Bush Was Wrong In 2007. 2012 Troop Pullout Won't Mean Aq Takes Over Iraq.

[NotfooledbyW]

9836062

You know, it's funny how you call Bush weak and mock how Maliki 'pushed him around' when folks like Bashir Assad and Vladimir Putin have been pushing Obama around quite a bit. Yeah, and Obama's foreign policy is a joke, too.

If you can't stick to Iraq and Bush's many failures there why not just admit it and say so.

How has Assad kicked Obama around? That is close to the topic. So I'd like you to explain what you mean by that.

Keep in mind that it was Assad and Putin that blinked on Syria's CW and Obama scored a major global security achievement when the 1300 Ton CW arsenal was destroyed according to the schedule in the midst of a civil war. CW are no longer a threat if and when the Assad regime falls.

Maliki did actually push Bush around. You must be conceding that point. Obama refused to be pushed around by Maliki and which man is still standing in that ring?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9835375

2011 Obama praised the U.S. troops for their efforts in Iraq, saying they will leave "with their heads held high, proud of their success, and knowing that the American people stand united in our support for our troops."

That is a proper and true praise of our troops sacrifice and effort. What's wrong with that? No fault of their own getting tossed into the quagmire of Iraq but they took four yeas of mismanaged war and helped give the Iraqis a chance to come out of it.

They are not to blame because the Iraqis failed to take advantage of that opportunity they were given,

It still was dumb to start a war in Iraq when Afghanistan was not finished as Obama said.

So what's your point?


By the way Its four years of mismanaged war according to McCain in April 2008:

At the beginning of last year, we were engaged in a great debate about what to do in Iraq. Four years of mismanaged war had brought us almost to the point of no return. Sectarian violence in Iraq was spiraling out of control. Life had become a struggle for survival. And a full-scale civil war seemed almost unavoidable. Al Qaeda in Iraq was on the offensive and entire Iraqi provinces were under the control of extremists.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/us/politics/08text-mccain1.html

 

[TemplarKormac]

9836062

You know, it's funny how you call Bush weak and mock how Maliki 'pushed him around' when folks like Bashir Assad and Vladimir Putin have been pushing Obama around quite a bit. Yeah, and Obama's foreign policy is a joke, too.

If you can't stick to Iraq and Bush's many failures there why not just admit it and say so.

How has Assad kicked Obama around? That is close to the topic. So I'd like you to explain what you mean by that.

Keep in mind that it was Assad and Putin that blinked on Syria's CW and Obama scored a major global security achievement when the 1300 Ton CW arsenal was destroyed according to the schedule in the midst of a civil war. CW are no longer a threat if and when the Assad regime falls.

Maliki did actually push Bush around. You must be conceding that point. Obama refused to be pushed around by Maliki and which man is still standing in that ring?

How did Assad kick Obama around? Obama drew his red line and failed to cross it, only because Putin's Russia and China were backing them. He made clear he was going to begin bombing Syria, but backed off. That agreement fell through when more chemical attacks took place in the following months. And for the record, Putin brokered the agreement, not Obama. Get your facts straight, spinmaster.

No, Maliki did push Bush around. But Obama was equally as malleable in his foreign policy pursuits, you must be conceding that point conversely. Many of us have moved on. I don't stick to Bush's failures because they are of no consequence. Obama's failures eclipse his in magnitude.

Do not presume to lecture me.

 

[TemplarKormac]

9835375

2011 Obama praised the U.S. troops for their efforts in Iraq, saying they will leave "with their heads held high, proud of their success, and knowing that the American people stand united in our support for our troops."

That is a proper and true praise of our troops sacrifice and effort. What's wrong with that? No fault of their own getting tossed into the quagmire of Iraq but they took four yeas of mismanaged war and helped give the Iraqis a chance to come out of it.

They are not to blame because the Iraqis failed to take advantage of that opportunity they were given,

It still was dumb to start a war in Iraq when Afghanistan was not finished as Obama said.

So what's your point?


By the way Its four years of mismanaged war according to McCain in April 2008:

At the beginning of last year, we were engaged in a great debate about what to do in Iraq. Four years of mismanaged war had brought us almost to the point of no return. Sectarian violence in Iraq was spiraling out of control. Life had become a struggle for survival. And a full-scale civil war seemed almost unavoidable. Al Qaeda in Iraq was on the offensive and entire Iraqi provinces were under the control of extremists.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/us/politics/08text-mccain1.html

McCain's words do not facts make. Get with the program.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It was the deadliest country before Bush ever took office. .

