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

[TemplarKormac]

9838293.

When you walked in this room you dragged others with you. They have told me all about you and your lack of debating skills.

How you would come at me. They have you now.

Now lets dance. I can take you back to before the SOFA. You panic every time.

I can put out there Obama Senator Obama seizing on the moment to remove all troops in 2008. Obviously you forget yanking my chain that you fail miserably at debating me.

Did Sen Obama's bill pass or have any effect on anything? What is your point

What about before the SOFA? You mean when Bush failed to prevent Maliki from putting an end to the MNF authority in Iraq by the end of 2008. That is what caused the SOFA to be required in the first place.

Who is 'they'?

Obama did try to negotiate an extension of the SOFA. But it fell through. Maliki refused to have US forces in Iraq any longer. Hillary Clinton pushed hard for the SOFA to be extended, and pressured Obama to do so. Clinton voted for the war in the first place. Obama consistently voted to continue funding for the Iraq War as a Senator.

Hillary Clinton Pushed Obama to Keep Troops in Iraq - The Daily Beast

CNN.com - Transcripts

Obama defends votes in favor of Iraq funding - The Boston Globe

 

[blackhawk]

9839424

Bush negotiated a status of forces agreement with Iraq near the end of his Presidency Obama failed to negotiate an extension of that agreement... .

Obama failed nothing. The Iraqis did not want an extension. That's on Sixty Minutes tonight. But even if it were true that Iraq wanted an extension and Obama failed to provide it, Former General Petraeus says no one knows if an extension would have made a difference. Your argument in not valid. NO ONE KNOWS and that specifically means you don't know.

“Petraeus was asked: Would it have happened if we had had 25,000 troops still on the ground?

Petraeus answered: "No one knows whether forces there would have given us an influence."

No one knows whether forces there would have given us an influence. That’s the question for the ages. They were out of combat, out of the cities and out of the advising. <> So you have to ask what the mission would have been. And again, without knowing what mission Prime Minister Maliki would have allowed them to do, it’s hard to say how much influence they might have achieved, again noting that there was a quite a robust security assistance force and that did not seem to translate. <> As I said, I would have loved to have seen a force remain on the ground. I would have loved it even more if I knew that they were going to have a mission that would allow them to continue to contribute to the sustainment of the progress that was so hard fought and for which so many sacrificed so much during the surge and beyond

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nt-a-surprise/[/QUOTE]
You claim in one sentence Obama failed nothing and in another you claim no one knows if an extension would have made a difference therefore your statement Obama failed nothing is not valid because you don't know. Your blind love for Obama and never ending attempts to blame everyone but Obama for any and all failures during his presidency is truly boring for the record I highly doubt ISIS would have crossed from Syria into Iraq if there had been 25,000 American troops in Iraq.

 

[The Rabbi]

9838573

.

I supported Bush's timeline with the caveat that we leave forces. It was a detail left to OBama to work out because everyone knew that was crucial to maintaining peace.

You didn't support the Bush timeline then because it was not nor could be caveated as you suggest. Its a two party agreement of major legal consequence between two sovereign nations. Obama had zero privilege to force a 'detail' in later if the other party refused to accept it.

You are Bush's fool for believing that such a maneuver could be done several years later without Iraq's consent and parliamentary approval. And also without a major crisis in the background driving it into play.[/QUOTE]
Somehow you believe that Bush had incredible power, even though he was completely incompetent, and Obama is powerlss, despite being the smartest president ever.
Insane.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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

It's the president's job to assess the situation and listen to the advice of his commanders currently in the field. How is President Obama leading actually, if he is looking to a former president, polls, and his liberal supporters to make decisions FOR him when often these same groups aren't privileged with the latest intelligence sources the Commander-in-Chief receives?

 

[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

It's the president's job to assess the situation and listen to the advice of his commanders currently in the field. How is President Obama leading actually, if he is looking to a former president, polls, and his liberal supporters to make decisions FOR him when often these same groups aren't privileged with the latest intelligence sources the Commander-in-Chief receives?

