next administration gets all the fallout from his failures....


 
Yup.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 21, 2008)

editec said:


> Yup.



Except he did not fail in Iraq. You turds can cry all you want about it, but your last 4 years of crying we lost and we should cut and run have not been forgotten.


----------



## editec (Aug 21, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Except he did not fail in Iraq. You turds can cry all you want about it, but your last 4 years of crying we lost and we should cut and run have not been forgotten.


 
Right,  you cannot forget what you imagines to be true.

I have been for stabilizing Iraq and then getting the hell out ever since we made the mistake of invading the place.

You just keep jousting with these strawmen, Gummy, cause that's about all you posts are good for, anyway.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 21, 2008)

editec said:


> Right,  you cannot forget what you imagines to be true.
> 
> I have been for stabilizing Iraq and then getting the hell out ever since we made the mistake of invading the place.
> 
> You just keep jousting with these strawmen, Gummy, cause that's about all you posts are good for, anyway.



Sure thing, either your ignorant, blind or retarded. The far left has been demanding we leave for 4 YEARS. Insisting we lost and can never win. Aided and abetted by the Press. The Surge changed all that, now the Press has no choice but to ignore Iraq.

The only strawman is you claiming it ain't so.


----------



## Red Dawn (Aug 23, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sure thing, either your ignorant, blind or retarded. The far left has been demanding we leave for 4 YEARS. Insisting we lost and can never win. Aided and abetted by the Press. The Surge changed all that, now the Press has no choice but to ignore Iraq.
> 
> The only strawman is you claiming it ain't so.




What have we won? 

Reducing violence is a tactical success.  It's not a "victory". 

You sent thousands of americans to their deaths, you cost the US Taxpayer 1 trillion dollars, you promised we'd find WMD, you promised Saddam was in league with al qaeda, and you helped put a disfunctional, shia-dominated government in bagdad that is far more sympathetic to Iran than Saddam ever was. 

You caused a clusterfuck of historic proportions, dummy.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 23, 2008)

Red Dawn said:


> What have we won?
> 
> Reducing violence is a tactical success.  It's not a "victory".
> 
> ...



Last I checked I am neither the President, nor a member of Congress, so I did none of those things.

And if we believe you retards Bush stole both elections so none of us voted him into office either, so I guess you can not blame us for that either.

But then logic and common sense have never been a strong point for liberal retards. Fear mongering is the standard they look for. Any lie is acceptable. Any mis statement ok as long as THEY can use it.

Ohh and remind us again how Iran is no threat at all BUT you keep claiming that Iraq is gonna ally with this NONE threat and that WILL be a threat. You may want to start actually THINKING about your ignorant rants.

It is simple really. IS Iran a threat? Yes or no? If yes then why are you all over Bush for saying so and trying to do something about it? If no then you can not keep claiming Iraq being friendly with them is a problem.

If Bush stole both elections then you can not keep claiming any of us are responsible for him being in office. If he won them then you have to accept that you dumb shits ran the wrong people with the wrong message, especially in 2004.

If you want us out of Iraq you can quit belly aching about the fact we ARE in the process of giving day to day operations to the Iraqis.

Common sense, what a concept.


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 26, 2011)

Resurrection!


----------