There were no mass deaths or genocide in Iraq from about the mid-nineties to the point that Bush decided to kick inspectors out and start a war by bombing and invading Iraq. In fact the first three months of 2003 were the most peaceful ever with the presence of 200 UN Inspectors doing the work of disarming Iraq peacefully. Nobody was killing anybody in Iraq when Bush decided to end that 'peace' and start a war that ended up getting 4584 US soldiers killed and ten times that seriously wounded. And Bush took office in 2000. Provide some stats that shows that Iraq was deadlier that year than 2009... or every year from 2003 to the present. You can't. You a fact-less.

Bush wasn't wrong, he predicted the foolishness the incoming administration would undertake.

Know he didn't. Here's what Bush said:

9747402

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.

We all know that Obama pulled troops out of Iraq no faster than Bush's own timeline for withdrawal.

We all know that Iraq is not even close to "surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda".

So can you explain in common language just how exactly Bush was correct to make that prediction way back in 2007?

Well, in 2007 forces were still in Iraq and would not leave for another four years. Democrats and Americans alike were screaming for withdrawal, which prompted that response. In fact, the 2011 withdrawal was still too soon, and the events mentioned in the speech did in fact take place, just as he predicted. Iraq did in fact fall back into sectarian violence, as ISIS rampaged through that area, crushing all resistance.

It's funny too, because Iraq is indeed in the hands of al-Qaeda, not to mention a large swath of it is in the hands of ISIS. So, can you in common language prove how Bush was wrong?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9836166.

McCain's words do not facts make. Get with the program.

Is your argument that Bush managed the war in Iraq well and proper? This ought to be good. Do tell us why you think that?

 

[TemplarKormac]

9836065

What Bush did was sweep the room, what Obama did amounted to dumping the dust pan on the clean floor. Now you have to sweep the entire room again.

According to pertinent information from my post regarding Crocker and Petraeus' April 2008 statements that security gains in Iraq were fragile; the better analogy would be that Bush dirtied the floor.. no 'bloodied' the floor ... ramped the bloodshed up through three years of mismanaged occupation, then the floor was cleaned up somewhat, but then the source that bloodies the floor was never dealt with by the time Bush left office.

Oh? The government is so stable right now that it has held democratic elections in 2005, 2009 and 2013. So much for "fragile" security gains. That only happens when a stable government is achieved. ISIS is what happens when you withdraw completely, with no plans to support the new government, you open them up to destabilizing forces in the region.

Moreover, the genocides ended in 1991, well before George W. Bush was elected president. Saddam Hussein slaughtered the Marsh Arabs in response to a rebellion. Years of sectarian violence racked the country from then on out.

 

[TemplarKormac]

9836166.

McCain's words do not facts make. Get with the program.

Is your argument that Bush managed the war in Iraq well and proper? This ought to be good. Do tell us why you think that?

Yeah, he did in most aspects, he could have done without the collateral. I think he was duped about WMD, but other than that, he deposed a dictator and punished him for his crimes against humanity. He did Iraq plenty of favors in that regard. No he was not perfect, but he did manage to free Iraqis from oppression, allowing women to vote for the first time in a generation. Do you think Obama managed the withdrawal well and proper? Yes? Then why is he sending troops back there?

 

[TemplarKormac]

9836069

And I also couldn't help but notice your moniker. Bush isn't president anymore. He stopped being president all of 6 years ago. What is with this obsession you have with him?

What's that have to do with the discussion. What are you running from by use of a meaningless and frivolous distraction?


Nevertheless the damage Bush did when he was in office still affects lives to the detriment of way too many all around the world. The world does not blink with all its history instantly erased from the broad spectacle of cause and effect every time a US President goes out and a new one comes in.

Easy, you're obsessing over a President who has long since left the White House. Only people like you care about his failures only to distract yourself from the failures of the current president. Too focused are you on the past to focus on reality, the here and now. History is history. And as you said, the world won't blink nor forget the deeds of this president as well as the next. But why focus on the past?

This is a "Bush is evil" thread; an outlet for you to vent your hatred of a president long past.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

. And for the record, Putin brokered the agreement, not Obama. Get your facts straight, spinmaster.

No the record is clear. It was Obama that was pushing Putin to help remive the CW for over a year, first at their meeting in Mexico City, and subsequent to it. Putin opposed it -didn't admit the CW was there in Syria.

When Obama threatened strikes it was Putin who reversed positions and offered to help get them out and destroyed. Its the one that reversed positions that is the one that blinks. Putin blinked big time when he offered up the CW after denying their existence for all those years.

 

[TemplarKormac]

. And for the record, Putin brokered the agreement, not Obama. Get your facts straight, spinmaster.

No the record is clear. It was Obama that was pushing Putin to help remive the CW for over a year, first at their meeting in Mexico City, and subsequent to it. Putin opposed it -didn't admit the CW was there in Syria.