Obama leads by doing what Valerie Jarrett tells him to do.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9838573.

. ... for the record I highly doubt ISIS would have crossed from Syria into Iraq if there had been 25,000 American troops in Iraq.

Why do you doubt that? Petraeus doesn't. Why should your politically biased opinion mean more than Petraeus who was Bush's great general who reduced but did not eliminate sectarian violence in Iraq in 2008.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9838573.

It's the president's job to assess the situation and listen to the advice of his commanders currently in the field.

Do American commanders represent Iraq's position on troop presence and status in Iraq? Your argument is so grossly grounded in error and ignorance that you should be ashamed to leave it posted.

The advice of US commanders in this situation mean nothing unless the political situation were such in 2011 were different and that advice could be executed in the field.

Did you watch Sixty Minutes last night. They explained why you are so blatantly confused and wrong.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9838573.

. How is President Obama leading actually, if he is looking to a former president, polls, and his liberal supporters to make decisions FOR him when often these same groups aren't privileged with the latest intelligence sources the Commander-in-Chief receives?

The decision to not keep any troops in Iraq beyond the end of 2011 Bush/Maliki deadline was not a matter to be decided by intelligence. It was a matter of the political situation in Iraq and their confidence in their capability to handle their own security as they saw fit at the time.

And neither US intelligence or the dominant Shiite government in Iraq saw the mass desertion from the battlefield coming last June in defending Mosul and Tikrit.

Had that military failure been foreseen then resolving it could have been addressed without keeping 25,000 US troops in Iraq against the will of the majority of the people of Iraq who took their sovereignty back from Bush before Obama took office.

 

[blackhawk]

9838573.

. ... for the record I highly doubt ISIS would have crossed from Syria into Iraq if there had been 25,000 American troops in Iraq.

Why do you doubt that? Petraeus doesn't. Why should your politically biased opinion mean more than Petraeus who was Bush's great general who reduced but did not eliminate sectarian violence in Iraq in 2008.

Would this be the same David Petraeus that you on the left called General Betraeus? Guess you had a change of heart when he says something you agree with.

 

[The Rabbi]

9838573.

. ... for the record I highly doubt ISIS would have crossed from Syria into Iraq if there had been 25,000 American troops in Iraq.

Why do you doubt that? Petraeus doesn't. Why should your politically biased opinion mean more than Petraeus who was Bush's great general who reduced but did not eliminate sectarian violence in Iraq in 2008.

Would this be the same David Petraeus that you on the left called General Betraeus? Guess you had a change of heart when he says something you agree with.

Hell, look at the comments here about John McCain. When McCahin takes the GOP to task he's a brave leader. When he supports the GOP he is a demented fool.
Democrats are the biggest hypocrites on earth.

 

[BlindBoo]

What price will be paid for you to be able to say bush was wrong? We have to fight another war to win back what we won in 2008...and your warped mind says that's a good Deal? You have fallen off the cliff Foo.

Al Anbar, the only Sunni-dominated province in Iraq, saw little fighting in the initial invasion. Following the fall of Baghdad it was occupied by the U.S. Army's 82nd Airborne Division. Violence began on 28 April 2003 when 17 Iraqis were killed in Fallujah by U.S. soldiers during an anti-American demonstration. In early 2004 the U.S. Army relinquished command of the province to the Marines. By April 2004 the province was in full-scale revolt. Savage fighting occurred in both Fallujah and Ramadi by the end of 2004, including the Second Battle of Fallujah. Violence escalated throughout 2005 and 2006 as the two sides struggled to secure the Western Euphrates River Valley. During this time, Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) became the province's main Sunni insurgent group and turned the provincial capital of Ramadi into its stronghold. The Marine Corps issued an intelligence report in late 2006 declaring that the province would be lost without a significant additional commitment of troops.