When Obama threatened strikes it was Putin who reversed positions and offered to help get them out and destroyed. Its the one that reversed positions that is the one that blinks. Putin blinked big time when he offered up the CW after denying their existence for all those years.

I reject your reality and substitute my own. In fact, Putin had largely ignored the bluffs by President Obama, brokering a deal of his own accord. The Obama Administration was blindsided by the deal:

Syria Accepts Russian Proposal To Surrender Chemical Weapons Foreign Minister Says

How Russia saw a chance with its Syria plan - The Washington Post

It was regarded as a foreign policy failure on Obama's part, because America played no part in brokering the deal. Even still, even John Kerry admitted in a closed door meeting that Obama's Syria policy was a failure:

Fred Hiatt Senators say John Kerry admitted U.S. failure in Syria - The Washington Post

 

[NYcarbineer]

You won nothing. Iraq was the deadliest country on earth in 2009 when Bush left his Maliki mess behind.

You do mean when Obama left the mess prematurely don't you? Bush wasn't President in 2009.

Obama stayed the course of the scheduled withdrawl of US troops per the agreement signed by GWB. Obama didn't pull the troops prematurely, he did it right on schedule.
But keep on rewriting history and making shit up.
Iraq War ends on Bush’s schedule, not Obama’s
Iraq War ends on Bush s schedule not Obama s RedState

And at the time the same Obama haters who now attack Obama for supposedly leaving too soon were insisting that Obama get no credit for ending the war in Iraq,

precisely because it was on Bush's schedule in accordance with Bush's agreement.

 

[NYcarbineer]

. And for the record, Putin brokered the agreement, not Obama. Get your facts straight, spinmaster.

No the record is clear. It was Obama that was pushing Putin to help remive the CW for over a year, first at their meeting in Mexico City, and subsequent to it. Putin opposed it -didn't admit the CW was there in Syria.

When Obama threatened strikes it was Putin who reversed positions and offered to help get them out and destroyed. Its the one that reversed positions that is the one that blinks. Putin blinked big time when he offered up the CW after denying their existence for all those years.

I reject your reality and substitute my own. In fact, Putin had largely ignored the bluffs by President Obama, brokering a deal of his own accord. The Obama Administration was blindsided by the deal:

Syria Accepts Russian Proposal To Surrender Chemical Weapons Foreign Minister Says

How Russia saw a chance with its Syria plan - The Washington Post

It was regarded as a foreign policy failure on Obama's part, because America played no part in brokering the deal. Even still, even John Kerry admitted in a closed door meeting that Obama's Syria policy was a failure:

Fred Hiatt Senators say John Kerry admitted U.S. failure in Syria - The Washington Post

See what I mean? As the above post shows, the Obama haters have to twist every event imaginable into something that reflects negatively on Obama.

 

[NYcarbineer]

9836069

And I also couldn't help but notice your moniker. Bush isn't president anymore. He stopped being president all of 6 years ago. What is with this obsession you have with him?

What's that have to do with the discussion. What are you running from by use of a meaningless and frivolous distraction?


Nevertheless the damage Bush did when he was in office still affects lives to the detriment of way too many all around the world. The world does not blink with all its history instantly erased from the broad spectacle of cause and effect every time a US President goes out and a new one comes in.

Easy, you're obsessing over a President who has long since left the White House. Only people like you care about his failures only to distract yourself from the failures of the current president. Too focused are you on the past to focus on reality, the here and now. History is history. And as you said, the world won't blink nor forget the deeds of this president as well as the next. But why focus on the past?

This is a "Bush is evil" thread; an outlet for you to vent your hatred of a president long past.

If you can prove that no presidency, including Bush's, involves actions that have continuing residual effects after that President has left,

then you might have a point.

Can you prove that nothing Bush did as president had any effect past the day he left?

 

[NYcarbineer]

. And for the record, Putin brokered the agreement, not Obama. Get your facts straight, spinmaster.

No the record is clear. It was Obama that was pushing Putin to help remive the CW for over a year, first at their meeting in Mexico City, and subsequent to it. Putin opposed it -didn't admit the CW was there in Syria.

When Obama threatened strikes it was Putin who reversed positions and offered to help get them out and destroyed. Its the one that reversed positions that is the one that blinks. Putin blinked big time when he offered up the CW after denying their existence for all those years.