In August 2006, several tribes located near Ramadi and led by Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha revolted against AQI. The tribes formed the Anbar Awakening and helped turn the tide against the insurgents. American and Iraqi tribal forces regained control of Ramadi in early 2007,......

Iraq War in Anbar Province - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[BlindBoo]

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?

What prompted the withdrawal was the Iraqi government asking the UN to not renew US occupation resolution, thereby forcing Bush to negotiate the SOFA he signed and committed his predecessor to in 2008.

 

[BlindBoo]

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

What Obama did was Obama's decision, not Bush's. If Obama did not approve of the deal that Bush agreed to, he was fully capable of renegotiating the deal. He didn't. He made the decision not to leave troops behind, and no amount of spin is going to change that fact.

Obama, and all of you Obamabots, were happy to claim the credit for removing all the troops, until the crap hit the fan, and then you spend your time attempting to blame Bush for the mess.

Even now, Obama is attempting to spin the response to ISIS. While claiming he will not put boots on the ground, he is putting boots on the ground. While claiming the American military will have no combat role, American military pilots are flying combat missions. This no balls, incompetent ass, is more concerned with his ideology than he is with the safety of the United States, or its military personnel.

Of course he did.


Iraq Troop Withdrawal Obama Administration Supports Reducing U.S. Forces To 3 000 By End Of 2011

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

We werent out of Iraq when I wrote that. And elsewhere I blamed Obama for not leaving troops behind.
Nice way to cherry pick and make yourself look stooopid.

lol, you're pathetic and ineducable and too big a pussy to own up to your own words. You supported Bush's timeline for getting out of Iraq until you figured out a way to flip flop and trash Obama over it.

Classic derangement syndrome.

I supported Bush's timeline with the caveat that we leave forces. It was a detail left to OBama to work out because everyone knew that was crucial to maintaining peace.
Obama fucked it up and then blamed Bush, just like you.

Why did Bush agree to a complete withdrawal of US forces by 2012? Why didn't Bush get a long term agreement with the Iraqis again? Was there a sticking point in the 2008 negotiations?

 

[Clementine]

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

Obama campaigned on many promises, one of which was to withdraw our troops from Iraq. He was taking credit until it turned out to be a bad idea. Then he fell back on his favorite pastime, which is blaming others.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

9838573.

It's the president's job to assess the situation and listen to the advice of his commanders currently in the field.

Do American commanders represent Iraq's position on troop presence and status in Iraq? Your argument is so grossly grounded in error and ignorance that you should be ashamed to leave it posted.

The advice of US commanders in this situation mean nothing unless the political situation were such in 2011 were different and that advice could be executed in the field.

Did you watch Sixty Minutes last night. They explained why you are so blatantly confused and wrong.

Yes I'm sure 60 minutes is more reliable in determining the effects and need for a stronger response. These reporters have been trained in military history and tactics, as well as their ability to lead a brigade of troops to cripple enemy forces is without question. Try using some "intelligence" when it comes to the military. The president gets intelligence from military commanders who's JOB it is to tactically deploy forces, as well as intel from any CIA gatherings. Would you likewise look to the views and opinions of a plumber, should the situation involve your electric heat in your house? You DO realize how flawed and unreliable your argument is don't you?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

We werent out of Iraq when I wrote that. And elsewhere I blamed Obama for not leaving troops behind.
Nice way to cherry pick and make yourself look stooopid.

lol, you're pathetic and ineducable and too big a pussy to own up to your own words. You supported Bush's timeline for getting out of Iraq until you figured out a way to flip flop and trash Obama over it.

Classic derangement syndrome.

I supported Bush's timeline with the caveat that we leave forces. It was a detail left to OBama to work out because everyone knew that was crucial to maintaining peace.
Obama fucked it up and then blamed Bush, just like you.

Why did Bush agree to a complete withdrawal of US forces by 2012? Why didn't Bush get a long term agreement with the Iraqis again? Was there a sticking point in the 2008 negotiations?