I reject your reality and substitute my own. In fact, Putin had largely ignored the bluffs by President Obama, brokering a deal of his own accord. The Obama Administration was blindsided by the deal:

Syria Accepts Russian Proposal To Surrender Chemical Weapons Foreign Minister Says

How Russia saw a chance with its Syria plan - The Washington Post

It was regarded as a foreign policy failure on Obama's part, because America played no part in brokering the deal. Even still, even John Kerry admitted in a closed door meeting that Obama's Syria policy was a failure:

Fred Hiatt Senators say John Kerry admitted U.S. failure in Syria - The Washington Post

Let's remind everyone that YOU opposed military action against Syria:

Syria Iraq Redux Guess Again US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just to be clear, as I have pointed out before,

Bush's 2007 warning about prematurely leaving Iraq was actually Bush's way of endorsing his own timeline that ultimately was followed.

He was NOT talking about leaving in 2011 being premature. He was talking about leaving well before that as being premature. Note that it is 2007 when said that.

For some reason most people either don't understand that, or are pretending they don't.

 

[The Rabbi]

Obama refused to negotiate to have troops stay behind. Bush was correct. Obama's failure led to ISIS and now Obama, who campaigned on getting out of Iraq,is sending troops back into Iraq. But not combat troops. OK< they're combat troops, but they wont be fighting OK, they'll be fighting, but they'll be embedded with Iraqi forces, whom we all trust not to be jihadis. OK, they'll be fighting on their own but all this is BUSH"S FAULT, dammit!

 

[The Rabbi]

You won nothing. Iraq was the deadliest country on earth in 2009 when Bush left his Maliki mess behind.

You do mean when Obama left the mess prematurely don't you? Bush wasn't President in 2009.

Obama stayed the course of the scheduled withdrawl of US troops per the agreement signed by GWB. Obama didn't pull the troops prematurely, he did it right on schedule.
But keep on rewriting history and making shit up.
Iraq War ends on Bush’s schedule, not Obama’s
Iraq War ends on Bush s schedule not Obama s RedState

And at the time the same Obama haters who now attack Obama for supposedly leaving too soon were insisting that Obama get no credit for ending the war in Iraq,

precisely because it was on Bush's schedule in accordance with Bush's agreement.

The truth is too complicated for you to understand.
So let's just say that Obama was president when we left. Whatever happened, happened on his watch and he's responsible for it. We withdrew from Iraq. Many people warned the area was unstable and leaving would create a vacuum. That is precisely what happened and now we are sending troops in. All of this is Obama's fault, no one else's.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You won nothing. Iraq was the deadliest country on earth in 2009 when Bush left his Maliki mess behind.

You do mean when Obama left the mess prematurely don't you? Bush wasn't President in 2009.

Obama stayed the course of the scheduled withdrawl of US troops per the agreement signed by GWB. Obama didn't pull the troops prematurely, he did it right on schedule.
But keep on rewriting history and making shit up.
Iraq War ends on Bush’s schedule, not Obama’s
Iraq War ends on Bush s schedule not Obama s RedState

And at the time the same Obama haters who now attack Obama for supposedly leaving too soon were insisting that Obama get no credit for ending the war in Iraq,

precisely because it was on Bush's schedule in accordance with Bush's agreement.

The truth is too complicated for you to understand.
So let's just say that Obama was president when we left. Whatever happened, happened on his watch and he's responsible for it. We withdrew from Iraq. Many people warned the area was unstable and leaving would create a vacuum. That is precisely what happened and now we are sending troops in. All of this is Obama's fault, no one else's.

You're ineducable. That truth is not that complicated.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You won nothing. Iraq was the deadliest country on earth in 2009 when Bush left his Maliki mess behind.

You do mean when Obama left the mess prematurely don't you? Bush wasn't President in 2009.

Obama stayed the course of the scheduled withdrawl of US troops per the agreement signed by GWB. Obama didn't pull the troops prematurely, he did it right on schedule.
But keep on rewriting history and making shit up.
Iraq War ends on Bush’s schedule, not Obama’s
Iraq War ends on Bush s schedule not Obama s RedState

And at the time the same Obama haters who now attack Obama for supposedly leaving too soon were insisting that Obama get no credit for ending the war in Iraq,

precisely because it was on Bush's schedule in accordance with Bush's agreement.

The truth is too complicated for you to understand.
So let's just say that Obama was president when we left. Whatever happened, happened on his watch and he's responsible for it. We withdrew from Iraq. Many people warned the area was unstable and leaving would create a vacuum. That is precisely what happened and now we are sending troops in. All of this is Obama's fault, no one else's.

You're exactly the kind of person I was referring to, and here's the PROOF, from 2011:

This country is in deep trouble Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The key line from that post is you saying this:

"Obama has simply followed the Bush blueprint for withdrawal".

And you said that to attempt to rebut a poster for giving Obama credit for getting us out of Iraq...

...exactly as I described above, and as I also said above,

you're now in the crowd BLAMING Obama for getting us out of Iraq.