He was constrained by what he knew the incoming administration wanted and was in a bad negotiating position, being a lame duck.
Anything else?

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

We werent out of Iraq when I wrote that. And elsewhere I blamed Obama for not leaving troops behind.
Nice way to cherry pick and make yourself look stooopid.

lol, you're pathetic and ineducable and too big a pussy to own up to your own words. You supported Bush's timeline for getting out of Iraq until you figured out a way to flip flop and trash Obama over it.

Classic derangement syndrome.

I supported Bush's timeline with the caveat that we leave forces. It was a detail left to OBama to work out because everyone knew that was crucial to maintaining peace.
Obama fucked it up and then blamed Bush, just like you.

Why did Bush agree to a complete withdrawal of US forces by 2012? Why didn't Bush get a long term agreement with the Iraqis again? Was there a sticking point in the 2008 negotiations?

He was constrained by what he knew the incoming administration wanted and was in a bad negotiating position, being a lame duck.
Anything else?

No he wasn't. The president elect was already publicly acknowledging the fact that he too was interested in leaving a residual force behind.

Published: December 3, 2008
WASHINGTON — On the campaign trail, Senator Barack Obamaoffered a pledge that electrified and motivated his liberal base, vowing to “end the war” in Iraq.

But as he moves closer to the White House, President-elect Obama is making clearer than ever that tens of thousands of American troops will be left behind in Iraq, even if he can make good on his campaign promise to pull all combat forces out within 16 months.

“I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, with the understanding that it might be necessary — likely to be necessary — to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support, to protect our civilians in Iraq,” Mr. Obama said this week as he introduced his national security team.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/us/politics/04military.html?_r=0

 

[The Rabbi]

We werent out of Iraq when I wrote that. And elsewhere I blamed Obama for not leaving troops behind.
Nice way to cherry pick and make yourself look stooopid.

lol, you're pathetic and ineducable and too big a pussy to own up to your own words. You supported Bush's timeline for getting out of Iraq until you figured out a way to flip flop and trash Obama over it.

Classic derangement syndrome.

I supported Bush's timeline with the caveat that we leave forces. It was a detail left to OBama to work out because everyone knew that was crucial to maintaining peace.
Obama fucked it up and then blamed Bush, just like you.

Why did Bush agree to a complete withdrawal of US forces by 2012? Why didn't Bush get a long term agreement with the Iraqis again? Was there a sticking point in the 2008 negotiations?

He was constrained by what he knew the incoming administration wanted and was in a bad negotiating position, being a lame duck.
Anything else?

No he wasn't. The president elect was already publicly acknowledging the fact that he too was interested in leaving a residual force behind.

Published: December 3, 2008
WASHINGTON — On the campaign trail, Senator Barack Obamaoffered a pledge that electrified and motivated his liberal base, vowing to “end the war” in Iraq.

But as he moves closer to the White House, President-elect Obama is making clearer than ever that tens of thousands of American troops will be left behind in Iraq, even if he can make good on his campaign promise to pull all combat forces out within 16 months.

“I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, with the understanding that it might be necessary — likely to be necessary — to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support, to protect our civilians in Iraq,” Mr. Obama said this week as he introduced his national security team.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/us/politics/04military.html?_r=0

So why did he lie? Why didnt he do what he said he would?

 

[kiwiman127]

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.

So you're saying that Red State is suffering from "The truth is too complicated" as I used Red State's comments as my foundation for my post. They like many other far right media resources and posters here on USMB cried the same exact thing when Obama wrongfully took the credit for the troops leaving Iraq. Of course, once all hell broke loose in Iraq, everyone on the right went into denial of their crying and moaning that "O" wrongfully took credit for the troops leaving and pinned everything on "O".
Like I have said before Rabbi, you are nothing but a echo chamber of far right talking points. It must suck to be you and living a life based on other people's opinions and not your own 100% of the time!